EE Canberra and Martin B-57

[Archibald]

Hello! Here's a B-57-airliner which really looks nice  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4240.0/topicseen.html

[Weaver]

Hmmm.... The need for a Canberra replacement was driven by the fact that Canberra couldn't do low and fast (or low and fast enough) due to it's big wing. What if English Electric took that literally, and produced a "Canberra TSR.2"?

I was looking at the Lockeed CL-288(? scaled-up Starfighter super-interceptor) in American Secret Projects - Fighters, and it struck me that it looked pretty much like how a supersonic Cranberry would look. However, I have an aversion to T-tails, so I got to thinking what else it could use: low tail's out (jetwash), low canard's out (wake going into intakes). Then I had a brainwave/moment of madness: tandem wing.......

The Canberra IDS Mk.10 has a B-57-style cockpit and bomb bay. In front of and behind the bomb bay (far enough apart to avoid mutual interference) are short, straight thin inner wings. Linking the inner wings' tips are two LONG engine pods, with a variable cone intake at the front, an afterburner at the rear, and a Spey in the middle (with beeeeautiful maintenance access  ). Outboard of the pods are four tapered, swept outer wings, one for each inner wing. The fin is bigger and more swept. Tandem undercarriage units sit under the wing bays and four outriggers live next to the (slightly ovalised) jetpipes and intakes (the problem would be that if you want big engine doors, the pods won't be that rigid, so putting a single outrigger at either end will cause them to twist on the ground).

The outer wings are all-moving: they move differentially fore-and-aft for pitch control, differentially left-and-right for roll control, and collectively for lift enhancement. Combined with the inner wings' full-span leading and trailing edge controls, possibly blown, this gives relatively short take-off and landing rolls, despite the high wing loading. The outer wings could also move collectively in response to the terrain-following system, giving a "flat rise" effect without any pitching, thus making weapon/sensor-aiming easier.

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't cruise at Mach 0.9 at 200ft in dry thrust and go supersonic in 'burner, particularly if the fuselage is stretched for the wings, and/or it's fitted with a longer nosecone. However, if somebody smarter than me says the maths doesn't addup , then the solution is simple: use the Medway, unscalled, instead of the Spey.....

I might try to butcher a scanned three-view if I find the time, but I'm NOT the world's greatest artist......

[Archibald]

What you described (more or less) existed in the form of the EE P.28 project, proposed the very same week of april 1965 the TSR-2 was cancelled.

Here's what butler said about the machine
"based on B(I)mk.8
Three variants, P.28A, P.28B and P.28MOD
P.28A had 52 ft span,
P.28B 41 ft.
They carried 4536 kg of bombs and 500 gal tip tanks.

The P.28 MOD had speys, TSR-2 radar, 17.4m span, weight 28 tons, 10 000 Ibs of bombs"

[Weaver]

Nice one Archibald: I must have read that at some point since I've got the book, but it didn't sink in....

It sounds a lot like an alternative quick-and-dirty "Canbereer" that I came up with: B(I).Mk.8 fuselage, PR.Mk.9 inboard wing (longer chord, so lower t/c ratio) and PR.Mk.9 engine pods (11,250lb RA.24s). The only new bits would be short-span outer wings with full integral tankage.

[Weaver]

As promised/threatened, one hacked-up profile to show my tandem wing idea. Still not entirely happy with it, but you get the idea.

[GTX]

Remember the turboprop idea - how are these:




Regards,

Greg

[Daryl J.]

Greg,

Somehow, it seems as though these would make the noise of the Thunderscreech seem like a whisper.   
Very, very cool idea.



Daryl J.

[GTX]

What's that...I can't hear you...

Regards,

Greg

[kitnut617]

would these fit, they're 15 foot diameter:

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/imgthumb.htm%3Fid%3D13044&imgrefurl=http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/boeing/xb-47d.htm&h=109&w=160&sz=6&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=axjiZrM0NEUPDM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3DXB-47D%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

[GTX]

Too big - as I said a page or so back, having measured one of the Canberras at work, it is a little over 2m from ground to centre of the intake centrebody.  Therefore props of a radius of between 1.5m and 1.8m (approx. equivalent to 9.8 - 11.8 ft diameter) would be doable.

Regards,

Greg

[bexwh773]

A friend asked for some help and Ive been through my Canberra PR7 tech manual and found these bits, I hope they help, but also Ive added the Navs station & pilots panels. Ive numbered them, so if anyone would like the scans emailed to them please drop me a PM with an email addy. Also, once I have found my B2 Tech Manual I will be scanning images of that aswell. After Chrimbo Im also planning to scan both manuals completely with the aim of turning them into PDF format to help others.

Hopefully tonight I will also have my RN / RAF Canberra MR17 finished up too

HTH

Bexy

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

[kitnut617]

Too big - as I said a page or so back, having measured one of the Canberras at work, it is a little over 2m from ground to centre of the intake centrebody.  Therefore props of a radius of between 1.5m and 1.8m (approx. equivalent to 9.8 - 11.8 ft diameter) would be doable.

Regards,

Greg

When they put a prop on the Meteor, they had to extend the undercarriage to get the prop clearance but the u/c still folded away in the same space as a regular Meteor, you could do the same here.  Wyvern props are/were 12'-6" in diameter, you could crop the tips on these.

[Just call me Ray]

Ok, here's a simple and stupid Whiff - the navigator gets a canopy of his own in later marks

Why'd they do it that way (and on the Sea Vixen as well) anyway? Yes, tried Googling, came up with nothing.

[bexwh773]

Ok, here's a simple and stupid Whiff - the navigator gets a canopy of his own in later marks

Why'd they do it that way (and on the Sea Vixen as well) anyway? Yes, tried Googling, came up with nothing.

Simple aerodynamics, the prototype Canberra didnt have the fairing behind the bubble top pilots canopy originally, that fairing was added due to the lack of it causing severe juddering at all aspects of the aircraft flight envelope.

Bex

[Just call me Ray]

Ok, here's a simple and stupid Whiff - the navigator gets a canopy of his own in later marks

Why'd they do it that way (and on the Sea Vixen as well) anyway? Yes, tried Googling, came up with nothing.

Simple aerodynamics, the prototype Canberra didnt have the fairing behind the bubble top pilots canopy originally, that fairing was added due to the lack of it causing severe juddering at all aspects of the aircraft flight envelope.

Bex

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