My question is quite simple - was there ever a project to create (or just study the possibility of?) a UK platform similar to the U2?
I've started this thread in the 'Bar' as I didn't wish to clutter up the 'Post War' section if answers came back in the negative. I presume it can be moved if appropriate to do so..?
Canberra PR9 is similar in role and performance to the U-2 (i.e. 70,000 ft photo-reconnaissance). As far as a dedicated follow-on to the Canberra by English Electric or another British firm, idk. Of course, the RAF flew the U-2 in the late 1950's and early 60's under the cover of meteorological flights.
Thanks for that both. Hadn't realised the PR9 went that high...
Confession time - I was hoping for something analogous to the U2 for a modelling (R/C) project with at least some drawing that looked faintly official to back up my assertion that it was 'aeroplane Y from company X'.
there is mention of a U2 equivalent Hunter in an article by R. Braybrook in an old issue of Air Enthusiast. I have not come across any corresponding drawing of such a design at Brooklands tho (that's not to say it didn't exist as the other types mentioned in the piece check out)
there is mention of a U2 equivalent Hunter in a piece by R. Braybrook in an old issue of Air Enthusiast. I have not come across any corresponding drawing of such a design at Brooklands tho (that's not to say it didn't exist as the other types mentioned in the piece check out)
I'm not sure the Canberra PR.9 could actually get to 70,000ft. It's hard to discover actual figures, but early tests showed climb dropped off more quickly than expected above 50,000ft. Most of the operational equipment (cameras and sensors) was only cleared to around 50-55,000ft. Some comments elsewhere suggest aircraft topped out around 60-63,000 ft, but if so, it's not clear that was a practical and regular operational altitude. Of course, if someone has a copy of the PR.9 Operating Data Manual which says otherwise ...
TsrJoe's Hunter-based concept or the Swift fuselage based one that Robunos mentions are exactly the sort of thing I'm after. Thank you for the leads. Now to try to find a 3-view with hopefully a few dimensions.
I've seen an image of the Swift-based proposal somewhere, but I'm d@mned if I can remember where. It has a standard Swift fuselage, but the intakes are scarfed backwards at about 45 degrees. It has long tapered unswept wings attached in the standard place, that is, it's low-winged. I would have thought it would have been on here, bit I just can't find it . . .
I'm not sure the Canberra PR.9 could actually get to 70,000ft. It's hard to discover actual figures, but early tests showed climb dropped off more quickly than expected above 50,000ft. Most of the operational equipment (cameras and sensors) was only cleared to around 50-55,000ft. Some comments elsewhere suggest aircraft topped out around 60-63,000 ft, but if so, it's not clear that was a practical and regular operational altitude. Of course, if someone has a copy of the PR.9 Operating Data Manual which says otherwise ...
Very much a special case, though, this was a zoom climb with a rocket in the bomb bay. Just a couple of years later (1959), they managed to get an XF4H1 Phantom up to nearly 100,000 feet without even the benefit of a rocket.
28 August 1957: Michael Randrup, Chief Test Pilot of D. Napier and Son, Ltd., and Walter Shirley, Deputy Chief Engineer, fly this Royal Air Force/English Electric Canberra B Mk.2, WK163, to an altitude of 21,430 meters (70,308 feet) over southern England. This set a new Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) World Record for altitude.¹
WK163 with rocket engine installed in its bomb bay. (Institution of Mechanical Engineers)
The Canberra was being used to test Napier’s Double Scorpion NSc D1-2 rocket engine, which was used to drive the airplane far beyond its normal service ceiling of 48,000 feet (14,630 meters).
After taking off from Luton, Bedfordshire, at 5:26 p.m., Mike Randrup used the Canberra’s two 6,500-pounds-thrust (28.91 kilonewtons) Rolls-Royce Avon RA.3 Mk. 101 turbojet engines to climb to 44,000 feet (13,411 meters), where he throttled the engines back to cruising r.p.m. and then ignited the Double Scorpion. The Canberra climbed at a very steep angle until reaching the peak altitude.
English Electric Canberra B Mk.2 WK163. (Institution of Mechanical Engineers)
At this high altitude, there is an extremely narrow margin between the airplane’s stall speed and it’s critical Mach number—the point at which supersonic shock waves start to form on the wings and fuselage. On an Airspeed Limitations Chart, this area is known as “Coffin Corner.” Aerodynamicists had calculated that Randrup needed to keep the Canberra within a 15-knot range of airspeed.
Though the Canberra’s cockpit was pressurized, both Mike Randrup and Walter Shirley wore pressure suits in case of emergency.
The "flight manuals" advertised on web are normally Pilot's Notes, which don't normally include performance data. For performance data you need the ODM - and I've never seen a PR.9 ODM on sale.
The "flight manuals" advertised on web are normally Pilot's Notes, which don't normally include performance data. For performance data you need the ODM - and I've never seen a PR.9 ODM on sale.
Okay, I have to put my hand up and apologise, I was mistaken about the Shorts' project, I was mis-remembering the PD.10 as a high-altitude reconnaissance type, when it was in fact a test aircraft for the Shorts' 'Aero-isoclinic' wing concept, as a follow on from the SB.5 Sherpa . . .
Okay, I have to put my hand up and apologise, I was mistaken about the Shorts' project, I was mis-remembering the PD.10 as a high-altitude reconnaissance type, when it was in fact a test aircraft for the Shorts' 'Aero-isoclinic' wing concept, as a follow on from the SB.5 Sherpa . . .
I recall that some specific PR9 airframes performed better than others, especially with regard to altitude.
I don’t understand the comment about the camera kit being rated for 55k feet, the camera bays were heated, and insulated, and the various camera options would give images in all situations. Of course the higher you went the lower resolution, but lenses could be changed.
I recall that some specific PR9 airframes performed better than others, especially with regard to altitude.
I don’t understand the comment about the camera kit being rated for 55k feet, the camera bays were heated, and insulated, and the various camera options would give images in all situations. Of course the higher you went the lower resolution, but lenses could be changed.
My understanding is that the statement that equipment is "cleared" or "authorised" for use up to a certain altitude in an AP means it has been formally tested and certified for use - via C(A) release or whatever - up to that altitude. Whether it will work at higher altitude is another thing.
I see from Hesham's post of today's date that there was also a Gloster Javelin based PR concept (P.348). It appears to be a long span development of the Javelin.
I recall that some specific PR9 airframes performed better than others, especially with regard to altitude.
I don’t understand the comment about the camera kit being rated for 55k feet, the camera bays were heated, and insulated, and the various camera options would give images in all situations. Of course the higher you went the lower resolution, but lenses could be changed.
My understanding is that the statement that equipment is "cleared" or "authorised" for use up to a certain altitude in an AP means it has been formally tested and certified for use - via C(A) release or whatever - up to that altitude. Whether it will work at higher altitude is another thing.
Given they developed a special version of an aircraft, just for high altitude PR, I would be amazed if the kit wasn’t certified to the rated ability. Also would suggest the published altitude performance would actually be incorrect, as it was published at the height of the Cold War. These were the days of huge Defense expenditure. Also the cameras were pretty bullet proof, the only thing that’s happening is further temperature change, and Heating, and insulated curtains were provided to prevent any issues.
I recall that some specific PR9 airframes performed better than others, especially with regard to altitude.
I don’t understand the comment about the camera kit being rated for 55k feet, the camera bays were heated, and insulated, and the various camera options would give images in all situations. Of course the higher you went the lower resolution, but lenses could be changed.
My understanding is that the statement that equipment is "cleared" or "authorised" for use up to a certain altitude in an AP means it has been formally tested and certified for use - via C(A) release or whatever - up to that altitude. Whether it will work at higher altitude is another thing.
Yes,
Certification standards often limit ceilings to well below what the airframe and engine(s) are capable of.
For example, civilian certification standards get considerably more complex (pressurization, emergency oxygen, etc.) above 25,000 feet, so many twin turbo-props (e.g. DHC -5 Buffalo) and only certified to cruise at 25,000 feet, even if they have demonstrated strong climb and stability well above those altitudes. Buffalos even set several time-to-climb world records when they were introduced!
OTOH no air force published accurate ranges or ceilings or payloads - during the Cold War - for fear that bad guys would learn how to shoot them down. Best to keep the enemy guessing.
From some other sites, seems 63k was frequently used, and some stories of 70k.
the camera fit listed was a very early fit, a lot of other kit was fitted over the years, and I can assure you they worked at all altitudes. The cameras were very reliable, as was the whole aircraft.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
