Canberra confusion

[Brian Abraham]

Thanks canberrasig. I guess I was trying to clarify whether the Mk. 206 was a RA23 or RA24. You say 23 whereas the info I have says 24.

I thought it interesting the difference in the two photos posted previously of the wing trailing edge inboard of the engines

[canberrasig]

Sorry Brian, I'm not too hot on engines, I probably got the numbers all mixed up. The difference in the wing platforms is the one with the extra large cord extension was the original idea for the HAPR.9 wing but it was found after testing that the drag out weighed any advantage gained so it was reduced to what became the production PR.9 wing.


John

[Rory57]

I know it doesn't help answer the question originally posed but, having read this thread I was amused to see in the story about the return to flight of a WB57F

here; NASA?s new WB-57F, N927NA, flies for the first time in 41 years | GAR

the ambiguity re the wing tips. Did they "nearly forget" to fit them before flight? Were they perhaps unavailable for a taxy test or photo shoot?

[canberrasig]

Hi Rory57
Thanks,I have seen it, 41 years after she was last in the air, quite extraordinary! But that's Canberra's for you, you can't keep the old girl down. As for the wing tips I think they were left off just for the taxying phase of testing they are only a very light honeycomb structure and very easily damaged and very close to the ground, so I guess they were just being careful. NASA are thinking of re-engining them with ones from KC.135's that will give them better range/fuel efficiency longer life, and better altitude performance.
John

[WH904]

I found this reference in Uncle Roger's column in "Flight" :-



I wonder if anyone might have any clues as to where Roger Allingham-Mills might be contacted? Maybe he might have some answers? If anyone knows how to contact him (or knows anyone who can help find him) do let us know

[Brian Abraham]

Canberra B2 WD952 was powered by a pair of Olympus engines (testbed) and gained the world height record on two occasions: 63,668 ft on 4th May 1953 (Olympus 101) and 65,876 ft on 29th August 1955 (Olympus 102 12,000 lb thrust).

Suffered port engine failure at 50 ft on take off from Filton, Bristol due to compressor blade failure. Force landed wheels up at Cribbs Causway and struck an oak tree which tore off the port wing, undercarriage and elevators, leaving the remainder of the airframe severely damaged. The crew escaped unhurt.

Wreckage (by September 1956) broken up at Colerne after completion of accident investigation procedures.

The Olympus 300 was capable of producing 20,000 lb thrust - would have been an interesting fit.

[canberrasig]

It would be good if he could be tracked down 904, I bet he'd be a very interesting guy to talk to. As for the WB.57F's NASA quote the operating height as 60,000+ comfortably I know they have operated up to 65,000 and the RB.57F's in the USAF days up to 74,000 +.

John

[Brian Abraham]

Service ceiling for the RB-57F is quoted as being 82,000 feet.

[canberrasig]

82,000 Would that be with a useful load over an operational useful distance?
John

[bvcu]

Saw an article on the fleet somewhere in the last year or so , cant remember where, but the re-engining proposal is for ex C-141 engines which are same type but more powerful. Interesting how they have lasted as most books on them in USAF service quoted them as being retired early because of wing fatigue issues. Was this fact or have they now resolved the issues ?

[Brian Abraham]

There are several factors that dictate the maximum altitude of the aircraft; however, the two most prominent variables are the gross weight and the overall drag. The aircraft is capable of higher altitudes later in flight due to fuel burn, while drag is increased by adding wing pods, instrument inlets, and any other items that protrude outside the aircraft.

It seems from the calculator below that 65,000 feet is about all you will get with the aircraft in its current status.

NASA has provided a calculator of the aircrafts capabilities should you wish to fly an experiment.

WB-57 Calculator

[WH904]

Sadly, no more news on this subject. If anyone gets an opportunity to mention it elsewhere, please do. It would be nice to find out what the saga was all about

[canberrasig]

I'm still working on it!
John

[WH904]

Glad to hear it! I'm still keeping my eyes peeled but I get the feeling we've reached a dead end here, but I guess you can never be sure. It's remarkable how so little seems to be known about the aircraft, considering how much information on Canberras is floating around

[canberrasig]

yes true, I bet there is a huge pile of photos of her somewhere that would answer our every question, but until then, we'll just have to keep looking!

John

[canberrasig]

Well it's taken some time but at last the mystery is over! And it looks like you were right (sort of) It is mounted on the PR.9 type tip but I don't think it is a PR.9 type tip, it looks beefier to me, but what ever there it is! It still begs the question WHY? Why go to all that trouble? Hell, it's a Canberra I guess that's all that needs to be said!

[WH904]

Congratulations on finding those photos - brilliant stuff! I'm assuming from the cropped nature of the images that they are part of bigger pictures... can we see? (you can tell I'm a fan of this bizarre machine!).

Good to see confirmation that the vortex generators were retained too

[PlanesOfThePast]

B-57 in a U.S. Museum

I've enjoyed the chat about the Canberra. I'm just learning about the aircraft, and had the opportunity to see one last week at the Air Force Armament Museum at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

U.S. Air Force Martin B-57 Canberra bomber history, deployment and photographs

[WH904]

Try not to dwell on this particular Canberra too much - it'll give you nightmares!