STOVL Canberra

[Geoff]

Auto-hover -- the perfect answer to wimpy JMNs whinging on about engine-out control concern 

Well not really: if one Peggy lets go, no amount of auto-hover will stop the aircraft doing a stationary barrel-roll, which never ends well. Your best hope would be to automatically chop the other engine and let the aircraft drop onto it's gear too hard. It might wreck the airframe and give the crew spinal compression, but at least they wouldn't be dead. Of course, with zero-zero seats, you could always go for the Yak-36 option and have an automatic ejection control system as well, which chucks the crew out without asking them first if it detects an unrecoverable hover-crash about to happen. Although it sounds scary (do you want a Russian computer in charge of your ejection seat?  ) it's actually credited with saving many lives.

Another accident mode would be interesting on the STOVL Canberra. Harriers have been know to spit their front nozzles clean off, which results in a messy nose-down-sideways crash and a dead pilot if he isn't real quick on the ejection handles. Now on the Harrier, the nozzle only goes sailing off across the airfield. On the STOVL Canberra though, an inboard nozzle goes straight into the side of the fuselage with considerable force.....

On that basis I'd def go with the Russki computer thanks!

[kitnut617]

Thanks for all your comments, definitely will help with the final product.

Barry:  I don't think I can teach you very much, if anything, when it comes to chopping up kits  

Weaver:  I hadn't thought about the flaps, good point.  Is it just the in-board flaps that hang down on the Harrier ?  The bang seats would have to be zero-zero because as you say if one engine fails in the hover, it's going down no matter what. The Russki computer sounds just what it needs, but I think this one will have a Sperry/Marconi developed one    I've not heard of the front nozzles being blown off before, in this case if it happened, the nozzle is going to go straight through the bomb bay right about where the ammo can is for the rotary cannon.  I don't think even zero-zero seats are going to help there    but if the ammo can didn't go bang it might be survivable, as the wing spars are mounted way up in the fusealge.  'Course I could say that in light of Harrier experiences, some armour plate was added inside the bomb bay adjacent to the nozzles    

The fuselage structure in this area revolves around the roof of the bomb bay though, all that is adjacent to the nozzles are the bay doors as the roof of the bay is now a good two feet higher than on an original Canberra thanks to moving the wing higher. The bay's roof could be locally re-enforced too in the event of a nozzle penetrating the bay.

[Captain Canada]

Wow, Robert....did you have an all night beer and ______ induced modelling session or what ? I love it ! Not too sure about the pointy nose, tho. It looked kinda cool at first, then I saw the original nose profile.... The Vulcan canopy is a great idea, and I can't wait to see how all your planned lumps and bumps progress !

[kitnut617]

Wow, Robert....did you have an all night beer and ______ induced modelling session or what ? I love it ! Not too sure about the pointy nose, tho. It looked kinda cool at first, then I saw the original nose profile.... The Vulcan canopy is a great idea, and I can't wait to see how all your planned lumps and bumps progress !

Cheers Todd ---- Rum & Cokes actually 

The nose is still up in the air at the moment, as I said if I do use the pointy one, I'll shorten it some and then blend it in better.  This nose looks better on the B.2 Canberras so it might just get saved for a RW build and I'll go with the original or if I can find something else I might go with that.

[Weaver]

Weaver:  I hadn't thought about the flaps, good point.  Is it just the in-board flaps that hang down on the Harrier ?

Think their flaps are in one piece:

The bang seats would have to be zero-zero because as you say if one engine fails in the hover, it's going down no matter what. The Russki computer sounds just what it needs, but I think this one will have a Sperry/Marconi developed one    I've not heard of the front nozzles being blown off before, in this case if it happened, the nozzle is going to go straight through the bomb bay right about where the ammo can is for the rotary cannon.  I don't think even zero-zero seats are going to help there    but if the ammo can didn't go bang it might be survivable, as the wing spars are mounted way up in the fusealge.  'Course I could say that in light of Harrier experiences, some armour plate was added inside the bomb bay adjacent to the nozzles    

The fuselage structure in this area revolves around the roof of the bomb bay though, all that is adjacent to the nozzles are the bay doors as the roof of the bay is now a good two feet higher than on an original Canberra thanks to moving the wing higher. The bay's roof could be locally re-enforced too in the event of a nozzle penetrating the bay.

Arn't the sides of the bomb bay fixed though? If not, it would be difficult to make the centre fuselage rigid enough: you need a reasonably deep "beam".

[jcf]

Interesting concept.

Here is a drawing of a Gloster examination of a twin-Pegasus transport which may be useful.

[kitnut617]

There you go --- nice find Jon.  That's something along the lines of how I'm doing mine, do you have any info as to why the u/c was to be so stalky

[Thorvic]

Sounds like you could do with a Dornier Do-31 to clone the pegasus pods:-

http://www.classic-plane-mrr.de/JU90_DO31.html

From

http://www.classic-plane-mrr.de/index_e.html

G

[jcf]

There you go --- nice find Jon.  That's something along the lines of how I'm doing mine, do you have any info as to why the u/c was to be so stalky

No info in the book (Gloster Aircraft since 1917) however based on other writings dealing with VTOL research,
its probably related to re-ingestion and ground reflection issues. Too close to the ground and the engine thrust
from the inboard nozzles is going to be bouncing right back into the fuselage. Could be a nasty problem.

Jon

[kitnut617]

Hmm! might have to revise my thinking with the u/c on this Canberra although looking at pics of the Do.31 it would seem they don't have to be too long (thanks Geoff)

[kitnut617]

Can anyone identify these seats for me please, I've lost the packet they came in.

[kitbasher]

I'd not followed this thead until now and I think I might just whif my Matchbox PR9 now that the Airfix kit is out and I'm finding it hhard not to buy one!
Regarding the nose - don't be tempted to ugly it up.  When the Tornado was in the very early stages of project development it was known as the MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft). Some wag at Warton explained the acronym as meaning 'Must Refurbish Canberra Again'!
So keeping in that vein a Tornado GR1/GR4 radome graft would look good.
Now where's that PR9 stashed??!!

[GTX]

Interesting concept.

Here is a drawing of a Gloster examination of a twin-Pegasus transport which may be useful.

That is seriously nice - and now on the list to model someday!

Regards,

Greg

[kitnut617]

Regarding the nose - don't be tempted to ugly it up.  When the Tornado was in the very early stages of project development it was known as the MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft). Some wag at Warton explained the acronym as meaning 'Must Refurbish Canberra Again'!
So keeping in that vein a Tornado GR1/GR4 radome graft would look good.

So rumaging around the stash and spares box, came up with a couple of noses,  Tornado nose sounds nice but it's too small, but what about this Javelin nose, or this Harrier AV-8B Plus nose ( 1/48), it will need to be blended in somewhat if I use it.

[kitnut617]

Then I found this in the Airfix Nimrod box, some sort of FLIR turret and fairing.  But the instructions don't show it or which version it's supposed to go on, anyone got any ideas ?

I'm thinking under the nose just in front of the u/c bay