They should nickname it "Triggers Broom"


WK163 first flew after modification on the 20th May 1956 and whilst undertaking these trials the aircraft obtained the world record for aircraft altitude at 70,310ft on the 28th August 1957

Whilst at Pershore in April 1966 WK163 was converted to Mk B6 specification being fitted with Canberra MK B6 mainplanes and engines

Then during April 1972 the B2 nose was removed and replaced with a standard B6 nose from Canberra XH568


Martin/English Electric B-57 Canberra Registry - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

Thanks for those links Archimedes. I'm surprised there was a 15 kt speed margin. I would have thought that the aircraft would have been well beyond coffin corner

What happened to the low hrs T4 from RAE Bedford? Would that not be a better candidate to get airborne? I have done a bit on T17s, PR7s, B2s, T4s and the PR9. Even worked on some of the same frames as my Dad 40 years earlier.

The last T.4 that Bedford had was WJ992.

And after a (rumoured) attempt to sell it on to another Canberra user seemed to have failed. I assume it was spares recovered and it now sits looking rather sad for itself on the dump at Bournemouth...:uhoh:

V1

They won't be seeing my hard-earned, that's for sure.

I fear no Canberra is capable of stirring the public into stumping up, worthy though it certainly is.

Now a Lightning ................... !

I agree, I think the Canberra project will not generate enough public interest or indeed their money ! :sad:

A decidedly non scientific consensus from people I know who enjoy air shows, but are not spotters / purists carried out last weekend in passing conversation, was that there was no way they would even think about attending one just because a Canberra was flying....that, and their memory extends back more than three years when the last one flew.

" Interesting to see, but nothing out of the ordinary " was the best summation.

However, as an alternative they would like to see, and pay for, a Shack.

Ive already started supporting the shackleton. The begging letters for the canberra will all end in the bin.

Just had a memory triggered. When 360 formed in 1966 we were short of aircraft and a couple of times they lent RRE a couple of crews for a week - as JP I was top of the list each time. I got authorised for a trip in 163, at least I am sure because it was now a B6, and I was recalled from the marshalling point as the high ups decided I could not fly the B6 on a task sortie until I had done a CT sortie. So never did fly a B6

Krystal n Chips and Simplethebeast, completely agree with you. I love Cold War Jets but if I was to chuck some money in the bucket it would be for a Shack before a Canberra. Not taking anything away from the Canberra, I'd be interested to see it flying, but its no Vulcan.

The problem seems to me that the Vulcan is a tough act to follow. What would be as spectacular or make the same impact than a Vulcan or even get close...that could realistically return to the air in UK Airspace? Lightning, yes that would do it, but never going to happen. Replacing a 4 engine heavy like a Vulcan with a much smaller 2 engine machine like the Canberra or Mosquito just wont inspire their existing supporters I don't think.

I think they missed an opportunity - they could have acquired an airworthy VC10 and had it delivered to Robin Hood not so long ago, probably with a stock pile of spares. But realistically there seems little chance of seeing any four engined British heavy fly again: Victor, VC10, Nimrod, Comet (Canopus has been outside for 20 years now). So the next best thing has to be the Shackleton.

I wish them all the best, but doubt I'll be putting any money of my own behind either project.

Oh, poor Canberra ... so nice to look at, a great performer, backbone of BC once upon a pre-V-Force ... and now cast into the dustbin of history.

Have you guys no soul?? ;)

I'm not really that enamoured by the drive to get a Canberra back into the air.

Now if they were looking to return a Lightning (unlikely) or Buccaneer (less unlikely) to the air I'd be interested.

Indeed, the Bucc is good looking and 'The Last All British Bomber', a good sell for the airshow circuit no?

MPN - well said that man...................

Noses were swapped back again after both aircraft were sold from RAE, prior to XH568 being prepared for it's ferry flight to it's new owner in the USA.

So, only the mainplanes/engine nacelles etc from an unknown B.6 are not the original WK163.

Indeed.

In many ways the Canberra is way more important and significant in the scheme of things, we haven't sold much to the USA post war after all, as well as numerous sales to other countries. And with the Vulcan no more, there's no other 'large' jet with such a spritely performance....especially in PR.9 form, which again makes the choice of WK163 over the already airworthy XH134 even more confusing.

Only 62 sqns operated the Canberra ... a minor event really :D

Canberra Squadrons of the RAF

i think this is also a practical decision , canberra is relatively simple a/c to maintain compared with something like a shackleton so should be able to manage airshow commitments without to many problems . Lots of work for the NDT man.......!

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Canberra returned to flight, and I agree, it is more important historically than the Vulcan and much more successful - in roles, export success etc. However the point being made here is that it may not be able to "impress" non enthusiasts in the same way the Vulcan could, or I suspect a Shack would. And by "impress" I mean, part with the money to fund it.

However I'm only speculating, it would be marvellous if both airframes could be restored to flight.

XH568 was on the display circuit briefly before 163 was. And after some time on the ground at Bruntingthorpe. It was broken up after spares recovery and the nose went to the USA.

Possibly to the mob whose name escapes me that operated the other ex RAE pair. WT327 and XH567 Although they were not the only pair that went out there. a pair of ex FRADU TT.18s went before them or followed them

Not sure of the status of any of them (except 1 of the TT.18s is in a museum) or the Aussie B.20 that went over there either.

Canberra gets my vote as they entered service at my old local:eek:

V1

163 RAE
 

I flew 163 at RAE (RRS) It was used for a variety of trials flights and like many of our fleet it was a mixture of types. The earlier Canberra marks, but not the PR9, had transport joints just behind the cockpit that could join bits together. Over time the reshuffled bits seemed to go their separate ways and I am not sure which bits went where. We may be fairly sure the wings and centre fuselage are original .

Air Platforms Inc of Lakeport, California.

That article about the altitude record is a very interesting read.
Only 10k short of a U2.
What would it have taken to get the Canberra to FL80?
Lengthened wings - even moreso than the RB-57D?
Or would the airframe need to have been completely redesigned due to coffin corner restrictions?

EDIT - my question answered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...Specifications

Would not want to have a EFATO on that beast - bad enough on lower powered models

We had a RB-57F operating out of Tengah in the late 60s ... take-off was always conducted on "partial power", and full power only applied at about 300' agl or so. At that point it then went up rather steeply!

reduced power take off
 

It was normal practice on the 9 to set 85% for take off and only apply full power once airborne above safety speed with the gear up. 85% RPM gave about half thrust

Ah, those big over-powered gliders, eh? :D

Interesting parallel ... thanks for that snippet. :ok:

Thanks GeeRam

V1

Air Platforms Inc went bust a good many years ago, and both Canberra's are now registered to High Altitude Mapping Missions Inc. of Spokane, WA, and both have still current FAA certs., valid until 2018 according to the FAA Registry, so both could still be airworthy..??

So that's the spares source sorted then.......;)

World War Two fanatic puts Worcestershire hoard up for auction - BBC News

Usual editorial accuracy from the beeb.

POST EDITED - To prevent stupid rumours I heard getting spread.

Very.....:ok:

Unfortunately there is no truth in this at all. VTTST had the last eight Olympus 202 engines that were acceptable to RR; it was the lack of willingness of the latter to support them post 2015 (due they said to a lack of sufficient competence within the company) that grounded the Vulcan.

Fair enough, I will hold hands up and say I was stupid enough to believe a mate of a mate story.

wonderboysteve, this is actually only partly true. Martin Withers was asked the exact reason for ceasing flying in an event I attended and this is what he said as I recall.

It was Marshalls who were unwilling to continue OEM support beyond 2015. VTTS did find an alternative company (Cranfield) who were willing to assume the role, but Cranfield were not acceptable to RR. So you could argue it was Marshall's that pulled the plug rather than RR, as RR were willing to continue further if Marshalls had not withdrawn. The remaining engines, through careful management, had sufficient life for a few more seasons.

What was the mtbf on the engines at the end of their Service life or VTTS? In early days IIRC it was well below 1000hrs.

It depends, whether with or without added silica gel

The engines hours were irrelevant as RR insisted VTTS operated their engines up to a maximum number of cycles. A cycle being going from throttle fully closed to fully open and back again - or incrementes thereof.

In the early years VTTS were using engine cycles at an unsustainable rate due to the sort of flying they were doing, but adapted how they flew transit flights and even displays to essentially try and leave the throttles alone and in the same position as much as possible. To this end they were managing to get a lot more "hours" from the engines and had sufficient cycles remaining for a few more seasons beyond 2015.

The engines destroyed by the silica gell were reportedly very nearly at their end of their allowed cycles anyway. Even if they were not it turned out this error wasn't to cause the end of flying. Of course this is just the official line VTTS have reported.

Gsxr, if you were answering my question it was not what I was asking.

IIRC the expected time between failures resulting in a shut down and engine change was 1000 hrs. However I know many cases where the engines got nowhere near that with 300 hours, perhaps one year's use before an unscheduled change.

Did this improve over the following 15 years?

I believe that the silica gel practice came about as a result of VTTS failing to prevent corrosion on turbine discs by proper storage. RR's first reaction to the degree of corrosion was to scrap them. I think they did get around to some form of recovery eventually. While I wasn't involved, I believe RR was not too happy about the competence of VTTS which may have coloured their view of the change from Marshalls. I believe the CAA would have also had to approve the change to Cranfield; did they have any issues?

EAP