English Electric Canberra B.Mk.5 Question

[Hood]

The prototype B.5, VX185, was converted from a PR.3 on the production line.

I wondered if anyone could confirm whether VX185 had the additional 14-inch section of the PR.3 or whether it was completed to the standard Canberra length?

VX185 was later converted to B(I).8 standard but the original nose section survives at East Fortune, but the aft bulkhead is ahead of where the longer ex-camera bay section would have been.
I am supposing that since VX185 became a B(I).8 that it probably was a standard bomber fuselage - but I'm just guessing here.

 

[nuuumannn]

I am supposing that since VX185 became a B(I).8 that it probably was a standard bomber fuselage - but I'm just guessing here.

Having a look through what I can find in my Canberra references, I can't find dimensions for the B.5, but using my Mk.I eyeball and searching images of VX185 as it was completed (before B(I).8 conversion), it appears to match the length of a B.2.

Compare the following image with that of a PR.3. Click on the photograph of VX185 on the ebay page for a bigger one.

GENUINE PHOTOGRAPH R.A.F. ENGLISH ELECTRIC Canberra B5 VX185 -RECORD BREAKER- | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for GENUINE PHOTOGRAPH R.A.F. ENGLISH ELECTRIC Canberra B5 VX185 -RECORD BREAKER- at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!

www.ebay.co.uk

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Canberra-VX181/Canberra_VX181_Photo_BAE_Systems_Heritge_Centre_Warton.jpg

The section at East Fortune begins at the aft wall of the nose undercarriage bay; compare the ebay photograph of VX185 with the line on the PR.3 prototype VX181 photograph above and note the position of the engine intakes in relation to the nose gear doors.

 

[yellowaster]

The prototype B.5, VX185, was converted from a PR.3 on the production line.

I don't think that's correct. The history of the Canberra prototypes is a bit convoluted, so tricky to follow, but primary sources I've seen say VX185 (originally the tenth prototype) was originally scheduled as a T.4 (T2/49), rescheduled as a B.5 (B22/48) in mid-49.

 

[Hood]

I don't think that's correct. The history of the Canberra prototypes is a bit convoluted, so tricky to follow, but primary sources I've seen say VX185 (originally the tenth prototype) was originally scheduled as a T.4 (T2/49), rescheduled as a B.5 (B22/48) in mid-49.

I've seen the claim online, but I think from the information from you an nuuumann it would seem that claim is false given the fuselage length and if you've seen the original contract docs then its good enough proof for me.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

I'm all confused now, so was it a PR.3 prototype or not? Most online sources would lead you to believe that it was, but I'm taking everything with a pinch of salt.

 

[Hood]

It would seem there is some confusion over the PR.3 prototype.
The VX181 is often quoted with two different dates for its maiden flight - 19 March 1950 and 19 March 1951.
There are dozens of online sources quoting both dates - the RAF Museum and Wiki being among the former and other sites such as UK Serials quote the latter based on the record cards and several books state 1951.
An RAF Historical Society paper 'The Canberra in the RAF; even quotes both dates in the same document!

BAE System's NWHG book Test Flying in Lancashire, vol.1 confirms the date as 19 March 1951
So 1951 is correct but somewhere a typo of 1950 seems to have become widely accepted - even by the RAF Museum! Perhaps too much careless repetition of online 'facts'?

The NWHG book also states that the B.5 VX185 was originally due to be a PR.3.
I would say irrespective of whether the serial was re-assigned from a PR.3 or T.4 order, the B.5 was completed with a standard length fuselage (as we well know the wings were that of the B.6 variant).
Certainly photographic evidence of VX185 as the B(I).8 prototype shows no sign of the longer camera bay behind the main bulkhead where the noses were switched.