When they cancelled the TSR.2...take 2...

[rickshaw]

When the decision was taken to cancel the TSR.2, the RAF was desperate for a replacement.  BAC, undertook another upgrade to the Canberra.  They broadened the chord of the wings and shortened the span.  They used new tip tanks.  They upgraded the engines and added a small, terrain following radar to allow the aircraft to fly low and close to the contours of the land.  The result was dubbed the Canberra S.28.  Chistened the "MRCA" - Must Refurbish Canberra Again by the wags in the RAF, the S.28 was purchased in numbers and replaced all other versions of the Canberra in RAF service.  Displayed here in the markings of 617 Dambusters Squadron.

[Rheged]

"Shortened the span"     Aaaaaaagggggh!!  Heresy!!!  Kit will probably pronounce a murrain on your cattle and blight upon your crops.  An ultra low level Canberra just feels odd.

Actually, it's not a bad looking aircraft........and a very nice looking model.   Incidentally, I was told that MRCA  could also stand for "Mother Riley's  Cardboard Aircraft"

[Tophe]

Actually, it's not a bad looking aircraft........and a very nice looking model.

As far as I am concerned, I like it also

[PR19_Kit]

I'm not sure if I should actually look at the pics............  

[rickshaw]

Basically it's an Airfix PR.9 with shortened, broadened wings, Kit.  Despite stuffing as much lead weight I could into the nose, it ended up a tail sitter so I found one more fishing weight made it sit properly.  I put it as a FLIR ball turret behind the nose wheel leg.  The 617 Squadron markings came from a TSR.2 sheet by Modeldecal.  The tip tanks are from an F-4 Phantom kit.

This is the second version I built.  The first was a Revel PR.9 and I added a resin Buccaneer nose which I faired in.  Problem was it was too low for its undercarriage and so I ended up discarding it.  I didn't like the wing fairings for the engines either.  Not streamlined enough.  The Airfix kit, which is now as rare as hen's teeth, is a much nicer kit.   

[PR19_Kit]

I finally steeled myself to look at the pics. 

It certainly looks different, it's amazing quite how much an aircraft's original shape burns itself into your head and the slightest change makes you think 'Woah!'

The broad chord inboard of the engines looks to have been modelled on the prototype PR9, was it Brian? The Phantom tanks on the tips work very well too, it would have looked very weird without them.

[zenrat]

Yep, that's good.  Well done.

[Devilfish]

As part of my TSR-2 time line I plan on building this too.  For those that don't know, it was actually proposed as a TSR-2 replacement (seriously!)
Wouldn't that have been a kick in the teeth! The aircraft that was designed to replace the Canberra, would have been replaced by a Canberra!!!

[rickshaw]

As part of my TSR-2 time line I plan on building this too.  For those that don't know, it was actually proposed as a TSR-2 replacement (seriously!)
Wouldn't that have been a kick in the teeth! The aircraft that was designed to replace the Canberra, would have been replaced by a Canberra!!!

It's not that unusual, the Fairey Swordfish replaced the Fairey Albacore, the Swordfish's successor...

[Glenn Gilbertson]

That looks good!
You've beaten me to it - there was apparently a project to remodel the nacelles to accept RR Speys. I will see if I can work out how to model that - but using shortened B.(I).8 wings.
More schemes than time available!

[Weaver]

Missed this when it was originally posted - nice one Rickshaw! 

My first ever posts on here were profiles for an 'MRCA' Canberra version with a similar idea in mind, though rather different in detail.

As others have said, there was a real proposal made along these lines following the TSR.2 cancellation. It was basically a PR.9 fuselage and inner wing, cropped outer wing (realative to the standard wing), tip tanks, nav/attack system in the nose, and a bulged tail fairing (to reduce fuselage base drag apparently). Engine options were either the PR.9's Avon RA.24s or Speys, the latter fitted ahead of the wing in similar fashion to the RB-57 tubofans. Needless to say, it went down like a lead balloon with the RAF.

The other quick'n'dirty post-TSR.2 proposal was for a Spey-engined Mirage IVA. That was taken rather more seriously, but ultimately rejected too.

[chrisonord]

Nice, got love a Canberra. 
Chris

[eatthis]

why were the engines put half way down the wings on the canberra?

[PR19_Kit]

why were the engines put half way down the wings on the canberra?

Down as in top to bottom, or down as in half way along the wings toward the tips?

In the first case I expect it was to align the thrust-line with the airframe's centreline, and the wings were mounted where they were to be on top of the bomb bay, and below the fuselage fuel tanks.

The second case is bit harder to determine, but maybe the Meteor's design had some influence there? It was certainly a problem for the aircrew in an engine out situation, both Meteor and Canberra suffering a number of accidents due to such situations.

[Weaver]

why were the engines put half way down the wings on the canberra?

Partly WWII bomber thinking: keep the fuselage clear for bombs and fuel.

Partly the fact that intake and exhaust design was a bit of a black art in the early jet era, and one of the ways of minimising problems, particularly for axial compressor designs, was to keep both of them short, straight and simple.

With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been better to have them next to the fuselage, in a similar manner to the Scimitar or Buccaneer, on both the Meteor and the Canberra (test pilot Bill Bedford* advocated this for the Meteor but he was ignored).


*EDIT: it was Bill Waterton I was thinking of, not Bill Bedford. Sorry.