EE Canberra, Evolution, Variants and Projects

Abraham Gubler said:
The PR.9 was built from 1958-62 by Shorts. The RB-56D was in service in 1956 and the RB-56F had its first flight in June 63.
Click to expand...

Just so that we get our timescales right, 32 PR.9's were ordered around mid 1954. The prototype WH793 (a converted PR.7) first flew on 8th July 1955.

Regards Bailey.
 
originally posted by Hesham

hypothetical VTOL Canberra.

http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=L-u1IH1Drw4C&pg=PA60&dq=Aircraft+%22Vertical+Take-Off%22&hl=ar&ei=PihtTN-tGJiUOMKOlbAL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Aircraft%20%22Vertical%20Take-Off%22&f=true
 

Attachments

  • Canberra.JPG
    Canberra.JPG
    23.7 KB · Views: 390
The VTOL Canberra was exhibited at a conference by Short managers to prove that VTOL was silly for recce aircraft : either you put into your airframe fuel tank for range or lift engines for VTOL but not both.

JCC
 
alertken said:
S.Ranson/R.Fairclough,English Electric A/C,Putnam,1987,P.157 has A.1 ripe for the chop, due industry inability to do its radar and the Medium Bombers' more or less concurrently. Just-in-time the Berlin Blockade began. US came up with MDAP and funded visual Canberra B.2. The gate guard at Salmesbury should be a statue of Stalin.
Click to expand...

Humphrey Wynn 'RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces'; Effectively confirms this, industrial weakness that is. Firstly the development of the H2S Mk9 lagged seriously behind that of the development of the aircraft. It then reached the point whereby continued development would cause delay to the H2S Mk9A for the Valiant and would require simultaneous manufacture with that variant. Thus the decision was taken to focus that equipment on the medium bombers. The Canberra B.1 prototypes, are as far as I can tell, the design that would have taken the H2S Mk9 (though perhaps in a different nose) but that the B.1 variant was never cleared for production. Instead, the B.2 is produced which relies on visuals and Gee-H MkII for weapons aiming. This effectively cripples the design and leaves its defined role as "support of the land battle within 250 miles of the Front Line". One can only assume that this affects the shift from Plan H (560 light bombers + 152 medium) to Plan K (less light for 240 mediums).
 
Although not on the subject........
I read there were plans with letter names.
Can you tell me more about this?
The Belgian Air Force also used letter names. There first plan A was formed with the creation of the Western Union. Did the RAF started to give their plans letter names too at the end of the forties?
You can tell me more about them or refer me to a place where i can read more about them?
 
SLL #10 Canberra nukes. Belated response faute de mieux. I have 503 RAF B.2/6/8 of which following carried nukes:
1. Saceur Tactical Bomber Force: 48 US Mk.7, held at Coningsby, shared by 9 &12 Sqds., 35/Upwood, 139/Binbrook, 2/7/59-13/7/61. Many of these aircraft converted, 1961/62, by BAC/Filton to be 38xB.15, by MCE/Teversham to be 19xB.16, all for:
2. NEAF/Akrotiri: 32 U/E, 4 Sqdns., Red Beard, 28/11/61-24/2/69. FEAF: 45 Sqdn/Tengah, 8 U/E B.15, 9/62-2/70. (On {your} t-n thread I have no dedicated FEAF RBs).
3. Saceur 2/ATAF: 64 US Mk.7: 16 B(I)6, 5/58-1966; 48 B(I)8, 5/58-1966. US B-43(x2): B(I)6, 1966-5/12/69; B(I)8, 1966-6/6/72.

SLL: V-escape. I, too, recall an F-111-ish capsule in 1947. Given a 5-ton Bomb, given that RAE had closed down 1946 Bomber design efforts as Wellsian fantasy, decisions to have (2-of-5) escape, no armament, no in-flight refuelling, were payload-range driven - the art of the possible.
 
I don't doubt you, Ken, but what's the source for the nuclear B.Mk 6 units?

And why did 551 Wing in Germany use a mushroom cloud as the wing badge? ;)
 
Wynn,P.369 has Saceur 13/10/60 observing scramble at Marham, 207/Valiant plus 9, 12 & 35 on Canberras (no Mk. stated). 139 was disbanded 31/12/59. I have Mk.7 in TBF from 2/7/59, so 64 a/c endured only to 12/59, then became 48 bombs, intended to be replaced by 24 dual-carriage Valiants. (Wynn,P.367).

Only now do I grasp the point made of "uncertain" Canberra nuke Units, and SLL's query on B.2 nuke: no record of 35 Sqdn B.6. R.Jackson, C-the Operational Record, has 36 B.2s passing through 35 Sqdn, but no B.6s. My log of Bomber Command's nuke overfly at Farnborough,9/61, has 35 Sqdn on B.2. So: how did Saceur rely to 7/61 on 48 TBF nuke Canberras?
 
So, to my own Q: (P.) data points here are Wynn except my date 2/7/59 for TBF Mk.7 (P.609 has RAFG as the first with Mk.7, 5/5/58: Coningsby did/Binbrook did not have an SSA; 9 Sqdn moved over 2/6/59, 12 Sqdn 2/7/69).

(P.124) In 1956 "most Sqdns had U/E of 10 a/c" (UK; MEAF, 8), but:
(P.156: in late-1957: "running costs of 3 Valiant Sqdns at 24 U/E approx. the same (as) 4 Canberra Sqdns. at 64 U/E");
(P.365) 22/7/58: A.M. proposal to provide Saceur: "an assigned Force of 24 Valiants in replacement of 64 Canberras in BC at present assigned to him" (P.367) but that in late 1959 it was found that Saceur's approval assumed dual-carriage, such that) "each Valiant would replace 2 nuclear-capable Canberras." (my bold)

So: all 64 Canberras in 1958 carried HE; in late-1959 TBF Canberras had 48 Bombs.

I offer these as the 7/58 64 Canberras:
24xB.6: 9, 12, 139 Sqdns/Binbrook:
8xB.6: 76 Sqdn (moved Hemswell-Upwood, 17/7/58);
8xB.6:100 Sqdn/Wittering (disbanded, on HE, 1/9/59 after Mk.7 was deployed)
40 B.6
12 B.2: 35 Sqdn/Upwood;
12 B.2: 50 Sqdn/Binbrook (disbanded, on HE, 1/10/59 after Mk.7 was deployed).

These, I suggest, were the late-1959 48 nuke-Canberras:
32 B.6: 9 & !2 Sqdns/Coningsby. Drawing from that SSA:
8 B.6: 76 Sqdn/Upwood (R.Jackson has 11 a/c passing through this Unit, which disbanded 31/12/60)
8 B.6: 139 Sqdn/Binbrook, 2/7/59-31/12/59. On 1/1/60 207 Sqdn/Valiant/Mk.5, Marham displaced this Sqdn; on 13/7/61 it plus 49 & 148 Sqdns/Valiant/Marham, all, dual Mk.28, displaced 9 & 12 Sqdns. TBF had 40, not 48 Bombs, 1/1/-13/7/61.

35 Sqdn/B.2 retained HE, even as they trailed in the nuke stream over Farnborough 9/9/61 before disbanding 11/9/61. Saceur never had 64 nuclear-capable TBF Canberras.

Howzat!?

Unless someone can match B.2 with this: P.254: ML Avn. delivered (Mk.7 bomb)carriers to MUs with the Aero 61B Rack -"the only item likely to give the show away".
 
Chris Gibson mentions in Vulcans Hammer that a rotary bomb bay was planned for the Canberra. I assume that this would have been virtually identical to the one used on the Martin B-57, does anybody have any more details?
 
Air Min and EECo were keen on it, one flew with a mock-up, but that took too long and by the time it did, the Air Min was skint, so it never happened.

There's a Canberra specialist on here who can provide further detail.

Chris
 
sealordlawrence said:
Kelly,

Thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...

Kelly is the part of a drill pipe that is connected to the rotation system, the Kelly Bushing the thing in between the Kelly and the rotary table. I think our famous Royal Observer friend has used some of his day trade lingo for an online handle. Kelly Bushings are surprisingly significant when talking about rotary bomb bays considering they are invariably removable entities and would require some kind of slot mechanism to lock them into place.
 
...is the correct answer. I didn't fancy Camp Boss and Toolpusher was out of the question.

I might ask about the Canberra rotary bomb bay on my next trip to Warton. However, last time I was looking into matters more relevant to the job in hand - the P.10.

Chris
 
BSP mentions why the original central single engine design was not suitable but why were the engines put so far out on the wing, would they have been better mounted alongside the fuselage such that the nacelle forms part of the fueslage?
 
Many twinjets fom the forties had a similar layout. German: He 280, Me 262, Ar 234. British: Meteor, Canberra. Russian: Il-28, Su-9, Tu-14, Mikoyan I-260. Occasionally, the Americans used it as well - Curtiss F-87. <edit> Just remembered the F-87 had four engines. D'oh. No American examples come to mind then.</edit>
It may have had something to do with reducing interference from the fuselage with the intakes.
 
Arjen said:
Many twinjets fom the forties had a similar layout. German: He 280, Me 262, Ar 234. British: Meteor, Canberra. Russian: Il-28, Su-9, Tu-14, Mikoyan I-260. Occasionally, the Americans used it as well - Curtiss F-87.
It may have had something to do with reducing interference from the fuselage with the intakes.
Click to expand...

The Bell Airacomet had engines flush against the fuselage...be interesting to know if that was responsible for any problems.

The same question on engine mounting could be asked about the Gloster Meteor.

I wonder if the engine position had something to do with 'we've always put our engines here'..
 
Very nice find!
Very interesting!
Would have been a very cost effective approach I would think, capitalising on the success of the Canberra design.
I would like to know more ;)


Regards
Pioneer
 
hesham said:
from Aeroplane Monthly June 1999.
Click to expand...

A better scan from the same page:
 

Attachments

  • English Electric B.3~45 (AM 1999-06).jpg
    English Electric B.3~45 (AM 1999-06).jpg
    214.8 KB · Views: 1,074
From http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal_43a_Seminar_The_Canberra_in_the_RAF.pdf (a great read)
 

Attachments

  • WestlandTwinJet1944.png
    WestlandTwinJet1944.png
    177.5 KB · Views: 880
  • WestlandJetBomber1945.png
    WestlandJetBomber1945.png
    108.2 KB · Views: 476
  • CanberraMockup.png
    CanberraMockup.png
    380.2 KB · Views: 513
Excellent my dear Paul,and great find.
 
Hi,


here is a clearer view to Canberra as a civil transport aircraft project,also from
the site via my dear Paul;


http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal_43a_Seminar_The_Canberra_in_the_RAF.pdf
 

Attachments

  • EE Canberra civil.png
    EE Canberra civil.png
    78.6 KB · Views: 414
index.php



This (earlier in topic :))
 
Make it Buccaneer shaped....save a lot of arguments later on....... :)
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
This (earlier in topic :) )
Click to expand...

Btw do you have any idea what engines were envisaged for this version?

P.
 
Petrus said:
Btw do you have any idea what engines were envisaged for this version?

P.
Click to expand...

RR AJ65 (the later Avon), mentined on page 12 of that paper.
 
Would wing root engines have been better for engine out handling?

I've seen it written at least for the Meteor that a lot of crashes were caused by engine out handling problems.
 
From Air Pictorial 2/1958,


here is a strange Info about English Electric Canberra,fitted with rocket or ramjet
engine the wingtips,does anyone hear about this project,or can imagine what it
looks like ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    65.3 KB · Views: 715
Last edited:
One major spinoff of the Canberra was of course the Martin B-57 series of aircraft. -SP
 
A good idea for a STOVL Canberra can be found here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,23842.0.html#new

I've moved it to that section, as there may be the danger, that one day it would pop up
somewhere as a "real project", because it was shown here. ;)

Steve Pace said:
One major spinoff of the Canberra was of course the Martin B-57 series of aircraft. -SP
Click to expand...

The US Martin variants and projects will get an own topic. There are several threads, too...
 
An extremely stupid idea. One motor on wing tip goes tits up; the other throws the aircraft into an uncontrollable spin.
 
In regards to the original Canberra layout of a single Avon powerplant, with wing root intakes a model of this configuration is held by BAe Archives at Warton. I saw it myself when visiting around 9 years ago, and it was sat on the desk which formerly belonged to Teddy Petter, and after him Roland Beamont!
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom