Flying the Canberra
 

Looking at photos and plans of the Canberra, I would guess that Vmca was rather high (widely spaced engines, tiny rear vertical area - and with the ECM version in particular a large vertical area ahead of the CG). I'd guess then that Vapp would be fairly high and that single-engine go-arounds would not be pleasant?

Also, were RAF crews drawn from the FJ stream, or ME stream?

Canberra "on one"
 

This from memory, so I expect to be corrected by those with access to "the books" (and/or better memories) ..
Canberra asymmetric speeds depended on the Mark. The lower-powered Marks B2, PR3, T4 would have had a "safety speed" (as we called it) of 120 kts, while the B15's was 175 kts, on which, with all wing stores on, you kept a finger ready during and just after take-off to go for the "wing clear switch", to get into a safe speed region should one of Mr. Royce's motors do a nasty on you.
On the approach on one engine, you kept the flaps up (remember that they were either Up or Down, no in-betweens!) until you were sure of landing, and then you were committed. If you weren't nicely settled at that point, you overshot and went round again if you were wise and didn't want a fit of the knee-tremblers. Single-engined "Rollers" (touch & go) were out except for the T4, demonstrated by your instructor, because of the Avon's somewhat hesitant response from idling, while some Squadron pilots, such as IREs, would be qualified to perform them (again on the T4), after a check ride.
At the end of flying (or refresher training) you fouind yourself posted to the Canberra OCU (or not), but I don't think there was such a thing as "streaming" at that time (50s/60s) - your instructors assessed you and made "appropriate recommendations".

Canberra Streaming
 

Certainly in 1964 the guys who got posted to Canberras were from the fast jet stream (as opposed to the twin engined stream as nothing was hugely fast then). Come to think of it the Gnat was quite fast but I did my Advanced Flying training on Vampires as the Gnats were having initial serviceability problems.

ACW

Trim Stab, your question abut experience is slightly limited. Remember that the Canberra was a significant force in the 50s and 60s. As a general split, the RAF was leaving the piston age and on its way to becoming an all-jet force with transport types being the exception (and of course RW).

The jet force was either fighter - Vampire, Meteor, Hunter, Javelin - or bomber - Canberra and V-Force. The Canberra was almost de rigueur the intro to the V-Force with copilots having one Canberra tour under their belts.

As the years wore on and the new aircraft matured so the criteria relaxed. With the introduction of the F4 and Buccaneer bombers in the late 60s and the Jaguar and Harrier bombers in the 70s they were clearly fast-jets compared with the Canberra. The other stream, in contrast, was multi-engine, Victor, AT, Shackleton etc. The Canberra was the odd one out but still tended to be an intro to fast-jet.

Many fast-jet crews were ab initio however other ab initio aircrew were sent to the Canberra, almost on a make or break basis, before moving to the modern FJ. With the reduction in the Canberra force to just the PR9 there as still a question of what to do with ab initio FJ aircrew that were not quite up to speed. The GR1 then became the make or break posting with the best crews going to Harrier, F3 and Jaguar.

A very broad brush and I shall probably be flamed but in defence I will say I was for a time on both FJ and ME Flying Trainng sub-committees.

Ask One Who Knows !
 

Dear Trimstab
I shall shortly be enjoying the company,at my favourite pub/ folk- venue in Buckinghamshire, of a venerable Canberra pilot,(the landlord ),and will,of course,ask him for his views !!

I went to Bassingbourn straight from training, did 6 months on PR7s and then converted to PR9s. The only thing I can add to the information posted earlier is that it was not permitted to use more than 90% rpm on take-off as the speed at which full rudder could hold the full thrust of the live engine, if the other one failed, was something over 175 kts (as I recall it). If one did happen to use 100% the engines made a very distinctive extra noise which could be detected in the Sqn Offices and "discussed" after landing! A marvellous first tour I have to say!

Canberra on One
 

That is a remarkably high speed, but about the range that I imagined it must have been, looking at the design.

Can you remember what Vso was (stall speed in landing configuration)? I'd imagine that it was quite reasonable, given the high aspect ratio straight wing. I'd guess that approach speeds were determined by the high Vmca, rather than the low Vso.

If one was ex Piston Provost/Vampire scheme in the 50s', prior to the OCU at Bassingbourn you did an "Asymmetric" course on the Meteor at Worksop. Excellent lead in to the Canberra and the basics of asymmetric', including leg-strengthening in the gym, were drummed into one. Don't get "low and slow"!

PR9 take-offs
 

90% was the standard rpm for take-offs. I can't remember the safety speed, although it might have been 180kts. We did a det to an airfield in a hot country where the there was no barrier and the over-run was very strewn with boulders. After some discussion, we decided on 100% take-offs. The safety speed was much higher (220kts IIRC). At max operational AUW, the event was rather less comfortable than a normal launch for me, sat in my cupboard up front.

The Canberra PR9 Safety Speed was 150kts for 90% rpm (8000lbs thrust per side) and went up tp 170 if you used full power (11,250 per side). 90% rpm was the norm, but it accelerated so quickly if you used full power that it was a struggle to get the gear up and locked in time, even when heavy.

We did practice assy approaches on a regular basis. IIRC we had to do 12 per quarter; 6 each of Viz/Inst and a mix of landings and overshoots. Given that we couldn't roll from an assy landing, this was the harder stat to maintain. The guys up front in the nose probably found those 6 overshoots per-quarter uncomfortable, especially when in the visual cct halfway round finals. More so when a lot of the guys on 39 had only ever flown a bit of T4 before being let loose in the mighty PR9. Lots of potential to screw it up if you didn't fly it correctly by levelling the wings and ensuring you maintained directional control (ball!!). That is probably why we used a VCH of 600ft. At least we had a powered rudder to help, but always flew these with the trim re-centred.

If my memory is correct a B2 or T4 flew an asymmetric approach at 145kts, at 600ft you overshot on 1 engine or committed to landing. Once below 600ft you reduced speed and selected flap when certain of reaching the runway. This compared with a 2 engined approach at 120kts with 110kts over the threshold.
Night asymmetric was only with a QFI in a T4, so that meant you could extend the crew duty day to the 2 pilot 16 hours. 3 day trips and then a fourth in the T4 –with engine running pilot change over on the taxiway before 20minutes of night asymetric circuits.

Hmm interesting stuff, remember them fondly as a child, and even then they were almost a historic flight, but I was watching Temora's (?) Flying example at RAAF Amberley in 2008, and the was pure magic..especially the historic fly bys...Hudson, Meteor, Canberra, F-111.....possibly not seen anywhere else (?)...great stuff:ok:

By the late 70s/early 80s (when I had some great vacation attachments to Canberra squadrons), all Canberra first tourist pilots were coming from the Hawk - some from Valley (4 FTS), and some after some or all of the TWU Hawk course.

It seemed to me that most (if not all) of the young Canberra pilots I met then spent a tour or two with 7, or the 'Tatty Ton', and then fed back to Brawdy, from where the bulk seemed to be streamed single-seat/fast-jet.

Senior blokes on the Canberra TF squadrons confirmed that one of the Canberra's most useful roles, in this, the twilight of its career, was in giving a bit of extra development to blokes who were FJ-capable, but who had narrowly failed to make the grade on TWU, perhaps 'slow learners' or perhaps having suffered a particular setback.

The Canberra was challenging, and flew a variety of roles (even within the TF squadrons) and clearly helped to turn young pilots who had (for one reason or another) failed training into productive fast jet pilots.

This was a problem, they said, as it made it harder to find Flight Commanders for the Canberra squadrons themselves - since all the first tourists bug.gered off back to the FJ world!

In later years, I became aware that whenever I went to a Harrier or Jaguar Squadron, I'd find a few pilots whose first tour had been on the Canberra - with the Jag Force, in particular, seeming to be riddled with PR9 mates.

Jackonicko

It isn't quite true to say that all ab-initio Canberra pilots were ex Hawk studes. I joined 360 Sqn at Wyton after the 100hr JP3 course and METS on the Jetstream (plus 231 OCU at Marham in 1980). Two further guys on my Finningley course also went to the Canberra, one to 100 Sqn and one to 7 at St Mawgan.

I would have to admit that Idid find the performance of the Canberra T4 a bit terrifying after the sedate Jetstream, and I joined the Sqn with about 240 hours total in my logbook - which made the AEO's in particular look at me a bit sideways.

It was a wonderful aircraft though, and for a first tour it could hardly have been bettered. On the original question of single engined safety speeds, as I recall it was about 140/145 knots for the T17.

I stand corrected!

I should have been less definite.

My memories are of 79-82, and all I can say is that on 7 and 100, your course-mates eluded me!

Where did you go after the Canberra? Nimrod, I'm guessing?

I expect that you'll confirm the large number of blokes who did as I described, though, although perhaps it was different on 360?

Trim Stab
Above 600ft no problem, or less so than on take-off, favourite place for certain QFIs to throttle back an engine. Full rudder, 10deg bank, throttle back and descend to accelerate to safety speed before climbing slightly cross controlled.
Below 600ft and below safety speed IMC - abandon (by the book) If VMC -runway in sight throttle back the live engine to retain control and accept undershoot or the grass or abandon. Certainly know of one case of a surge on short finals where they ended up touching down parallel to the rw but landed across the unoccupied QRA pans and all got out but with minor injuries (even the pax in the jump seat).
It was rumoured that the engines on the Canberra design were moved out from close to the fuselage as the Avons were looking to be very delayed and piston engines and props could then have been fitted in the interim.

It's a long time ago, and far away, but I do recall the intricacies of 'planning for a refused TO' and the soi-disant 'Dead Zone' between the airspeed at which the jet got off the ground, the Single Engine Safety Speed ( at which a fit, prop-forward of a driver/airframe could maintain full rudder as well as enuff climb-out power on the live engine ~170-180knots ).

Simply put, if you're just airborne and low, below Safety Speed, and you lose an enjin - you're not going to get away with it.

The Canberra B12 with Avon 109s, operating out of >4000' AFB Waterkloof on a warm Highveld summer's day, struggled to push enough Bernouillis out the back. I was of a 'Cottesmore' vintage conditioned to calculate EMBS and Stop Speeds, correcting for density, runway length, temperature and AUW, etc. I was alone, on that squadron, as the only guy who bothered. Geek!

There was one such afternoon when, fully fuelled, just as the nose was being lifted at around 130kts, the port donk surged big. Natch, my man pulled them both back sharpish. There was no way we were going to fly.

'Stop Speed' - that max. below which a full emergency application of brakes might just stop us on the remaining tarmac - was around 83kts, as I recall. We were way above EMBS (Emergency Max Brake Speed), and the brakes would burn out to nothing well before we made a fast upwind-end departure and went off-roading. The overrun was a boulder field, then a gully, and coming up fast. A 'far-end fireball' beckoned. As per SOP's, I called "No brakes. Aerodynamic braking only. Hold the nose high...." But that was not going to be nearly enough.

The airbrakes were close to useless on those Cans, but we had urgent need of more Aero-D braking. Then I remembered the config for a steep descent....

"Open the bomb doors." The old ( no, nearly new! ) B12 opened up like the Space Shuttle, grabbing huge Aero-D drag.

That did it. It was like running into a snowbank. Not that anyone from around there had ever seen a snowbank. The speed washed off hard, and we were down below 60kts before the elevators stopped holding the nose up. A normal application of brakes to 'fast walk' left us with about 1000'. Phew!

No. That 'procedure' wasn't in the SOPs. Or anywhere else we'd read or heard, before or since. That's one of MY pages from EK Gann's 'Fate Is The Hunter'.....

:hmm:

Ah !!! Memories ...
 

One more distinctive feature of Canberras with the early Avons was when there was a cross-wind for take-off: Line up facing about 30° (?) to the centre-line, accelerate the engines to about 5,000 (?) rpm, release the brakes and turn onto runway heading as the bird began to accelerate.
This was to let the 2-position inlet guide vanes sort themselves out, after which the sailing was plain.
My route to the Canberra was Vampire/Venom DFGA in 2TAF after FTS, short V-bomber tour, eventful ground tour in Berlin, Confrontation in FEAF on Canberras ... Nice way to end one's service ... :ok::ok::ok:


BTW. A comment above about it being difficult at one stage to find Canberra Flight Commanders makes me wonder now whether that was why I was made one ... (I didn't think so at the time !).

Memories
 

Icing approach fixed RPM 2800 + or - 50. Descend only when cleared to land. When runway insight and clear aim 1/3 up and then close both throttles. Use flap to bring the touch down closer to the threshold. The PR7 had minimal anti-icing but before that it was chattering inlet guide vanes as around the 2800 RPM they did not know whether to be open or closed!

Long time ago, but surely Icing Let Down was 5,800 rpm +/-50: I can also remember the Hydraulic Failure mnemonic for the Gnat!!

I seem to remember the 'Icing Let Down' was 6000 RPM, all the way down until sure of landing. 6000 was to be set before entering cloud during the let down. Remembering to nudge the RPM up as it decayed in the descent. Then using the airbrakes/bombdoors to (try!) to control the speed after levelling off at 1500ft, then the 'gear' to initiate final approach descent. No flaps until 'sure' of landing.

Gnat = STUPRECC. I do not think ANYBODY that flew the Gnat will ever forget that!

Wander00,
Your right it was 5,800. Was 2,800 min RPM on an approach?

FL575 - cannot recall - sounds more like idling - maybe one can find Canberre B2/T4/T17 pilots notes on-line! Wife says how come I can remember all this drivel, but come back without items on the shopping list!

Icing let down - 6000rpm as I recall on the ones I flew in. Plenty of good stories of the bomb bay full of Cyprus goodies (and luggage) which were lost when trying desparately to slow down. If you've done one you will remember clearly - it was like the let down in Aliens.

Anyone remember night practice asymmetrics with the QFI on board to get the monthly stats up? On the fourth pilot of the evening, hot crew switches were the norm, pilot heard to say, "600 feet, ball in the middle, on the glidepath, speed 145 - MY DECISION IS TO LAND". At 300 feet, a somehwat less authorative, "We're not going to make it". Strangled scream from QFI as my hand fondled the handle waiting for the roll, "Don't eject - bringing the other one up" Fortunately it did not not do what most Avons did i.e. cough and splutter. The debrief was interesting!

Top Canberra tip - always remember to open the throttles a bit downwind after a run-and-break!

Oh - and don't carry swords in the bomb-bay! :ok:


Jacko,

There was a change from Hawk to METS ab-initios in about 1980.

Jackonicko

You are right about 360 Sqn, since lots of the pilots were RN of course - including my brother-in -law who came from Sea King "pingers" to the Canberra. The Navy regarded a Canberra tour as a lead in for potential SHAR pilots and we had a lot of people from the Wessex and Sea King, not to mention the Gannet!

Of course the great majority of RAF pilots joining were did come from various stages of fast jet training, and a great many went back down that route very successfully after some time on a Canberra Squadron.

In my case I had never expected to end up on the Canberra (though I am very glad I did) having wanted to be a truckie. I volunteered for the UAS after getting my QFI "blessing", and then spent another 14 years on the Nimrod.

Hard to forget some of the characters around in those days, including one or two truly legendary and eccentric RN Flight Commanders with experience of everything from the Sea Fury to the Harrier.

west raynham 1973
 

:ok:

I was a sprog cadet at West Raynham c 1973 - fond memories of 100 Sqn (& 85 Sqn too ?) Canberras- TT 18's mostly ?

Sad time too as one had been lost the week before :(

Cnaberra.
 

What a wonderfully nostalgic thread about a wonderful aeroplane. But wasn't the safety speed in a B2, PR3, T4 140 knots ? I remember that speed being drilled into my head at Bassingbourn and having done many crit. speed checks after engineering I seem to remember that those crit. speeds weren't far short of 140.

I will always remember the Canberra as a wonderfully pleasant and easy machine to fly on two engines, but a very demanding machine on one, great training, fly it by the book and it works, stray and you're on your own !

Looking back on my career give me a Canberra for fun and sheer flying pleasure anyday, but if I had to do some asymmetric flying give me a 767 or a VC10. !

I still remember with a smile, the guy who opened his bomb doors to slow down on an icing approach, quite forgetting the full pannier, a depositing his goodies across north East Lincolnshire !

Some idea of the possible/probable asymmetric problems of the PR9 may be gained from the following tale. It should be remembered that there was not, of course, a two stick PR9. So the first time that a pilot flew it solo, was the first time that he flew it.

There were 2 crews on my conversion course, my crew and that of ‘M M’. After a few ‘solo’ sorties, we were at the phase of experiencing the different ‘wind up’ rates of the various RR209s.

Most people will know that, the time from ‘flight idle’ to full power could vary by quite a few seconds, with different engines. Also, as has been stated, most of the sharp end of the power came in the last 10% of the RPM range, i.e. from 8000lb thrust at 90%, to the max 11250lb at 100%.

To demonstrate this, and to give some practice at ‘rudder juggling’, the following profile was flown.

The aircraft was to be flown to FL200 (about 20,000ft to our non flying friends) and towards the top of the climb, the speed allowed to decay from climbing speed of 330kts/0.72M, to about 130kts (ish). Then a good old look around etc, and select 2 extra fuel pumps. The throttles were then to be fully closed, and the speed allowed to decay to 90kts, i.e. getting towards stalling speed. And, of course, way below the safety speed of 170kts.

At this point, both throttles were to be slammed fully open. This is where the fun started.

My Nav and I did this first, in the morning slot. And believe me it was an exciting ride. But I was lucky, and both of my engines wound up reasonably well together, and with judicious and fast juggling of the rudder pedals, the aircraft was kept basically straight and level.

Then, in the afternoon slot, it was the turn of ‘M M’ and his Nav. However they did not have the same aircraft that we had used in the morning.

After they had landed from the sortie, I went to have a chat with M M. As I approached him, I though that his eyes seemed a bit wild, and he had aged somewhat.

He told me that he had flown the aircraft as briefed, and slowed the aircraft down to 90kts etc. He then ‘whanged’ the throttles open. The stbd engine did its best, but just could not keep up with the port one. And just as the port reached 100%, the stbd was struggling past 70%. It was at this point that the PR9 flicked. He recovered the aircraft at about FL100.

Hand buit
 

Canberras were “hand built” –
On an air test a T17 without tip tanks was flown to the approach stall ie power on uc down, as it stalled it rapidly rotated, not a flick but fast enough to end up nose down inverted. No engine surge, wings were level ball in the middle on entry. Next air test was with tip tanks on, predictions were for a more interesting reaction at the stall – crew had very tight harnesses but it was totally benign!
After a major a T17 just would not trim out laterally. Riggers did everything possible including changing the ailerons. Test after test and still it would not trim out. Then a chief took a piece of string from the nose to the port wing tip and when he tried to take it from the nose to the starboard tip it wouldn’t reach. After much research in ancient paper work it was discovered that as a B2 it had been fitted with 2 wings both within spec but outside the difference spec and the tail plane had been bent to compensate – on the major a new tail plane hade been fitted!

Overshooting the normal approach
 

Another case, from my experience – 45 Sqn B15s at Kuantan in Malaya on detachment 1963-4. Experienced crew, doing a low overshoot from a standard full flap approach, had Trim Stab’s flame-out and settled as a result into a rubber plantation a mile or more upwind. In this case I remember that none of the crew had a scratch, but I fear the memory is not what it was. Suffice to say we all felt we were just not entitled to survive such an accident and that our friends, this time, were amazingly lucky.

Actually, flame-out it was not. We never heard of flame-outs at low level, although some crews regularly lost power in this way at height, in or around cu-nims.

The design of our Avon engines incorporated two deliberate fudges to account for a mismatch between the compressor at the front and the turbine at the back. The airflow was of course optimised for high RPM. The first fudge concerned the way the first stage of the compressor received the incoming air. The air might usually have been directed into the compressor by “stators”. The Avon’s equivalents were called “swirl vanes” and were not fixed but had two positions. As I remember, they changed position at 6100 RPM. If they did not the engine would surge on acceleration – but I never heard of this mechanism actually failing. Others have mentioned the icing drill – 6000 RPM was significant because the swirl vanes would at least be in their approach configuration whatever ice they collected.

The other fudge arose because, the compressor and the turbine being ganged together, at low RPM the compressor pulled in more air than the combustion stage could burn. Bleed valves would open to exhaust this excess air. If when the engine was being run up they remained open, then the engine would settle at the RPM at which they should have closed and would no doubt generate not enough thrust. As I remember, the critical range was 2800 to 3200 RPM. One would always watch the gauges to make sure this phase was safely passed, and then be more casually interested that the needles twitched appropriately going through 6100 RPM.

The Kuantan case was of a bleed valve failure. The aircraft was comfortably airborne and might have accelerated away if it was not for the flaps.

As has been mentioned, the Canberra’s flaps were either up or down. On selection, either up or down, they moved very deliberately. When down they were very effective.

So the flaps are down. One of the hydraulic pumps is underperforming along with its associated engine. If the pilot tries to raise them, both the undercarriage and the flaps would come up more slowly than normal. Apart from that, the pilot has at least one throttle bent forwards and an ache is developing in one leg. He may or may not be trying to bring the dud engine down and up again. But his eyes will be fixed on the air speed indicator and he will be disappointed to realise, knot by decreasing knot, that the flaps remain more effective than the one good engine. Happily he makes the one really critical decision and closes the good throttle – and the god of rubber plantations is kind to him.

Dear all,

I am working on a book based on the 'Canberra experience' as told in the words of those that flew and serviced the type in the various air forces around the world (quite a few as you may well know). To cut a long story short, if would be interested in contributing, please check out the thread below, where full details of the project and basics about contribution are given:

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...r-request.html


Best regards to all,

Steve

I joined the Canberra force from training in 1954, flew it for 4 1/2 years on T4, B2 and B6 and enjoyed every bit of it. It was a delight to fly and at the beginning it out-performed most of the types Fighter Command could launch against us on exercises. Its achilles heel though was the awful heating/cooling system. After an hour or so at or above 40,000 ft everything in the cockpit was covered in rime and it stayed that way until it began to melt during the let-down, drenching the nav plotter's charts unless he remembered to put them away. For sorties of 3 hours or more we were each given a couple of chocolate biscuits and a small can of orange juice and if one delayed opening the orange juice for three hours or so it was frozen solid. Operating the Canberra in a tropical climate was probably worse. One was soaked through with sweat by the time the checks had been done and then frozen at operating height. Nevertheless, we got used to it but in this respect it was certainly a young man's aeroplane.
I'm not sure that asymmetric in the Canberra was entirely the bogey which seems to be its legacy and I suspect that conscious lack of practice played its part. Quite early on I decided to make an asymmetric landing as often as I could and it gave me enough confidence to be much less windy about the lurid tales of others who, I suspect, steered well clear of asymmetric except when a check ride forced it upon them !

Cheers for that, Pindi, that describes the bake or freeze aspect of the Canberra very well. On some Cans I've seen little fans in the cabin for the pilot and nav, mounted on the coaming in some cases - did you have these or was this most likely a later mod?

Asymmetric handling is such an interesting subject (for the armchair enthusiast like myself, never having had to do it!). I know for a fact that the Rhodesians flew some long range ops on one engine for the outbound leg so as you say, it seems it was possible beyond landing with some practice and careful handling. I do understand this was considered rather dicey by the RhAF pilots themselves though and they were loath to have a flame out in this situation.

I will send you a PM, as I would love to hear more about your time, especially as you came on around the heyday of the aircraft.

Best regards,

Steve

Canberra Sorties in the Falklands War
 

Here's an interesting page on Canberra sorties during the Falklands War.

They didn't stand much chance against Sea Harriers.

Steve, you may have seen 229 in California, that had the fans. We had them - if memory serves me correct - in all our aircraft, the B.20s and T.21s. Operating in a tropical environmenmt, we needed them.

Just worth noting here, the B.20 started production in Australia based on the B.2. The first 27 were basically B.2s, with what we called Avon Mk.1s, limited integral wing fuel tanks (total was 14.6k LB), and bugger-all avionics. The remaining 21 B.20s were based on the B.6, with Avon 109s, increased integral fuel (all up 17.6, and 21.6 with tips) and Green Satin and GPI mk.4 (I think). Before deployment to Vietnam in a USAF wing, we had added TACAN, UHF and armour plate for pilot and nav.
I always thought it strange the upgunning from B.2 to B.6 didn't warrant a new designator - it would have been B.22 at that stage.

The T.21s were a mixed bag, and didn't have the T.4 solid nose. Two were modded from the ex-RAF B.2 prodn pattern aircraft, and five were modded from the first B.20 production - so all had the clear bombaimer nose.

Note, RAAF always operated the bomber with 2 crew - pilot and nav, not the 2 navs the RAF strike/attack aircraft had.

Lot of fun the Canberra - 2500 hours in five and a half years, those were the days! :ok:

I can't help but feel theres a degree of irony somewhere in that the Canberras were - at least at one point -flying from Trelew, a Welsh colony in Patagonia

Now you're talking my language ;). As an Anglo-Argentine myself, the usage of the Canberra in the Argentine Air Force is an area of, shall we say, mild interest to me (putting it mildly indeed!). A few years back I got in touch with a fellow Canberra nut down there by the name of Marcelo Siri, whose late father had been a nav from the late 70s to his death from cancer in 1983. He flew a couple of ops during the Falklands whilst suffering from his terminal illness, despite the orders of the station surgeons and the best intention of his comrades. He literally had to be carried to and from the aircraft, and whilst lying prone in the nose cone, the pilot was audibly aware of his great pain.

Regardless of any politics surrounding the Falklands War (both then and now), the bravery and absolute professionalism of the air and ground crew of the Grupo 2 de Bombardeo is, for me, without question. Consequently, we started an Association down there, reuniting former G2B personnel and getting the Canberra the recognition it had been long overdue in a conflict where Mirages and Daggers dominated the public eye on both sides. As a result, we've taken big strides in restoration work for B-101 and B-102, two Falklands survivors. B-109, another B.62, is preserved in the Museo Aeronautical in Buenos Aires, in superb condition, and I had the pleasure of sitting in both it and B-101 (incidentally, the one flown by Roland Beamont on trials for the 20th aniv. of the Canberra in 1969). There is also now talk of attempting to do something for the rather folorn B-112, the only remaining T.64 trainer.

Regarding the irony of Trelew being a Welsh colony, yes, it is without doubt with noting. Their combat ops are a whole separate discussion which I am more than happy to get into any time.

For more reading on the subject (admittedly, all in spanish), check out the web site Marcelo and I built:

Canberras Argentinos: BAC Canberra B.Mk.62 y T.Mk.64 de la Fuerza Aerea Argentina

and in particular, my visit in English: (Canberras Argentinos)

tons of photos there which tell a good story even if you can't read spanish. I am happy to translate anything, and some of the war stories on there will be translated and form part of the Argentine experience in my book. At the very least, former pilots and navs on here may be interested to check out the cabin photos to compare notes on the B.62 layout, and of course to see an SFOM gun sight fitted for those who never had interdictor experience.