Canberra WX161

[lenny100]

ah pity so should i use the real number or the typo.............

[kitnut617]

I would go with WK   but that's me, but it's your project so you do what you want.  I just got really interested in it and wouldn't have found anything about it if you hadn't posed the question what you were about to do.

[Weaver]

Depends what you want to achieve:

If you want to commemorate the real aircraft then go with WK and try to make it as accurate as possible.

If you want to do WK's "dark sister", which had a deliberately misleading serial and might have been mixed up in all sorts of Black Projects, then go with WX, come up with some more "thought-provoking" mods, and write a good backstory. Bear in mind for the latter that a good mystery is better than a bad explanation, and that public-domain accounts of black projects almost never reveal the full facts anyway....

[lenny100]

thanks for the ideas i am going for the "dark Sister" and i think it will look good on a base with a few "Secret" paper on the base and maybe a photo or two of a appropriate soviet project that the UK was intrested in in the early 60s such as the loading of the ships which became the Cuba  shipments

[kitnut617]

Last word from me on the serial number Lenny, Tony Buttler sent an updated email to me explaining that he had contacted his co-author (actually the author) Chris Gibson, where he had said he got his info from a Putman book which was the Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915 one.  There's a photo of said aircraft in this book (not a very good one, it's a head on shot which doesn't show very much) with the caption saying it's WX161.  Seems like the error goes back quite a way.

[sideshowbob9]

Last word from me on the serial number Lenny, Tony Buttler sent an updated email to me explaining that he had contacted his co-author (actually the author) Chris Gibson, where he had said he got his info from a Putman book which was the Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915 one.  There's a photo of said aircraft in this book (not a very good one, it's a head on shot which doesn't show very much) with the caption saying it's WX161.  Seems like the error goes back quite a way.

Actually it's a side-on view, with the caption reading: "Canberra B.2 WK161 at Seighford, after fitment of DX3 anti-radar material and infra-red suppression exhausts".

Apparently they first tried DX3 on a Balliol but the propeller wasn't very stealthy, hence the switch to a Canberra. In addition, DX3 was a rubbery material supposedly popular for re-soling shoes!!!

[kitnut617]

Last word from me on the serial number Lenny, Tony Buttler sent an updated email to me explaining that he had contacted his co-author (actually the author) Chris Gibson, where he had said he got his info from a Putman book which was the Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915 one.  There's a photo of said aircraft in this book (not a very good one, it's a head on shot which doesn't show very much) with the caption saying it's WX161.  Seems like the error goes back quite a way.

Actually it's a side-on view, with the caption reading: "Canberra B.2 WK161 at Seighford, after fitment of DX3 anti-radar material and infra-red suppression exhausts".

Apparently they first tried DX3 on a Balliol but the propeller wasn't very stealthy, hence the switch to a Canberra. In addition, DX3 was a rubbery material supposedly popular for re-soling shoes!!!

Well this seems like an odd side-on view to me Bob:

[sideshowbob9]

Last word from me on the serial number Lenny, Tony Buttler sent an updated email to me explaining that he had contacted his co-author (actually the author) Chris Gibson, where he had said he got his info from a Putman book which was the Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915 one.  There's a photo of said aircraft in this book (not a very good one, it's a head on shot which doesn't show very much) with the caption saying it's WX161.  Seems like the error goes back quite a way.

Actually it's a side-on view, with the caption reading: "Canberra B.2 WK161 at Seighford, after fitment of DX3 anti-radar material and infra-red suppression exhausts".

Apparently they first tried DX3 on a Balliol but the propeller wasn't very stealthy, hence the switch to a Canberra. In addition, DX3 was a rubbery material supposedly popular for re-soling shoes!!!

Well this seems like an odd side-on view to me Bob:

This doesn't.

[kitnut617]

Last word from me on the serial number Lenny, Tony Buttler sent an updated email to me explaining that he had contacted his co-author (actually the author) Chris Gibson, where he had said he got his info from a Putman book which was the Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915 one.  There's a photo of said aircraft in this book (not a very good one, it's a head on shot which doesn't show very much) with the caption saying it's WX161.  Seems like the error goes back quite a way.

Actually it's a side-on view, with the caption reading: "Canberra B.2 WK161 at Seighford, after fitment of DX3 anti-radar material and infra-red suppression exhausts".

Apparently they first tried DX3 on a Balliol but the propeller wasn't very stealthy, hence the switch to a Canberra. In addition, DX3 was a rubbery material supposedly popular for re-soling shoes!!!

Well this seems like an odd side-on view to me Bob:

This doesn't.

 are these from the same book ?  Can you see a serial number in your pic ?

[sideshowbob9]

It's from Page 128 of Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915. It's a First Edition - circa 1993. Judging by the caption of your pic, you have a more recent edition (mine doesn't mention 1959). However, in my edition, both caption and the text on the page specify WK161 which would indicate that the WK/WX error does not stretch back into the mists of time, it is more recent.

Also the Canberra in the pic I have provided clearly has radar absorbant material applied where you would expect it to be, the undersides and leading edges and it possess IR suppressors so it is very much the aircraft in question.

You have a source claiming it is WX161, I have an equally valid source claiming it is WK161. So it appears we are no closer to solving this mystery. 

[kitnut617]

It's from Page 128 of Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915. It's a First Edition - circa 1993. Judging by the caption of your pic, you have a more recent edition (mine doesn't mention 1959). However, in my edition, both caption and the text on the page specify WK161 which would indicate that the WK/WX error does not stretch back into the mists of time, it is more recent.

Also the Canberra in the pic I have provided clearly has radar absorbant material applied where you would expect it to be, the undersides and leading edges and it possess IR suppressors so it is very much the aircraft in question.

You have a source claiming it is WX161, I have an equally valid source claiming it is WK161. So it appears we are no closer to solving this mystery.  

Bob, go to the start of the thread, I figured WX was wrong, my posting of the pic was to show where the author of BSP got his info from (copied it instead of checking it, mind you Putman books are usually faily accurate).  My sources are UK Serials and another book Tony Buttler has told me about, both show WK161 as being the aircraft.

Anyway I think you've solved where the error occurred, if as you say the pic I posted was from a second edition and the caption was re-written, that's when it happened.

[sideshowbob9]

Yeah, re-reading my post, it was a tad aggressive wasn't it? Was just trying to emphasise (over-emphasise?) that we were in fact talking about the same book and that a different edition must account for the differences. I took some of your above posts as implying I was fabricating my facts or just plain nuts! Mea culpa.

Whatever the bl***y serial, this all proves two things:

1. That the U.S. didn't have a monopoly on "stealth"

2. You can do just about anything to a Canberra 

[Mossie]

Those nozzels are interesting too, looks like they were going for the whole approach.  Is this for the R&D SIG theme Lenny?

[kitnut617]

Yeah, re-reading my post, it was a tad aggressive wasn't it? Was just trying to emphasise (over-emphasise?) that we were in fact talking about the same book and that a different edition must account for the differences. I took some of your above posts as implying I was fabricating my facts or just plain nuts! Mea culpa.

Whatever the bl***y serial, this all proves two things:

1. That the U.S. didn't have a monopoly on "stealth"

2. You can do just about anything to a Canberra 

No worries, at least we agree there's an error    As I don't have either edition, I was just going by what was past to me, which was by Tony Buttler.  I wonder why they changed the photo though, the side-on view is much more revealing, is it because it was 'too' revealing do you think ?

Anyway, I find the whole program really interesting and I can't wait to see Lenny's finished product.

[lenny100]

ok now its in build