DH Venom, Vampire & Swallow

[Maverick]

Having sat in the cockpit of a Sea Vixen, all I can say is I hope that there's nothing important happening below the starboard quarter.

Regards,

Mav

[PR19_Kit]

  In the B(I)8/PR9 they simply elevated the pilot's seat and gave him a fighter-like canopy.  That way the amount of redesign was kept to a minimum and they didn't have to change the aircraft drastically. 

Actually they didn't move the pilot's position at all on the two 'fighter cockpit' Canberra's.

The surrounding upper fuselage structure was lowered a little, improving the pilot's 'over the shoulder' view, and they fitted the new canopy. On the B(I)8 the nav/bomb aimer still sat behind and a tad below the pilot, and on the PR9 the poor soul was relegated to the 'coal hole' in the nose.

[The Wooksta!]

Heinkel He 70?

[redstar72]

Beyond the Sea Vixen, I can't think of many aircraft that have an offset canopy for any good reason.

See a discussion here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9957.0/all.html.

[Mossie]

Having sat in the cockpit of a Sea Vixen, all I can say is I hope that there's nothing important happening below the starboard quarter.

Regards,

Mav

The nav did have a small window in the fuse so it was possible for someone to see in that area, if not ideal.  The reason for the offset canopy was the AI.18 radar sets were not bright & required total darkness to operate.  The same set was used in the Gloster Javelin FAW.1 (AI.17, same radar just different manufacturer), were they flitted between this & the AN/APG-43 in different marks.  I think part of the reason for this was the bright light in the conventional cockpit of the Javelin.  Overall, the Sea Vixen is usually regarded as the better of the two aircraft.

[The Wooksta!]

Certainly the better looking, the Javelin is an ugly monstrosity. They should have went with the Vixen...

[kitnut617]

Yeah, but it didn't help when the prototype DH.110's wings folded up during the Farnborough Airshow flying demonstration (crashing into the crowd and killing about 80 people IIRC) and right at decision time when choosing which one to go with

[rickshaw]

  In the B(I)8/PR9 they simply elevated the pilot's seat and gave him a fighter-like canopy.  That way the amount of redesign was kept to a minimum and they didn't have to change the aircraft drastically. 

Actually they didn't move the pilot's position at all on the two 'fighter cockpit' Canberra's.

The surrounding upper fuselage structure was lowered a little, improving the pilot's 'over the shoulder' view, and they fitted the new canopy. On the B(I)8 the nav/bomb aimer still sat behind and a tad below the pilot, and on the PR9 the poor soul was relegated to the 'coal hole' in the nose.

Interesting.  As far as I can tell, the fuselage height appears the same between the "fish bowl" and the "fighter" cockpit variants.  I wouldn't have thought there was all that much room to lower the upper fuselage decking and still have the navigator enough height to sit upright.

[PR19_Kit]

On the B(I)8 and PR9 it starts to slope down immediately in front of the Nav's position in one sweep down to the nose cone. On the bubble canopy versions the slope is steeper and doesn't start till some way past the canopy itself. It's pretty subtle but it's there.

[Mossie]

I've been having a few more musings about a PR Vampire & found that there was a lesser known PR variant used by the Indian Air Force.  Six (some sources say five) Vampire T.55's were converted into PR.55's.

I also found I'd missed some of the pics in the Crowood book on the Vampire, Venom & Sea Vixen.  There's a caption next to an early pic of TG278 (the Vampire modified for high altitude flight) saying it was for development of a PR variant, but no other info.  The main text only mentions the record attempt & suggests that the reason TG278 was fitted with a Ghost was that it suited development of that engine.  There are two distinct phases of development of TG278, early with extended wingtips & in camouflage & later with the Ghost engine & in patchy NMF, then later an all over pale shade of paint (B&W photo, could be sky & might fit the recce role but could to be anything to be honest).

This pic from Bharat Rakshak shows the PR.55 with camera windows in the nose.  The windows are smaller than I was thinking, it would probably be possible to fit a camera in the nose of single seater without much modification.  Space is tight in front of the bulkhead, but probably just enough for a camera.  Oblique cameras could go in the spaces left by the magazines as Lee previously postulated, or even the cannon.

[The Wooksta!]

If the Hunter FR10/PR11 (a few of the latter were converted from the GA11) could take a pair of cameras, you *might* be able to squidge one into a Vampire nose, possibly with a bulge to accomodate the magazine.

I still think one with the cameras in the ammo bays would be better.

[Mossie]

I was thinking of the forward looking camera in the nose as well as the ammo bay cameras.  They actually managed to shove three cameras in the FR.10/PR.11 nose, one forward, two oblique.

[The Wooksta!]

The third one replaced the radar range finder.

[Mossie]

I tried to find a pic of the Hunter FR.10/PR.11 nose installation & lucked out, but I found a pic of the FGR.9's recce pod.  I'll compare the Hunters nose & drop tanks to the Vampire nose when I get home tonight, although I've had a quick look at some drawings scaled on-screen & it looks possible.  My thought before had been to modify a fairing along the lines of the Swiss FB.6 nose, might be able to get away with a locallised bulge.

Hunter recce pod, second pic from bottom: http://www.spyflight.co.uk/fr10.htm

[The Wooksta!]

If you've got the A-Model Vampire FB6, it comes with both the normal RAF and Swiss noses.  Or modify a Hornet NF21 nose?

Now that gives me an idea...