EE Canberra and Martin B-57

bexwh773 · October 23, 2008, 05:03:05 AM

Because the Nav & bomb aimer could see out of very small windows either side of the fuselage, out the pilots canopy or they got orf their backside and scrammbled down to the nose where they could see everything

Besides theres to many instruments and avionics in the back for anymore windows.

Bex

Daryl J. · October 24, 2008, 03:22:19 PM

PR.9 with a fuselage enlarged 50% in length for a PR.9L, but in US markings.

Early Canberra with fuselage enlarged 50% in diameter for the demonstrator aircraft for Weight Watchers (of course, it brings proprietary cuisine to air shows).

Daryl J., adding in a bit of silly

Daryl J. · January 02, 2009, 01:30:10 AM

Could a Canberra have carried the Sea Eagle? If yes, how many?

Could the Canberra have been outfitted as a sub hunter and sub destroyer, and would that role have required two separate airframes that had to fly together?

TIA,
Daryl J., itching to buy a 1/48 PR.9 and tweak it a bit.

PR19_Kit · January 02, 2009, 05:46:26 AM

Quote from: Daryl J. on January 02, 2009, 01:30:10 AM
Could a Canberra have carried the Sea Eagle? If yes, how many?

Could the Canberra have been outfitted as a sub hunter and sub destroyer, and would that role have required two separate airframes that had to fly together?

The B(I)8's had twin underwing pylons, and there are pics of bombs hung on them, so possibly yes. The B(I)8 bomb bay wouldn't have been long enough for a SEagle, unless you left the gun pack behind. You could maybe put the anti-sub radar in a BIG nose, like the 22s had, and add a MAD boom to the tail?

Mossie · January 02, 2009, 06:14:21 AM

Quote from: Just call me Ray on October 22, 2008, 07:22:29 PM

Actually I mean, why did they decide that the co-pilot/navigator didn't need to see out of the plane after all?

The early radar sets needed darkness to view them properly. Often, a simple shroud around the screen which the operator would push his head up to would suffice, but it was uncomfortable to use this for long periods of time. The British with the Sea Vixen & Canberra B(I) variants went the whole hog & created the coal-hole where the radar operator could be shrouded in total darkness. As Bex mentions, the Canberra had a small side window, the Sea Vixen a side window & one on top of the hatch so the operator could look outside in a limited way.

PR19_Kit · January 02, 2009, 07:07:31 AM

DarylJ,

On second thoughts, the ECM17 might make a better starting point. It's got that wonderful multi-bumped nose and as they all started as B2s, they'd have the full length bomb bay. Quite how you'd integrate an ECM17 nose with a PR9 I'm not sure, plus you'd lose the Nav's seat in the nose......

How about assuming 'they' had started with a B(I)8, with the Nav in the coalhole to the pilot's right, and remove the gun pack for a larger bomb bay full of Mk 46s and flares etc. Upgrade to the PR9 wings (which have pylon mounts for Boz pods already) and the PR9's Avon RA27 engines and add the ECM 17 nose for the radar and a MAD tail boom. Two SEagles under the wings and any self respecting Yankee or Kilo 'boat would he headed for Murmansk in jig time!

I might even make one in 1/72 with the Xtrakit PR9.

Mossie, did the B(I)8 have radar?

Shasper · January 02, 2009, 10:12:33 AM

PR.9 airframe plus twin seat cockpit & Tropic moon III goodies from the B-57G. Discuss

Shas

Mossie · January 02, 2009, 10:45:10 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 02, 2009, 07:07:31 AM

Mossie, did the B(I)8 have radar?

It had a radar bomb sight (I think)?

EDIT, messed the reply up somehow!

Daryl J. · January 02, 2009, 11:06:40 AM

Apart from thinking the Canberra is very good looking, I'm pretty illiterate regarding the machine itself.

So, starting with the 1/48 Airfix Pr.9, where would one need to go with that idea, Shas? Is there any way to have the second person beside the pilot rather than the US fore-aft cockpit of the B-57 series? Adding the necessary lumps and bumps is easy of course but was wondering more or less about cockpit arrangements.

Daryl J.

Weaver · January 02, 2009, 11:34:07 AM

Well the T.11 had a two people in the early-style "bubble" cockpit, but it was a real squeeze because the pupil's piloting station was in the normal place and the instructor was squeezed in at an angle! (He had to eject after the pupil because his seat passed through the space where the pupil's head was....

). However, with a propoerly engineered mod, you should be able to get two people in under the bubble. Alternately, try grafting an A-6 canopy onto it - it looks very "Hunter T.7" with it's twin windscreens...

PR19_Kit · January 02, 2009, 12:01:46 PM

Quote from: Daryl J. on January 02, 2009, 11:06:40 AM
So, starting with the 1/48 Airfix Pr.9, where would one need to go with that idea, Shas? Is there any way to have the second person beside the pilot rather than the US fore-aft cockpit of the B-57 series? Adding the necessary lumps and bumps is easy of course but was wondering more or less about cockpit arrangements.

It's called 'Imagineering', you just SAY the Nav is down there alongside the pilot and aft a bit.

The B(I)8 and the PR9 actually have the pilot in exactly the same place as he is in all the others, it's just that the canopy is different. So the Nav could be where he is in the B6, down and back a bit. As you can't see him you don't have to build any lumps and bumps. I suppose the pure masochist could put a 20 thou hatch cover there, like the later Sea Vixens, and add decal ejection seat markings. Perhaps put the small side window back, in the same position as a B6?

Shasper · January 02, 2009, 03:54:22 PM

Being a bit biased here (Martin did some good things when he "Rearranged" things for the USAF), but I like the idea of the B-57 style tandem cockpit (maybe have the aft seat blacked out?), my thinking that from what lil I know of the EE setup the GIB doesnt have too much room to work with.

Shas

Daryl J. · January 02, 2009, 04:18:44 PM

Shas, so it looks like I have to wait for the B-57B to come out, cut the front end off, and graft it onto a PR.9 to get the machine mentioned above.

At least I could then have a RB-57X utilizing the PR.9 nose/canopy section. Two whiffed Canberras..... LoL. Actually, I'll probably try to keep things as simple as possible.

Thanks again for the info.
Daryl J.

PR19_Kit · January 02, 2009, 04:55:39 PM

Not even sure it would be that much work.

The B-57 fuse is almost identical to the Canberra apart from the speed brakes and the canopy. Five will get you ten the PR9 wings/engines will be a plug-in fit to the B-57 fuse, bar a small amount of filler to make up for the broader root chord on the PR9.

The GIB, if there was only one, (sorry, I'm watching 'Highlander' just now.....

) would have lots of space in a bomber type Canberra, as the back seat area is designed for two.

Daryl J. · January 02, 2009, 05:56:56 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a GIB?

Getting back to the turboprop Canberras, would there be any benefit to an engine that has a raised thrust line in order to increase prop blade diameter and thus improving the overall look of things. To my eye (not a criticism, just an observation) the props that would clear the ground adequately if using the centerline of the turbojet just seem a bit short. I was thinking of an engine that would mount similar to the ones on the Embraer Brasilia. Likely the engines would also have to be completely spurious, but what they hey. So, in that convoluted way, is there a problem with fuselage clearance if the prop size is expanded and raised off the ground accordingly.

Daryl J., struggling to make sense and rather falling flat

[Edit]--> As is, how was the Canberra airframe suited for a maritime attack role? Specifically, countering Russian submarines off Norway and Russian ships off Alaska and Japan.

Was there only one 'stealth' Canberra?