Canberra Bomber
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Pr00ne
Canberra radar - The first Canberra version, the B.1, was supposed to have a version of H2S radar which never materialised (shades of things to come !). I think that only the first prototype had the B.1's "solid" nose and was very quickly followed by the B.2 with the glazed nose for the Nav/observer to do his bomb-aiming stuff, which was kept for most subsequent Marks.
Professor R.V. Jones, writing about the "Secret War", relates how H2S emissions from the WW2 Bomber Force were by the German defences to locate incoming raids, perhaps one (other ?) reason for dropping it from the Canberra ...
Navs' ejection seats - Both navigators had ejection seats.
War load - from conventional high-explosive to nuclear bombs, and later, 20 mm cannon, SNEB rocket packs (SFOM fixed cross sight for the pilot) to the AS30 guided weapon (steered by Nav/Obs) which was being intorduced as the Indonesian Confrontation of the mid to late 60s ended.
Incidentally I was surprised when I flew the B15 that the UK had, even then, to go to France for those weapons.
A true multi-role Combat aircraft nevertheless. As far as the PR versions go, I suspect that the PR9's operating ceiling was far superior to the Tornado's.
Yes, it should have been replaced many years before it was retired, but that's another story.
PS. While the figures for safety speed may look horrendous, remember that it was reached surprisingly quickly, even in the lower-powered versions, the post-take-off "pucker factor" time was correspondingly short. I don't know how that compared with say, the Mosquito, deH Hornet or Beaufighter, Mitchell, or Boston, not to talk of those earlier WW2 piston twins, the Blenheim or Blackburn Botha - I once had a piece of perspex glazing from one of them which crashed soon after take-off on Blackpool sands, near where I was at school.
Canberra radar - The first Canberra version, the B.1, was supposed to have a version of H2S radar which never materialised (shades of things to come !). I think that only the first prototype had the B.1's "solid" nose and was very quickly followed by the B.2 with the glazed nose for the Nav/observer to do his bomb-aiming stuff, which was kept for most subsequent Marks.
Professor R.V. Jones, writing about the "Secret War", relates how H2S emissions from the WW2 Bomber Force were by the German defences to locate incoming raids, perhaps one (other ?) reason for dropping it from the Canberra ...
Navs' ejection seats - Both navigators had ejection seats.
War load - from conventional high-explosive to nuclear bombs, and later, 20 mm cannon, SNEB rocket packs (SFOM fixed cross sight for the pilot) to the AS30 guided weapon (steered by Nav/Obs) which was being intorduced as the Indonesian Confrontation of the mid to late 60s ended.
Incidentally I was surprised when I flew the B15 that the UK had, even then, to go to France for those weapons.
A true multi-role Combat aircraft nevertheless. As far as the PR versions go, I suspect that the PR9's operating ceiling was far superior to the Tornado's.
Yes, it should have been replaced many years before it was retired, but that's another story.
PS. While the figures for safety speed may look horrendous, remember that it was reached surprisingly quickly, even in the lower-powered versions, the post-take-off "pucker factor" time was correspondingly short. I don't know how that compared with say, the Mosquito, deH Hornet or Beaufighter, Mitchell, or Boston, not to talk of those earlier WW2 piston twins, the Blenheim or Blackburn Botha - I once had a piece of perspex glazing from one of them which crashed soon after take-off on Blackpool sands, near where I was at school.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 99 Likes
on
70 Posts
" To think that deathtrap was in front line service in RAFG in 1972!"
Take it you approved of their use as "decoys",.. all lined up nicely..... and for BDR training then ?.....
Take it you approved of their use as "decoys",.. all lined up nicely..... and for BDR training then ?.....
Juliet Papa,
Indeed the B1 was intended as a radar equipped blind bomber. At least if it HAD turned out that way it would have made some sense.
As far as bang seats go, I was referring to the B(I)8, the interdictor-bomber that equipped the RAFG strike squadrons up until 1972. They most certainly did NOT have a bang seat for the sole nav. 270 knots at 250 ft and 360 knots on the IP to target run, lunacy with no bang seat!
I had forgotten about the French SFOM sight, didn't work at night is that right? But, as the RAFG squadrons really were only nuclear strike committed I don't suppose that really mattered.
Still disagree about it being a true multi-role combat aircraft. Like the Blenheim it was around in sufficient numbers to be used in a multiplicity of largely second line roles for which it was not designed, and like the Blenheim it would have been criminal to send it out against the opposition of the time. I faced roughly the same threats in the F4, if they worried me how on earth must the B(I)8 crews have felt?
Never really came across any NEAF Strike wing bods, I suppose you must have been a little better of than the RAFG mob?
Krystal n chips,
That was all they were good for.
Indeed the B1 was intended as a radar equipped blind bomber. At least if it HAD turned out that way it would have made some sense.
As far as bang seats go, I was referring to the B(I)8, the interdictor-bomber that equipped the RAFG strike squadrons up until 1972. They most certainly did NOT have a bang seat for the sole nav. 270 knots at 250 ft and 360 knots on the IP to target run, lunacy with no bang seat!
I had forgotten about the French SFOM sight, didn't work at night is that right? But, as the RAFG squadrons really were only nuclear strike committed I don't suppose that really mattered.
Still disagree about it being a true multi-role combat aircraft. Like the Blenheim it was around in sufficient numbers to be used in a multiplicity of largely second line roles for which it was not designed, and like the Blenheim it would have been criminal to send it out against the opposition of the time. I faced roughly the same threats in the F4, if they worried me how on earth must the B(I)8 crews have felt?
Never really came across any NEAF Strike wing bods, I suppose you must have been a little better of than the RAFG mob?
Krystal n chips,
That was all they were good for.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Pr00ne
during my time in FEAF, our task was confronting the Indonesians in Sumatra and North Borneo and also secondarily being sufficiently nuke-proficient if the Big Northern Power needed a spot of deterring; we didn't try to compete with "other theatres" - with all the different attack profiles that kept us busy maintaining proficiency.
The SFOM fixed ring sight was for the SNEB rockets and would have been very effective if the "opposition" tried to invade by day with hordes of small boats, for example, or against oil installations which were in our target study briefs. The Indonesians' one attempt at a night (?) airborne incursion using one of their C-130s was a complete failure, but the C-inC did have the rare pleasure (for a very senior officer) of watching 20 Sqn Hunters do their stuff very effectively (using the 60-lb rockets as used by Tempests and Beaufighters in the "events" of 20 years before, as well as their mighty Aden guns).
BTW, one result of "Confronation" was that, for the first time, most if not all of North Borneo was accurately mapped by PR7s - previous surveys along the hard-to-reach mountain areas had been done by oil companies using different base-lines, and the position of, e.g. a mountain, could be on "our" side for each of the opposing forces the Gurkhas loved that !
Incidentally, our attack speed at low level was 450 knots ...
during my time in FEAF, our task was confronting the Indonesians in Sumatra and North Borneo and also secondarily being sufficiently nuke-proficient if the Big Northern Power needed a spot of deterring; we didn't try to compete with "other theatres" - with all the different attack profiles that kept us busy maintaining proficiency.
The SFOM fixed ring sight was for the SNEB rockets and would have been very effective if the "opposition" tried to invade by day with hordes of small boats, for example, or against oil installations which were in our target study briefs. The Indonesians' one attempt at a night (?) airborne incursion using one of their C-130s was a complete failure, but the C-inC did have the rare pleasure (for a very senior officer) of watching 20 Sqn Hunters do their stuff very effectively (using the 60-lb rockets as used by Tempests and Beaufighters in the "events" of 20 years before, as well as their mighty Aden guns).
BTW, one result of "Confronation" was that, for the first time, most if not all of North Borneo was accurately mapped by PR7s - previous surveys along the hard-to-reach mountain areas had been done by oil companies using different base-lines, and the position of, e.g. a mountain, could be on "our" side for each of the opposing forces the Gurkhas loved that !
Incidentally, our attack speed at low level was 450 knots ...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ teetering head (post 52)
Early generation jets on both sides of the Channel had their engines at about half span, like the Meteor, Me 262 and the Arado bomber whose type number slips my memory. Probably due to good structural theory and practice as it was known at the time.
I seem to remember that among the early drafts of what became the Canberra, Mr. Petter investigated "close-in" engines but finally went for the mid-span layout.
I seem to remember that among the early drafts of what became the Canberra, Mr. Petter investigated "close-in" engines but finally went for the mid-span layout.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To digress slightly, talk of ejections seats reminded me of one story from the TSR 2 exhibit at RAF Cosford. Allegedly there was a spare ejection seat on the servicing stand which stood beside the aircraft. Little kiddies could have their picture taken sitting in the seat if they asked nicely, although that activity was curtailed for a short period when it was discovered that the seat was fitted with live catridges and rocket pack.....
Nemesis of the Proot Dynasty
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in Hampshire
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ogre,
For all sorts of reasons (checks before de-commissioning etc., etc.), that seems highly unlikely! But if it is true, someone deserves a rocket (no pun intended!)
For all sorts of reasons (checks before de-commissioning etc., etc.), that seems highly unlikely! But if it is true, someone deserves a rocket (no pun intended!)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberra Safety Speed
Much has been made for many years of the seeming gap between rotate and safety speeds
If we remember that safety speed is defined by full power and the Canberra doesnm't need anything like that to fly, especially the later models, one could readily create a new lower safety speed by throttling back on the live engine. Of course you have to make up your mind up prior to the event this is what you were going to do and don't waste time deciding which engine had failed throttle them both back
I did several Canberra tours including 85, 100, 360, TP at the MU, 39 and RAE Bedford. Throughout those years we lost about a crew each year to emergency handling problems. Sometimes on the approach single engine. I had one myself at Leconfield, my nav was Laurie Davies, we were lucky but Laurie died in a similar accident out of Wyton.
His accident was photographed by a git called Geof Garratt and the photographs published twice of Lauries body on fire in a gutter. We were not pleased
On the PR9 and the SC 9 we launched with 85% RPM, about half thrust, got the gear up and then put the rest of the power on as we passed safety speed
If we remember that safety speed is defined by full power and the Canberra doesnm't need anything like that to fly, especially the later models, one could readily create a new lower safety speed by throttling back on the live engine. Of course you have to make up your mind up prior to the event this is what you were going to do and don't waste time deciding which engine had failed throttle them both back
I did several Canberra tours including 85, 100, 360, TP at the MU, 39 and RAE Bedford. Throughout those years we lost about a crew each year to emergency handling problems. Sometimes on the approach single engine. I had one myself at Leconfield, my nav was Laurie Davies, we were lucky but Laurie died in a similar accident out of Wyton.
His accident was photographed by a git called Geof Garratt and the photographs published twice of Lauries body on fire in a gutter. We were not pleased
On the PR9 and the SC 9 we launched with 85% RPM, about half thrust, got the gear up and then put the rest of the power on as we passed safety speed
WK163 and before that XH568 have been flown very successfully on the airshow circuit since 1995 with no problems what so ever, in fact over that period we lost only 3 shows to unserviceability and with an average of 32 shows per annum that's not a bad record for a fifty year old aeroplane.
Regarding speeds we operate at 130 knots unstick and 175 knots safety speed, at light weight the aircraft will accelerate to 175 from 130 with very little power applied, slowing it down is the problem!!
Biggest problem on take off is EMBS and stop speed, at higher weights on a short runway the choices between running out of runway or burning the brakes out if things go wrong can be interesting. Basic weight of WK163 is 24,500 so with 8000lbs of fuel, say 32500lbs, take off weight on a flat dry runway of 8000ft/+15c/ 1013MB with no wind gives an EMBS of 130kts and a stop speed of about 148kts. However if weight is increased to 45,000lbs and the runway reduced to 6000ft in the same conditions EMBS becomes 108kts and stop is 118kts, so the gap between being able to stop and being able to get airborne is a lot bigger.
Regarding speeds we operate at 130 knots unstick and 175 knots safety speed, at light weight the aircraft will accelerate to 175 from 130 with very little power applied, slowing it down is the problem!!
Biggest problem on take off is EMBS and stop speed, at higher weights on a short runway the choices between running out of runway or burning the brakes out if things go wrong can be interesting. Basic weight of WK163 is 24,500 so with 8000lbs of fuel, say 32500lbs, take off weight on a flat dry runway of 8000ft/+15c/ 1013MB with no wind gives an EMBS of 130kts and a stop speed of about 148kts. However if weight is increased to 45,000lbs and the runway reduced to 6000ft in the same conditions EMBS becomes 108kts and stop is 118kts, so the gap between being able to stop and being able to get airborne is a lot bigger.
