• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

EE Canberra, Evolution, Variants and Projects

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
148
multiple manufacturers who had worked with the Canberra design in various ways. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that they would simply have gone to the US for assistance unless you can provide a source.[/quote]

Woah, retrospective national pride moment…

The point was and is that if you want to have an idea of what a big wing Canberra would be like then you can look to the RB-57D/F. There really aren’t that many ways you can make a wing wider and add more engine power to an aircraft. Even if the hypothetical ‘all UK’ big wing Canberra was ever designed it would have looked a lot like the American versions. Since this UK proposal came after the Americans were already flying and even replacing their big wing Canberras then the UK would have been inspired from that source, even if they wouldn’t admit it.
 

Bailey

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
309
Reaction score
5
According to Barry Jones, English Electric Canberra and Martin B-57, Crowood. "The ultra-high altitude potential of the Canberra had been realised from the Beginning".

With regard to the increase in span, Barry comments "When the designers got down to the detailed calculations, they realised that simply increasing the span would effect the aircrafts existing Mach trim and buffet limits. Consequently, the answer was considered to be a generous increase in the centre-section chord between the fuselage and engine nacelles, coupled with a slight increase in overall span".

Regards Bailey.
 

Bailey

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
309
Reaction score
5
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.

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.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,015
Reaction score
817
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: 292

JC Carbonel

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
206
Reaction score
40
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
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,033
Reaction score
774
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.

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).
 

valken56

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
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?
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
595
Reaction score
159
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.
 

Jackonicko

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
25
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? ;)
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
595
Reaction score
159
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?
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
595
Reaction score
159
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".
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,033
Reaction score
774
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?
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,424
Reaction score
638
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
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
148
sealordlawrence said:
Kelly,

Thanks for the reply.

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.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,424
Reaction score
638
...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
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
82
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?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,700
Reaction score
471
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.
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
82
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.

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'..
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
189
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
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,236
Reaction score
431
hesham said:
from Aeroplane Monthly June 1999.

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: 954

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,262
Reaction score
3,149
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: 766
  • WestlandJetBomber1945.png
    WestlandJetBomber1945.png
    108.2 KB · Views: 344
  • CanberraMockup.png
    CanberraMockup.png
    380.2 KB · Views: 371

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,508
Reaction score
3,365
Excellent my dear Paul,and great find.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,508
Reaction score
3,365
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: 286

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
888
Seems to have been a really interesting lecture, thanks for pointing us to it !
The paper mentions a proposal made during July 1945, with sewpt wings and engines
in the wing roots. Do we have a reasonable drawing of it ? That sketch is based on the
single engined forerunner and the description only.
 

Attachments

  • Canberra_July_1945.png
    Canberra_July_1945.png
    31.9 KB · Views: 158

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,262
Reaction score
3,149



This (earlier in topic :))
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
888
Ah, ok, had just a quick look during lunch break ... and crumbs on ther keyboard ... :-\
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
82
Make it Buccaneer shaped....save a lot of arguments later on....... :)
 

Petrus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
221
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
This (earlier in topic :) )

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

P.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
888
Petrus said:
Btw do you have any idea what engines were envisaged for this version?

P.

RR AJ65 (the later Avon), mentined on page 12 of that paper.
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
82
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.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,508
Reaction score
3,365
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: 598

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
34
One major spinoff of the Canberra was of course the Martin B-57 series of aircraft. -SP
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
888
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

The US Martin variants and projects will get an own topic. There are several threads, too...
 
Top