Flying the Canberra
The Orange Putter they had on the Valiant
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Age: 44
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Indian Air Force web site: The English Electric Canberra in Indian Air Force Service - Anandeep S Pannu [www.bharat-rakshak.com]
This confirms the spurious warnings nature rlsbutler discussed. As others have pointed out, nice idea but had the drawback like any active radar of attracting attention. The site reads:
“Orange Putter” – was tail warning radar on the PR.7...Basically “Orange Putter” was radar that projected its beam backward from the Canberra, so if an enemy aircraft attempted to sneak up behind it to shoot it down, the radar could warn the crew about it. Unfortunately it wasn’t always reliable, and often gave spurious warnings. This had the effect of raising blood pressures of the aircrew – and at least one vital photo reconnaissance mission was called off because of spurious “Orange Putter” warnings. These spurious warnings resulted in an erroneous intelligence estimate of an enemy fighter force existing where there was none, during the 1961 Goa operations! Another Canberra sortie had verified that there were in fact no fighters anywhere to be seen!
The other drawback of “Orange Putter” was that it was an active system, i.e. it radiated radar energy. As many a Mosquito night fighter and intruder crew found to their misfortune in WWII, this lead properly equipped enemy fighters to them like moths to a flame. "
I will see if I can dig this up in the B(I).12 APs I have, but I am sure OP was not just on the PR Cans, but the interdictors as well. May have even been on some of the earlier variants but pulled out later on when realised to be obsolete. Spectre150's comments defininitely imply that this kit was long gone by the final days of the Can.
Whatever the case I feel it was a nice idea at least to give the poor old '40s era Can a chance of picking up someone sneaking up on it. I wonder if for some reason it was not on the 13 Sqn PR.7 that was shot down in Suez, as they were using a rear facing periscope to spot for bandits.
This confirms the spurious warnings nature rlsbutler discussed. As others have pointed out, nice idea but had the drawback like any active radar of attracting attention. The site reads:
“Orange Putter” – was tail warning radar on the PR.7...Basically “Orange Putter” was radar that projected its beam backward from the Canberra, so if an enemy aircraft attempted to sneak up behind it to shoot it down, the radar could warn the crew about it. Unfortunately it wasn’t always reliable, and often gave spurious warnings. This had the effect of raising blood pressures of the aircrew – and at least one vital photo reconnaissance mission was called off because of spurious “Orange Putter” warnings. These spurious warnings resulted in an erroneous intelligence estimate of an enemy fighter force existing where there was none, during the 1961 Goa operations! Another Canberra sortie had verified that there were in fact no fighters anywhere to be seen!
The other drawback of “Orange Putter” was that it was an active system, i.e. it radiated radar energy. As many a Mosquito night fighter and intruder crew found to their misfortune in WWII, this lead properly equipped enemy fighters to them like moths to a flame. "
I will see if I can dig this up in the B(I).12 APs I have, but I am sure OP was not just on the PR Cans, but the interdictors as well. May have even been on some of the earlier variants but pulled out later on when realised to be obsolete. Spectre150's comments defininitely imply that this kit was long gone by the final days of the Can.
Whatever the case I feel it was a nice idea at least to give the poor old '40s era Can a chance of picking up someone sneaking up on it. I wonder if for some reason it was not on the 13 Sqn PR.7 that was shot down in Suez, as they were using a rear facing periscope to spot for bandits.
Last edited by nazca_steve; 23rd Mar 2012 at 06:46.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Age: 44
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Yes, it was the SC9, probably on the way back to RAE Bedford. It was in raspberry ripple clours, if I recall correctly. I think it ended its days at RAF St Mawgan as I saw it there during a UAS Summer Camp in about 1992 looking rather forlorn in faded hemp and grey. I can't remember whether it was still intact, but the nose section certainly was."
Thanks for this clarification, Beagle, I know the raspberry ripple scheme, indeed it was one of my favourites - too bad she did not stay in this scheme and went plain old hemp/grey. The nose was apparently saved by an Italian collector and ended up out there as far as we know.
CANBERRA - PR.9 (SHORTS SC.9)- XH132
Thanks for this clarification, Beagle, I know the raspberry ripple scheme, indeed it was one of my favourites - too bad she did not stay in this scheme and went plain old hemp/grey. The nose was apparently saved by an Italian collector and ended up out there as far as we know.
CANBERRA - PR.9 (SHORTS SC.9)- XH132
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Age: 44
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dalek, you wrote earlier:
"Quite a few T19 sorties. B2 with pointed concreted nose and no tip tanks.
No navaids either other than TACAN.
We tended to use the T19 for PI's and any sortie that required climb above 410. Pressurisation limitations limited ceiling to 470 but with a light aircraft we once took one to 520. We still had a reasonable rate of climb but MCrit and safety speed considerations made us chicken out.
Never heard of a T11 "
Having TACAN at least was an advance over the early B.2s and other variants...off the top of my head I think these may have only have had ADF at the time. With TACAN fitted did you bother with ADF at all or just go with the former nav aid?
Ref the T.11, this was the former version of the T.19, except it has the AI radar in the nose cone and not the concrete version! I believe this was a variant design to train Javelin crews in AI, later on when this was no longer needed the redundant T.11s had the radar removed and became your variant. I asked Options770 in an email if he remembered if the gun sights were still fitted in the 19 or not...do you remember by chance?
"Quite a few T19 sorties. B2 with pointed concreted nose and no tip tanks.
No navaids either other than TACAN.
We tended to use the T19 for PI's and any sortie that required climb above 410. Pressurisation limitations limited ceiling to 470 but with a light aircraft we once took one to 520. We still had a reasonable rate of climb but MCrit and safety speed considerations made us chicken out.
Never heard of a T11 "
Having TACAN at least was an advance over the early B.2s and other variants...off the top of my head I think these may have only have had ADF at the time. With TACAN fitted did you bother with ADF at all or just go with the former nav aid?
Ref the T.11, this was the former version of the T.19, except it has the AI radar in the nose cone and not the concrete version! I believe this was a variant design to train Javelin crews in AI, later on when this was no longer needed the redundant T.11s had the radar removed and became your variant. I asked Options770 in an email if he remembered if the gun sights were still fitted in the 19 or not...do you remember by chance?
Having TACAN at least was an advance over the early B.2s and other variants...off the top of my head I think these may have only have had ADF at the time.
It was the same-same but different with the B.20.
When it was announced in late 1966 that 2SQN would deploy from Butterworth (Malaysia) to Phan Rang (South Vietnam) several mods had to be undertaken. TACAN had to be fitted, as all navigation in SVN to R/Vs was to a TACAN point. UHF was added to the VHF, as UHF was the tacair freq band (choppers and FACs also, of course, had FM). Armour plate was added under the pilot's bangseat and under the nav's prone bombaimer position. Also nitrogen purging was added to the fuel system to prevent tank fires if hit by groundfire.
ADF was retained, and later replaced in an early 1970s navcom upgrade. At that stage, there were many more NDBs in Aust than TACANs and VORs.
The other navaid was Green Satin doppler with a GPI (mk IV I think).
It was the same-same but different with the B.20.
When it was announced in late 1966 that 2SQN would deploy from Butterworth (Malaysia) to Phan Rang (South Vietnam) several mods had to be undertaken. TACAN had to be fitted, as all navigation in SVN to R/Vs was to a TACAN point. UHF was added to the VHF, as UHF was the tacair freq band (choppers and FACs also, of course, had FM). Armour plate was added under the pilot's bangseat and under the nav's prone bombaimer position. Also nitrogen purging was added to the fuel system to prevent tank fires if hit by groundfire.
ADF was retained, and later replaced in an early 1970s navcom upgrade. At that stage, there were many more NDBs in Aust than TACANs and VORs.
The other navaid was Green Satin doppler with a GPI (mk IV I think).
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West of Akrotiri & the B Sours
Age: 73
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The T19s that I flew in 1975-78 certainly did not have a gunsight.
However, they were incredibly fuel efficient. On internals (3 main tanks) plus bomb bay tank (no tip or wing tanks; 13,500 lbs total I think), they could get from St Mawgan down to Gibraltar and land with the same fuel as a TT18 with tips (18,000 lbs). They could also cruise climb to well over 52K. IIRC, range descents were about 110nm from TOD.
However, they were incredibly fuel efficient. On internals (3 main tanks) plus bomb bay tank (no tip or wing tanks; 13,500 lbs total I think), they could get from St Mawgan down to Gibraltar and land with the same fuel as a TT18 with tips (18,000 lbs). They could also cruise climb to well over 52K. IIRC, range descents were about 110nm from TOD.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Age: 44
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for confirming it. It is highly likely the gun sights were removed full stop from the T.19 - I will see if I can get hold of the Pilot's Notes for it and see. Makes sense though without the AI radar still fitted.
Also good to know the 19 was so fuel efficient. Does anyone recall what the cruise speed was for say the B.2 and B.6 (as representative of the first and second gen Avons)?
Also good to know the 19 was so fuel efficient. Does anyone recall what the cruise speed was for say the B.2 and B.6 (as representative of the first and second gen Avons)?
Same on both: A84-201 to A84-227 "Mk 1" Avon 6500 lb, and A84-228 to A84-248 Mk 109 Avon 7500 lb.
Frankly I can't remember now what 0.74 would give you at altitude (above 40k ft), about 450KTAS I think, maybe a tad less?
Frankly I can't remember now what 0.74 would give you at altitude (above 40k ft), about 450KTAS I think, maybe a tad less?
M0.74 / FL 400 ~ FL 500:
ISA-15 = 409 KTAS
ISA = 424 KTAS
ISA+15 = 439 KTAS
(Why does this stupid editing system keep changing upper case to lower case.....
)
ISA-15 = 409 KTAS
ISA = 424 KTAS
ISA+15 = 439 KTAS
(Why does this stupid editing system keep changing upper case to lower case.....
)
Last edited by BEagle; 25th Mar 2012 at 20:48. Reason: Error in first ISA deviation computation.
What makes anyone imagine that the T19 ever had gun sights fitted in the first place?
As they were converted from the B2 to the T11 by sticking a Javelin radar in the nose, Javelin navigators for the use of, and then converted to the T19 by taking it out again, where does a gun sight come in?
As they were converted from the B2 to the T11 by sticking a Javelin radar in the nose, Javelin navigators for the use of, and then converted to the T19 by taking it out again, where does a gun sight come in?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BSweeper is right about the fuel efficiency. Some of our older and dumber (pilot) Flight Commanders could just not understand it.
We once flew a "raid" from Norway requiring an attack on Bawdsey? at 470.
Weather conditions were marginal so the 100 Sqn authoriser insisted on giving his crew a B2 with Tips and Belly 16,800lbs, for max diversion fuel.
Our 85 Sqn crew left in a T19 with 11,000lbs.
We shot straight up to 470. The B2 struggled.
We arrrived back at Trondheim with 800lbs more fuel.
Dumb ba***ard did exactly the same the following day.
We once flew a "raid" from Norway requiring an attack on Bawdsey? at 470.
Weather conditions were marginal so the 100 Sqn authoriser insisted on giving his crew a B2 with Tips and Belly 16,800lbs, for max diversion fuel.
Our 85 Sqn crew left in a T19 with 11,000lbs.
We shot straight up to 470. The B2 struggled.
We arrrived back at Trondheim with 800lbs more fuel.
Dumb ba***ard did exactly the same the following day.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 83
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel "efficiency"
BSweeper
Without being picky, may I say your T19 was not “incredibly” fuel efficient but predictably so ?
Compared to your airframe with no operational stores to carry, our B2s and B15s during my time in Singapore never (I think) surrendered the bomb bay to a fuel tank. We always flew high level with tip tanks, presumably because operationally we would have dropped them, and had almost no real range benefit from their extra fuel.
My longest trip was the initial ferry of one of 45 Sqn’s new B15s (with tip tanks) from New Delhi to Tengah. I was supposed to stage through Rangoon. I was a bit of a graphs-anorak and knew what line to track, so by the time we were due to let down for Rangoon we had told FEAF we were keeping going. I did not ask and no one complained. There were no competent air traffic authorities, so we cruise-climbed from the beginning. Those were the days !
BEagle (at #114) will have had a typo – his first line should probably have read ISA-15 = 409 ktas. We in the tropic zone would have been cruising at ISA-5 or so. The trip was 5:30 hrs and the route was IIRC 2300nm.
We flew our B2s back to UK to collect the B15s. Presumably we could all have taken a bomb bay tank each way instead of the tips. I expect the FEAF staff sent us along their established chain of way-stations and reasoned that these would have to be kept alive for diversion even if we could plan to overfly them. For my crew, the killer might have been FEAF’s difficulty in getting the MU at Wroughton to change the tank over just before Christmas 1962.
By top of descent for Tengah we had reached FL 520, which we (and you no doubt) knew to be 2000 feet beyond official safety in the case of pressurisation failure. How much higher would this cocky young pilot (White rating, 36 hours on type) have gone if he had not had the drag of the tip tanks ? Who knows !
Without being picky, may I say your T19 was not “incredibly” fuel efficient but predictably so ?
Compared to your airframe with no operational stores to carry, our B2s and B15s during my time in Singapore never (I think) surrendered the bomb bay to a fuel tank. We always flew high level with tip tanks, presumably because operationally we would have dropped them, and had almost no real range benefit from their extra fuel.
My longest trip was the initial ferry of one of 45 Sqn’s new B15s (with tip tanks) from New Delhi to Tengah. I was supposed to stage through Rangoon. I was a bit of a graphs-anorak and knew what line to track, so by the time we were due to let down for Rangoon we had told FEAF we were keeping going. I did not ask and no one complained. There were no competent air traffic authorities, so we cruise-climbed from the beginning. Those were the days !
BEagle (at #114) will have had a typo – his first line should probably have read ISA-15 = 409 ktas. We in the tropic zone would have been cruising at ISA-5 or so. The trip was 5:30 hrs and the route was IIRC 2300nm.
We flew our B2s back to UK to collect the B15s. Presumably we could all have taken a bomb bay tank each way instead of the tips. I expect the FEAF staff sent us along their established chain of way-stations and reasoned that these would have to be kept alive for diversion even if we could plan to overfly them. For my crew, the killer might have been FEAF’s difficulty in getting the MU at Wroughton to change the tank over just before Christmas 1962.
By top of descent for Tengah we had reached FL 520, which we (and you no doubt) knew to be 2000 feet beyond official safety in the case of pressurisation failure. How much higher would this cocky young pilot (White rating, 36 hours on type) have gone if he had not had the drag of the tip tanks ? Who knows !
pr00ne,
yes, there was no reason for the T.19 to have gunsights. The T.11 originally had radar "collimator" sights for pilot and pupil. I assume they would have been removed at the same time as the radar.
rs
yes, there was no reason for the T.19 to have gunsights. The T.11 originally had radar "collimator" sights for pilot and pupil. I assume they would have been removed at the same time as the radar.
rs
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T19 Gunsights
I flew T19s at West Raynahm, 85 then 100. the aircraft did not have gunsights but on enquiring what the marks left by removing some coaming bits were I was told the previous mark 11s had one.
The aircraft were used for training Javelin navs and so that a visual cue could be matched to a radar picture gunsights were fitted. I was a bit sceptical about that story as I could not see how the nav in the back of the 11 could see a gunsight.
I spose it would have been possible for the trainee to vacate ejection seat and sit on jump seat for training purposes at hight level but it all seemed a bit far fetched.
Maybe the present question is a throwback to that orriginal story or maybe it was true. Find a mark 11 flyer
We were told the T19 could not have tip tanks because of the tip mounted pioto probe but the T17 did so all the suppoosed facts are a bit suspect. Certainly the T19 had speeds increased by 5kts because of different position of pitot
The aircraft were used for training Javelin navs and so that a visual cue could be matched to a radar picture gunsights were fitted. I was a bit sceptical about that story as I could not see how the nav in the back of the 11 could see a gunsight.
I spose it would have been possible for the trainee to vacate ejection seat and sit on jump seat for training purposes at hight level but it all seemed a bit far fetched.
Maybe the present question is a throwback to that orriginal story or maybe it was true. Find a mark 11 flyer
We were told the T19 could not have tip tanks because of the tip mounted pioto probe but the T17 did so all the suppoosed facts are a bit suspect. Certainly the T19 had speeds increased by 5kts because of different position of pitot
Tinribs,
as I understand it the T.11 carried two student radar/navigators. The one waiting his turn sat on the occasional seat by the pilot and watched the interception through the duplicate pilot's sight; the student in the back had the full radar scope, as per Javelin navigator.
rs
as I understand it the T.11 carried two student radar/navigators. The one waiting his turn sat on the occasional seat by the pilot and watched the interception through the duplicate pilot's sight; the student in the back had the full radar scope, as per Javelin navigator.
rs
Talking about "5kts extra", when I joined 360, before the T17s arrived , we had a motley collection of T4s. B2s and an odd B6 (which I nearly got airborne in but SLOPS stopped me because I had to have flown CT in it before I could fly as a "target"). One of the B2s, WD 935, had been some sort of trials airframe which was about 2,500 lbs heavier than a "standard" B2. Hence if you hit the runway hard, you realised you had forgotten the 5kts extra for the heavier airframe. That aircraft had remained in Bomber Command black and grey. A Naval crew took it away for the weekend to Germany, and got arrested by the plods for having "stolen" it. I flew it to Woughton on is last flight, and it ended up in the Wales Aircraft Museum, but was I believe broken up when the museum folded. I think the nose may still be around.