The other E.E. classic, the Canberra. (Merged 23rd July '04)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roller landings were stopped for ordinary pilots because of the possibility of engine surging on acceleration from idle. However, you still did them with QFIs or ACO's on board. Rollers from sim asy landings were also practised, but only with QFIs - he was supposed to do the roller himself, but would often let you do it if you were experienced enough.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Farley
Thanks for your comment.
I thought one of the basic reasons for this forum was to allow anyone interested to express their personal - just that - opinions.
As it happens, my ETPS Tutor agreed with my uncomplimentary opinion of the Canberra cockpit. As you should know, one of the main functions of ETPS is to expose students to as wide a variety of aircraft types as possible, to help them understand what is good, mediocre and simply appalling. (Yes, even the UK aircraft industry produced examples in the latter category - as did the industries of other aircraft-building countries, such as the US, France, Canada, W. H. Y.)
If we ETPS students didn't learn from that, or closed our minds to the possibility that not all aircraft manufacturers, at all times, might not actually produce the most perfect aircraft, then that (very expensive) course was failing in one of its primary tasks.
Perhaps you didn't have the privilege that I had of hearing a bespectacled Test Flying Tutor wake up an early-morning class with the opening line, delivered ever so quietly, "All aircraft manufacturers are rogues". He was dead right!
Whereas we embryo TPs may have fondly imagined before that lecture that all aircraft manufacturers were wonderful, magnanimous types who strove by day and night to give us the finest possible aircraft in which to enjoy ourselves in the wide blue yonder, t'ain't so. The aim of aircraft builders is to build at the lowest possible cost that airframe which they can (just) persuade the customer meets the spec.
One can argue that if they didn't do that, they were failing in their duty to their shareholders to maximise their profitability. As it is, I could bore you rigid with innumerable examples of how manufacturers tried their utmost to get away with cheapskate products which didn't actually meet the spec, on any rigorous basis of assessment.
I assume you are the John Farley who used to be known as "Mr Harrier". If so, congratulations on your marvellous displays of that fantastic aircraft. However, is it possible that your time as an employee of the industry might just have distorted your objective judgement, a teeny-weeny bit?
Thanks for your comment.
I thought one of the basic reasons for this forum was to allow anyone interested to express their personal - just that - opinions.
As it happens, my ETPS Tutor agreed with my uncomplimentary opinion of the Canberra cockpit. As you should know, one of the main functions of ETPS is to expose students to as wide a variety of aircraft types as possible, to help them understand what is good, mediocre and simply appalling. (Yes, even the UK aircraft industry produced examples in the latter category - as did the industries of other aircraft-building countries, such as the US, France, Canada, W. H. Y.)
If we ETPS students didn't learn from that, or closed our minds to the possibility that not all aircraft manufacturers, at all times, might not actually produce the most perfect aircraft, then that (very expensive) course was failing in one of its primary tasks.
Perhaps you didn't have the privilege that I had of hearing a bespectacled Test Flying Tutor wake up an early-morning class with the opening line, delivered ever so quietly, "All aircraft manufacturers are rogues". He was dead right!
Whereas we embryo TPs may have fondly imagined before that lecture that all aircraft manufacturers were wonderful, magnanimous types who strove by day and night to give us the finest possible aircraft in which to enjoy ourselves in the wide blue yonder, t'ain't so. The aim of aircraft builders is to build at the lowest possible cost that airframe which they can (just) persuade the customer meets the spec.
One can argue that if they didn't do that, they were failing in their duty to their shareholders to maximise their profitability. As it is, I could bore you rigid with innumerable examples of how manufacturers tried their utmost to get away with cheapskate products which didn't actually meet the spec, on any rigorous basis of assessment.
I assume you are the John Farley who used to be known as "Mr Harrier". If so, congratulations on your marvellous displays of that fantastic aircraft. However, is it possible that your time as an employee of the industry might just have distorted your objective judgement, a teeny-weeny bit?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milt
Just how many variants were there excluding the B57.?
Twenty or more but there was/is only two basic "types" - those with the goldfish bowl canopy (B.2s, PR.7s, etc) and those with the offset "fighter type" canopy (B(I)8 and PR.9 only).
The most common "type" was the goldfish bowl Canberras and the variants in that type "family" are pretty much legion - including radio-controlled U.10s and U.14s for Woomera.
Of the two offset canopy "family" types the B(I)8 was in RAF service only with three squadrons (five if you count plate changes) but served in many variations of role and kit with a number of air forces. PR.9s have essentially always looked as they do now, but with many sensor suite upgrades etc.
And what ones still in service anywhere?
PR.9s still fly in operational service with the RAF's 39 Sqn. I believe the Indian Air Force still use one (or two?) of their B(I)58s as target tugs (1999 gen though). There are two Canberras flying in the States with a commercial operation - and earning dollars! There is a third Canberra in the States (Tom Foscue's) but that's currently up for sale I believe.
We have one still flying with the Temora Museum Down Under.
Yes, an ex-TT.18, WJ680 - "CT". There's quite a nice tale attached to that one, I may post it later. The nav involved in the tale is currently one of the nav's on the UK's only private flying Canberra - B.6 WK163 (the altitude record holding Scorpion Canberra).
Just how many variants were there excluding the B57.?
Twenty or more but there was/is only two basic "types" - those with the goldfish bowl canopy (B.2s, PR.7s, etc) and those with the offset "fighter type" canopy (B(I)8 and PR.9 only).
The most common "type" was the goldfish bowl Canberras and the variants in that type "family" are pretty much legion - including radio-controlled U.10s and U.14s for Woomera.
Of the two offset canopy "family" types the B(I)8 was in RAF service only with three squadrons (five if you count plate changes) but served in many variations of role and kit with a number of air forces. PR.9s have essentially always looked as they do now, but with many sensor suite upgrades etc.
And what ones still in service anywhere?
PR.9s still fly in operational service with the RAF's 39 Sqn. I believe the Indian Air Force still use one (or two?) of their B(I)58s as target tugs (1999 gen though). There are two Canberras flying in the States with a commercial operation - and earning dollars! There is a third Canberra in the States (Tom Foscue's) but that's currently up for sale I believe.
We have one still flying with the Temora Museum Down Under.
Yes, an ex-TT.18, WJ680 - "CT". There's quite a nice tale attached to that one, I may post it later. The nav involved in the tale is currently one of the nav's on the UK's only private flying Canberra - B.6 WK163 (the altitude record holding Scorpion Canberra).
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vertico
Thank you for your most useful reply.
Two points:
First please read my post again. I did not express disagreement in the slightest with your views on the Canberra only in the way you expressed them. That is not a nit-pick - but no designer was going to be able to tell know how you wanted the cockpit changed from that remark and even if your report (as it probably did) went into details of the changes you wanted then the designers being human were more likely to fight your views because they included a smartarse comment – however valid. And of course your smartarse comment was very valid.
Second point. You obviously don’t know me. I joined the industry to try and improve the terrible stuff that I had to fly in the RAF. During my time as an industry tp I told nothing but the truth (as I saw it) which I can assure you did not make me many friends in high places.
So a beer some time would be nice as you and I we were clearly allies in the fight for greater professional integrity in military aircraft manufacturers all along!
JF
Thank you for your most useful reply.
Two points:
First please read my post again. I did not express disagreement in the slightest with your views on the Canberra only in the way you expressed them. That is not a nit-pick - but no designer was going to be able to tell know how you wanted the cockpit changed from that remark and even if your report (as it probably did) went into details of the changes you wanted then the designers being human were more likely to fight your views because they included a smartarse comment – however valid. And of course your smartarse comment was very valid.
Second point. You obviously don’t know me. I joined the industry to try and improve the terrible stuff that I had to fly in the RAF. During my time as an industry tp I told nothing but the truth (as I saw it) which I can assure you did not make me many friends in high places.
So a beer some time would be nice as you and I we were clearly allies in the fight for greater professional integrity in military aircraft manufacturers all along!
JF
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Farley
Thanks for your last. My broad view of the awful cockpit was indeed filled in with much more detail. That comment was simply an honest statement of my initial shock at seeing that layout (?) for the very first time. I'd never realised that any cockpit could be so bad! I do take your point about not gratuitously creating friction with the industry people with whom RAF tps have to work, but that was also at a very early stage of the course.
Thank you, too, for putting me right on your attitude as an industry tp. If our paths should ever cross, we'll certainly have to have that beer.
Thanks for your last. My broad view of the awful cockpit was indeed filled in with much more detail. That comment was simply an honest statement of my initial shock at seeing that layout (?) for the very first time. I'd never realised that any cockpit could be so bad! I do take your point about not gratuitously creating friction with the industry people with whom RAF tps have to work, but that was also at a very early stage of the course.
Thank you, too, for putting me right on your attitude as an industry tp. If our paths should ever cross, we'll certainly have to have that beer.
And they all lived happily ever after!
But no tongues - OK chaps?
Incidentally, the PR9 was a right ba$tard to intercept with the F4. Did a practice Q scramble against one once (it had that odd looking nose - perhaps some RAE boffinology?) and had a heck of a job getting any photos!!
Whereas the 360 Sqn jets were a doddle. And any ex-Hunter pilot could tell when some aged AEO in a Canberra was trying to spoof him by the typical generator whine in the background!
But no tongues - OK chaps?
Incidentally, the PR9 was a right ba$tard to intercept with the F4. Did a practice Q scramble against one once (it had that odd looking nose - perhaps some RAE boffinology?) and had a heck of a job getting any photos!!
Whereas the 360 Sqn jets were a doddle. And any ex-Hunter pilot could tell when some aged AEO in a Canberra was trying to spoof him by the typical generator whine in the background!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags
Incidentally, the PR9 was a right ba$tard to intercept with the F4 . . .
See my post of 25 Feb, page 2, in this thread, could that be the reason?
Incidentally, the PR9 was a right ba$tard to intercept with the F4 . . .
See my post of 25 Feb, page 2, in this thread, could that be the reason?
Last edited by Beeayeate; 14th Mar 2004 at 05:55.
Back in the early '70s at Wyton, we had refuelled the 39 Sqdn PR9s ready for the morning sorties and a port tip tank was found to be leaking. Chiefy told us to de-fuel and replace it. It was decided to trestle the stbd. wing and only de-fuel the leaky tank. This done the armourer was told to remove the squibs from the port tank. The tank was duly replaced and refuelled, trestle removed and the aircraft made ready for engine runs to check the fuel transfer. This done the chiefy told the leckies to do the 'no volts' check prior to the armourer re-fitting the squibs. We were chatting in the office when there was a dull thud from the general direction of the dispersal. Next a rather red-faced lecky came in and asked us to call for a wash down under the aircraft. Instead of just doing a no-volts check he had asked his mate to push the 'clear aircraft' button just to check for full volts as well. He had dropped a full 250 gallon tank off the stbd. wing! 250 gallons of fuel makes an awful mess. The chiefy just commented that the sh$t was about to fly and called for the wash down.
That afternoon there were questions being asked by everybody from the Station Master down.
CC
That afternoon there were questions being asked by everybody from the Station Master down.
CC
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tip tanks were the bane of many a Canberra line crew (almost as bad as gun-pack bomb doors). Recall one time having to remove the tips from four B(I)8s. A bowser had been called up to de-fuel one after the other on the line and a couple of teams of blokes were removing the tanks as each was emptied. We used a framework cradle affair to handle a tip tank, this was supported on the shoulders of four (or more) blokes while plumbers and leccies and riggers did the disconnection stuff sitting on the wingtip. Somehow, as the activity progressed, one team got out of step. Suddenly a sharp thud followed by lots of shouting - not a good thing to hear on the pan. Seems one team had leap frogged the other and started to remove a tank, but it hadn't been de-fuelled yet! And it was a phenolic resin type tank! Shattered like an egg on the concrete but luckily was only half full. The Red Thunderbirds turned up smartish and hosed down the area but we still had to change the mainwheel on that side. Morale? Nix assume, checkers! 
CC
Don't recall having to trestle a wing to fit/remove tips. And surely the tank should not have been fuelled before the plumber and leccy work had finished? Unless everybody was in "get it done now" mode that morning, even then, not good practice. . .
Know what you mean though
CC
Don't recall having to trestle a wing to fit/remove tips. And surely the tank should not have been fuelled before the plumber and leccy work had finished? Unless everybody was in "get it done now" mode that morning, even then, not good practice. . .
Know what you mean though
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hendon
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beeayeate,
I read somewhere that the Indians want to keep their Canberras in service till about 2015 with another spar mod from Hindustan although I can't remember where I read it.
I read somewhere that the Indians want to keep their Canberras in service till about 2015 with another spar mod from Hindustan although I can't remember where I read it.
Beeayeate
The wing with the Full tip tank was trestled to save time by not de-fuelling it. The leckies and armourers did their bit after the fuel transfer and leak checks were carried out and the tank proved to be 'S'. It was not unusual for so called 'S' tanks to either leak or not transfer at all requiring a further change of tank. We were using all metal tanks and they were bl##dy awful things.
CC
The wing with the Full tip tank was trestled to save time by not de-fuelling it. The leckies and armourers did their bit after the fuel transfer and leak checks were carried out and the tank proved to be 'S'. It was not unusual for so called 'S' tanks to either leak or not transfer at all requiring a further change of tank. We were using all metal tanks and they were bl##dy awful things.
CC
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first ever flight was in a canberra!
A few years ago I was comparing log books with the old man and was amazed that his total conversion at Defford (early 50's), onto the canberra was 2 circuits - 20 mins!!! After that he was off on his own for a further 15 mins and later that day another trip of 1 hour 30 mins. When I say 'on his own' I mean just that - no nav! In fact, he thinks that he must be one of a very few who've flown the canberra with POBs of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (yes, I know there aren't 5 seats! - he's a bit embarrassed about that).
I think I counted 36 different aircraft in his log book and there was me with just 6 - how times have changed.
If anyone remembers 'Harvey', I'm sure he'd love to get in touch.
A few years ago I was comparing log books with the old man and was amazed that his total conversion at Defford (early 50's), onto the canberra was 2 circuits - 20 mins!!! After that he was off on his own for a further 15 mins and later that day another trip of 1 hour 30 mins. When I say 'on his own' I mean just that - no nav! In fact, he thinks that he must be one of a very few who've flown the canberra with POBs of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (yes, I know there aren't 5 seats! - he's a bit embarrassed about that).
I think I counted 36 different aircraft in his log book and there was me with just 6 - how times have changed.
If anyone remembers 'Harvey', I'm sure he'd love to get in touch.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK, North Riding
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baloo.
To fly the Canberra with only one up was tempting fate and Sod's Law. An all electric aeroplane, the fuse box was situated where it couldn't possibly be reached from the driver's seat.
And fuses did blow from time to time !
To fly the Canberra with only one up was tempting fate and Sod's Law. An all electric aeroplane, the fuse box was situated where it couldn't possibly be reached from the driver's seat.
And fuses did blow from time to time !
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canberra was a delicately balanced aircraft, not in the air I mean on the deck. A few times I've seen the result of filling No 3 tank faster than the forward tanks; or, more usually, de-fueling No 1 and 2 before No 3. The elegantly gentle way the airframe would slowly tilt backwards onto the bump-stop under the tail. The sudden realisation the "see-saw" was happening and the rush by all the blokes to get under the rear fuselage to support it whilst the tail-stay was pinned into the bump-stop. All accompanied by much shoutng and cries of "Ooops. . ." etc mingling with an irate chiefy's choice words. 
And when it snowed. . .! With some sort of met warning we could fit the tail-stays before knocking off for the night, but once, in Germany winter of 1962, all the sqn blokes were called out at 0'dark-hundred due to a sudden, un-forcast snow storm. Met reckoned it was too cold to snow, but it did anyway. Had two kites on their bump-stops before we could tail-stay them all.
As I recall however, no damage was ever done to Canberras that sat on their ar$e, just eardrum damage from the chiefy.
And when it snowed. . .! With some sort of met warning we could fit the tail-stays before knocking off for the night, but once, in Germany winter of 1962, all the sqn blokes were called out at 0'dark-hundred due to a sudden, un-forcast snow storm. Met reckoned it was too cold to snow, but it did anyway. Had two kites on their bump-stops before we could tail-stay them all.
As I recall however, no damage was ever done to Canberras that sat on their ar$e, just eardrum damage from the chiefy.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm fairly sure I can remember a picture of a Canberra in taildragger configuration. A problem with the nosewheel, judicious fuel management and a gentle landing with no brakes resulted in one undamaged Canberra and a hell of a job getting the crew out.
Mike W
Mike W
Beeayeate
With our PR9 Canberras we did not seem to have a problem with snow on the tailplane. These aircraft had most of their fuel forward of the main undercarriage. With an all up fuel load of 26,440Lbs they stayed firmly on all three legs. There was allways the odd new guys who filled 1 & 5 tanks first and sat an aircraft on it's tail though! Normal refuelling was 6 tank first, then 1 & 2, then 3,4 & 5, followed by the wings(7 & 8), then tips (9 & 10). Wings and tips to be filled together to keep the aircraft level.
When the aircraft tipped onto it's tail it went very slowly and never did any damage. Looked funny though with the canopy open and nose open
Chiefy never saw the funny side though.
It was allways interesting getting them back on to three legs again. Our SengO insisted on two cranes, and as many officers and chiefs as he could muster - us indians never got a look in
CC
With our PR9 Canberras we did not seem to have a problem with snow on the tailplane. These aircraft had most of their fuel forward of the main undercarriage. With an all up fuel load of 26,440Lbs they stayed firmly on all three legs. There was allways the odd new guys who filled 1 & 5 tanks first and sat an aircraft on it's tail though! Normal refuelling was 6 tank first, then 1 & 2, then 3,4 & 5, followed by the wings(7 & 8), then tips (9 & 10). Wings and tips to be filled together to keep the aircraft level.
When the aircraft tipped onto it's tail it went very slowly and never did any damage. Looked funny though with the canopy open and nose open
Chiefy never saw the funny side though.It was allways interesting getting them back on to three legs again. Our SengO insisted on two cranes, and as many officers and chiefs as he could muster - us indians never got a look in
CC
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC
Didn't do much on 9s, and then mostly in summer months, one heckuva number of tanks though.
Yeah, wings and tips together, remember that. Ever been sat astride a tip tank refuelling it when sudden oleo striction relief happened? Bounced off once I was. . . oops! Another pan washdown!
Must have been a slow day if the SengO got involved. And two cranes?
What for? A bunch of blokes under the tail pushing up and another bunch of blokes under the nose easing it gently back onto the nosewheel, took about 15 mins - and most of that was rounding up the blokes. Still, you PR types on 9s always did things differently. 
Query: Did/does the 9 have the independently retractable nosewheel feature? All the Cans I was on had it, was used to raise the tail so that a shape (or a flare crate on the PR types) could be slid in from the back.
Didn't do much on 9s, and then mostly in summer months, one heckuva number of tanks though.
Yeah, wings and tips together, remember that. Ever been sat astride a tip tank refuelling it when sudden oleo striction relief happened? Bounced off once I was. . . oops! Another pan washdown!
Must have been a slow day if the SengO got involved. And two cranes?
What for? A bunch of blokes under the tail pushing up and another bunch of blokes under the nose easing it gently back onto the nosewheel, took about 15 mins - and most of that was rounding up the blokes. Still, you PR types on 9s always did things differently. Query: Did/does the 9 have the independently retractable nosewheel feature? All the Cans I was on had it, was used to raise the tail so that a shape (or a flare crate on the PR types) could be slid in from the back.
Beeayeate
Our SengO at the time seemed to think that all 'incidents' had to have his own personal attention, don't know how we managed when he was on leave!
The reason for the two cranes - well we never worked that one out. It was a case of "I'm in charge - do as I say". So we just let him get on with it!
The PR9 didn't have an independently retracrable nosewheel when I worked on them. Both types of flare crate (mini & maxi) could be put in from the rear with the aircraft sat normally. If a camera pod was required then we had a pod fit hangar with a pit and elevator in it to fit the pod. The idiot who designed our pod fit hangar measured a PR7, forgetting that the PR9 was three feet wider in span. This meant that there was only 4 inches of tip clearance when pushing the aircraft into the hangar. If the oleos had not compressed fully before the aircraft was pushed in the wing tip would invariably hit the side of the hangar. We wrote off several wingtips that way. Works & Bricks reckoned it was too expensive to dismantle the hangar and rebuild it. So we allways tried to do pod fits before refuelling, less chance of the oleos moving.
CC
Our SengO at the time seemed to think that all 'incidents' had to have his own personal attention, don't know how we managed when he was on leave!
The reason for the two cranes - well we never worked that one out. It was a case of "I'm in charge - do as I say". So we just let him get on with it!
The PR9 didn't have an independently retracrable nosewheel when I worked on them. Both types of flare crate (mini & maxi) could be put in from the rear with the aircraft sat normally. If a camera pod was required then we had a pod fit hangar with a pit and elevator in it to fit the pod. The idiot who designed our pod fit hangar measured a PR7, forgetting that the PR9 was three feet wider in span. This meant that there was only 4 inches of tip clearance when pushing the aircraft into the hangar. If the oleos had not compressed fully before the aircraft was pushed in the wing tip would invariably hit the side of the hangar. We wrote off several wingtips that way. Works & Bricks reckoned it was too expensive to dismantle the hangar and rebuild it. So we allways tried to do pod fits before refuelling, less chance of the oleos moving.
CC