It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

thread of Canberra

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
The Canberra is the best light-weight bomber in history up to now I think. Someone who are aviation expert have said that if Canberra joint Korea war, there is no fighter can intercept it becaurse its high speed reach 1000km/h.
The light-weight bomber can carry over 8 tons fuel inside and load 5 tons bomb, the payload which most of Soviet light-bomber have no capability to be close at that time.
For this great bomber, I still have some confusion mind.
First, I saw some caberra B.8 maybe which pilots come into cockpit are not from canopy but the side of fuselage, whereas the seat in this canberra is paratactic. So what a unconveniet designation on Canberra I think?
Then I saw some cockpit of Canberra that is not being mid-line on Canberra. This is verry interesting as so few airplane has still have cockpit that not being mid-line after WW2. Why the Canberra is such special?
The next one is as I mentioned previously, why the Canberra didn't go to Korea bettlefield?




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The problem with judging which aircraft is the best is the question of what do you judge it against? Whilst the Canberra was a superb aircraft in lots of ways it is clearly vastly inferior to today's machinery but in comparison to its peers it was indeed excellent.

If we are simply to judge light bombers by reference what else was available at the time the I would propose the Mosquito.

The fastest thing in the air when it entered service it was an incredibly versatile machine and took part in many of the most notable raids of the war. Of particular importance was the fact that, against the background of WWII shortages of raw materials, it could be easily be manufactured due to its wooden frame.

In addition, of course, powered by two Merlins it sounded simply divine which clinches it I think.


[edit on 15-8-2006 by timeless test]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The first Australian built Canberra Bomber was first flown in May 1953 and entered service in December 1953. The Korean war was over before before we got them.

www.diggerhistory.info...

FATMAN



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by fatman
The first Australian built Canberra Bomber was first flown in May 1953 and entered service in December 1953. The Korean war was over before before we got them.

www.diggerhistory.info...

FATMAN


No, The Canberra first flew on Friday May 13th 1949 and entered service as a bomber with the RAF in 1952
www.nms.ac.uk...
What I post above is prototype of CANBERRA



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
He said Australian Canberra emile, apart from EE at Warton, the Canberra was also produced in Australia and the USA.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Is it in service today with any other air force other than the Indian Air Force ?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Stealth Spy:
I don't think the Cnaberra bomber still be in service in Indian airforce. Think anout even a fighter no matter any one in IAF could carry over 5 tons bombs. The only one superior capapbility of Canberra just has longer combat radius.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
He said Australian Canberra emile, apart from EE at Warton, the Canberra was also produced in Australia and the USA.

Waynos:
The canberra producted in UK was in service in 1952. So I think it can joint Korea war.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
They also built the Canberra at the Short Bros. factory in Belfast (we had one fly over to mark the 50th anniversary a couple of weeks back).

Fine aircraft doing a job which was very useful (and at much less cost than designing and building a brand new plane).

The Canberra started off with a symetrical and conventional 'bomber style' canopy (with, as said, entrance up through a door in the side) for the 3 crewmen and which included the then conventional bomb aimers prone bombsight position.

Later versions had an asymetric 'fighter style' cockpit canopy layout and IIRC 2 crew.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Well, I don't think the early version of Canberra's cockpit is so convenient. The pilots have to entry B.2 from right side small lobby door whereas the seat in B.2 version was fitted as side by side. If the pilot should sit on left seat, he have to move cross the right seat. According to the picture that show cockpit of Cnaberra, the cockpit inside is really crowded, that's why the B-57 change to tandem seat I think.
The big problem still stay in my brain is why and how the third crew pilot get into the back cockpit? And for B/PR.9 vertion, how collocate the second pilot seat and third pilot seat? So I think I need a cutaway of Canberra espcially for PR.9 version. If someone flew the Canberra before or has been invited to visit the inside Canberra, please tell me how exactly it is?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I think you maybe have the wrong idea here emile.

The pilot position was on it's own and in front of the 2 other crew.

The navigator and the 'bomb aimer' (.....well, it was designed in the immeadiate post-war period) sat behind the pilot (if you see a picture looking down on the upper fuselage you'll see 2 small 'windows' behind the main canopy, that's where the 2 other crew sat, behind the pilot).

In later versions the navigator moved to sit in front of the pilot.

The first of the new aircraft, known as B(I)8s, flew for the first time on 23 July 1954, with the first deliveries to No. 88 Sqn at Wildenrath beginning in mid-1956. These aircraft featured a revised fighter-style cockpit, offset to port to improve visibility for the pilot. The navigator's position was also move forward of the pilot into the nose, and did not have an ejection seat.

www.fas.org...

- No bang seat, eeek!


Also take another look at the beastie, the Canberra is actually a lot bigger than maybe you think......perhaps her low posture (which caused problems when landing her) on the ground makes for a bit of an illusion?


- A very handsome and well proportioned aircraft IMO, a classic case if it looking right and being right.
Given the infancy of the technology and the planes excellent qualities and outstanding abilities right from the off this was no mean feat
(so good even the Americans bought her, now that is unusual!).

I hope that clears it up.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I think you maybe have the wrong idea here emile.
The pilot position was on it's own and in front of the 2 other crew.

Very well, then how do you explain to me why there are two control handgrips show in Canberra's cockpit of this pic?


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The navigator and the 'bomb aimer' (.....well, it was designed in the immeadiate post-war period) sat behind the pilot (if you see a picture looking down on the upper fuselage you'll see 2 small 'windows' behind the main canopy, that's where the 2 other crew sat, behind the pilot).

Yes, you are right! This picture has already proved what you had said.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
In later versions the navigator moved to sit in front of the pilot.

The first of the new aircraft, known as B(I)8s, flew for the first time on 23 July 1954, with the first deliveries to No. 88 Sqn at Wildenrath beginning in mid-1956. These aircraft featured a revised fighter-style cockpit, offset to port to improve visibility for the pilot. The navigator's position was also move forward of the pilot into the nose, and did not have an ejection seat.

www.fas.org...

But this extenal quote you made are not so clear. According to this picture showed, I only saw a lobby door beside of fuselage, but I hard to image that somewhere in front of this door could contain two crews whereas no words say the late version has less crews than early version's.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by emile]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Sorry, this is double post, excrescent!


[edit on 17-8-2006 by emile]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
Very well, then how do you explain to me why there are two control handgrips show in Canberra's cockpit of this pic?


- I can't.

I can say my book sources tell of the original design having a single pilot and 2 crew behind him.

There were various marks and uses to which the plane was put, perhaps there were later variants or even small numbers or one-offs with this arrangement (IIRC the Bmk6 was more - or maybe it is more accurate to say could be outfitted as more of a fighter-bomber-interdictor having an enormous gun-pack under the belly....perhaps this version had a more 'fighter-like' arrangement?)?


Yes, you are right! (This picture) has already proved what you had said.


- Yeah that's my understanding of the accommodation.


But this extenal quote you made are not so clear.

I hard to image that somewhere in front of this door could contain two crews whereas no words say the late version has less crews than early version's.


- If you look at the picture you can see that forward of the canopy (which housed the pilot alone) there is a 'frangible' panel - with ejection seat warning red triangle signs - above where navigator would have sat (just as your 2nd pic of an earlier version shows it - with red warning triangles - behind the cockpit glazing).

Perhaps - if there still was a 3rd crewman in this version with the off-set 'fighter style canopy - he remained behind the pilot's position?

Again I can only say that my book source 'The British Bomber since 1914' by Francis K Mason (Putnam; ISBN 0 85177 861 5) mentions 2 and 3 seat versions.

(Annoyingly & rather amazingly there doesn't seem to be a lot of info on this to link to, I would if I could emile, sorry.)



[edit on 17-8-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Perhaps - if there still was a 3rd crewman in this version with the off-set 'fighter style canopy - he remained behind the pilot's position?

I don't think so. There is no space can be contain single man even who are standing. I prefer to believe the Canberra B.8 reduce its crew from three to two. But just "believe" no evidence. I will search cutawawy to prove.
Then could you please help me to find a fastest speed record of Canberra, since you have book but I don't.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Now this is ironic.
My book doesn't talk about the record flights at all!


But I can find links for some of this history.


You'll find comment about the later model 2 man crew in Wiki, emile.

en.wikipedia.org...

There's mention of record flights here -


Upon entering service the Canberra set several world records, it was the first jet aeroplane to fly the Atlantic non stop, the first double crossing of the Atlantic and held the world altitude record on three occasions, finishing with a record of 70,319 ft.
All told the Canberra held twenty point to point world records and five unofficial records.

freespace.virgin.net...


First transatlantic round trip in same day.
A British Canberra twin-jet bomber flew from Aldergrove, Northern Ireland, to Gander, Newfoundland, and back in 7 hr., 59 min. flying time (Aug. 26).

www.factmonster.com...


You'll find Canberra/B57 material here including mention of the trans-atlantic flight record -

In June, Martin requested a second Canberra and was allocated WD940. WD940 set an official trans-Atlantic speed record during its delivery flight on August 31, 1951.

home.att.net...

-Hope this is useful to you.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
They also built the Canberra at the Short Bros. factory in Belfast (we had one fly over to mark the 50th anniversary a couple of weeks back).



Going off topic but are you in Belfast?



I'm currently sckiving up in Stranmillis



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I'm a little way away from Belfast, but not that far (mind you taxis on a night out are a killer tho).
It's a beautiful, green and tranquil little spot on the county Down coast (not a million miles from Kirkistown.....but just far away enough from Portavogey!
.....if you knew 'P' you'd get it
).

Strandmillis eh, the smart (and wildly expensive) end of town. Nice place to be (?) .

I can look out of my window and see the sea......and the occasional Canberra or the passanger jets coming into the George Best or Aldergrove when they decide to use the route that over-flys here (which is not all that often actually, thankfully.....mind you old jets make a glorious noise compared to the quiet stuff today - although in fairness we don't get much bigger than the 146 over-flying usually).




[edit on 18-8-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I would very much like to know what the REAL service ceiling for the current Canberra is. I have spoken to ex RAF aircrew who implied that it is somewhat higher than the record it originally set. I have also been told (from another ex MOD source) that they are currently using pressure suits originally designed for SR-71 crew. With all the modifications the Canberra has received over the years, and the fact that the RAF are only just phasing the last ones out, there must be some truth behind this.

Can anyone back this up?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I believe that ceiling record must be made by RB-57 not original Canberra producted by UK. I am sorry I have no more details that's why I post this thread here, I don't know where does Waynos hide!
I am catching him
Such attractive thread to him but he only show once here!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join