Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: GTX_Admin on January 26, 2012, 02:02:14 PM
-
Hi folks,
A thread for your EE Canberra & Martin B57 Ideas and Inspiration
To start with, here's one I did a few years back - imagine a turboprop Canberra:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/CanberraProp2.jpg)
Regards,
Greg
-
Well, there's always Martin's study of a "flag officer transport" version and the various permutations that could be done with that.
I wonder how an updated one with dry modern military turbofans (F404, F414, RB199, EJ200 - depending on time frame) in place of the dry Avons. It would take some nacelle redesign to accomodate the separate accessory gearbox that modern engines use as well as some juggling of location for weight and balance purposes, but it's doable and you've got a long enough tailpipe that you could add a mixer nozzle and really reduce your exhaust IR signature.
-
Hmmm...a EJ200 powered PR.10....
-
There's always these couple of Martin concepts for the B-57...
Regards,
John
-
Cool - I hadn't seen those before.
Take it a little further and you might get a crude Canberra Business Jet - though from what I understand, the wing might cause some space issues in the cabin.
-
And then there's the STOVL variant ---
-
The suggestions from the article regarding the two pics I posted was that Martin had pitched the idea at the wrong customer (ie: the USAF) and should have tried big-business as an early corporate jet.
Regards,
John
-
That ECM trainer would also have a lot of potential as an ELINT aircraft (not in an EP-3E's league, but quite capable) as well as, later, a part of a SEAD team with or without armament of its own.
-
Airfix 1/72 kits are in the stash for some time in the chop shop: a Canberra 4 and an alternative PR variant.
-
Some oldies, that might get built one of these years......
Canberra B(I).10 - the high-speed low-level version adopted when TSR.2 was cancelled (much earlier than in real life). Short, thin outer wings with tip tanks, short, all-moving tail planes, B57 cockpit, nose full of avionics:
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/CanberraBI10FIN.jpg)
B(I). 10 is Raspberry Ripple:
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/CanberraBI10profileBosc.jpg)
Standard cammo:
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/CanberraBI10profileRAF-1.jpg)
RAF Vietnam cammo:
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/CanberraBI10profRAFNAMfin.jpg)
B(I).15 SEAD version:
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/CanberraBE15profRAFNAM.jpg)
Marineflieger anti-ship version:
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/CanberraBI10mfligFIN.jpg)
Sponsored warbird ;) :
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/CanberraBI10cranFIN.jpg)
-
I wonder - swept wing Canberra anyone?
-
I wonder - swept wing Canberra anyone?
Delta! Delta! Deltaaaaaaaaa! ;-)
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBOruACUsJOECseTGBWEvBcJyYCQY4YKf8MtXo2d_qSOOYncCk)
-
http://youtu.be/oasZpff3zLg (http://youtu.be/oasZpff3zLg)
http://youtu.be/fu7bIYOJOlY (http://youtu.be/fu7bIYOJOlY)
-
I wonder - swept wing Canberra anyone?
Delta! Delta! Deltaaaaaaaaa! ;-)
([url]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBOruACUsJOECseTGBWEvBcJyYCQY4YKf8MtXo2d_qSOOYncCk[/url])
Like it! ;D
For those interested in a bit of further Martin/English Electric cross-pollination, the nose intake/radome of a Lightning looks rather good on the front end of an Airfix B-57B!
I may make it a delta! ;)
-
One of the side benefits of acquiring the 1/48th scale Airfix B-57 Canberra kit is the very nice radome included for the B-57G that can be used without the cheek fairings to give you a different looking Canberra without too much effort.
-
This is more candy for my bashing concepts sweet tooth. mmmmm, tasty
Bill
-
I think about the only thing the Brits didn't hang off the nose of a Canberra was a dill pickle.
-
Provide the Canadians a series fully Phoenix friendly for a Northern Defense Shield.
-
PR.9-4. and PR.9-4e (extended)
B-57 cockpit on a PR.9
-
New Zealand Canberra Kahu?
RAF Canberra F2?
Rhodesian B2 in anti flash white with pale roundels?
Swedish navy with Rb04 antishipping missiles?
A&AEE mothership for lifting body test vehicle? (think Mistel)
-
New Zealand Canberra Kahu?
As in re-engined with F404 and given modern avionics and sensors? :)
-
New Zealand Canberra Kahu?
As in re-engined with F404 and given modern avionics and sensors? :)
I was thinking of rewinged with PR-9 wings and engines and F-4 radome (it fits I;ve tried it). But due to financial considerations only the avionics get done. :-*
-
Did some of these over the years:
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Australasia/B-5729.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Australasia/B-5732.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Australasia/Canberra01.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Australasia/Canberra02.jpg)
Regards,
John
-
Speculative design of Petter's 'Canberra flying boat' and Hypothetical model of a 'Canberra floatplane' ...
cheers, Joe
-
A USAF ERB-57A in T.O.-114 (SEA cam) with some lumps and bumbs, flares, a radome, and some Bullpups prowling the Ho Chi Mihn Trail in the mid '60s?
-
VTOL Canberra:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/he-162/Canberra_VTOL_01.jpg)
-
BAC Canberra MR.24 "Rudra" (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1888.0)
(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2696/1001898t.jpg)
-
Ted Taylor's Airfix Canberra SC9 built with the AtoZ SC9 resin conversion (http://tedtaylor.hobbyvista.com/161-sc9-canberras/page-161-canberra.html)
Click on html or image to view additional images and build article
(http://tedtaylor.hobbyvista.com/161-sc9-canberras/17-stbd-rear.jpg) (http://tedtaylor.hobbyvista.com/161-sc9-canberras/page-161-canberra.html)
(Image source: Ted's Modelworks/Ted Taylor (http://tedtaylor.hobbyvista.com/index.html))
-
Spiffing!
-
Provide the Canadians a series fully Phoenix friendly for a Northern Defense Shield.
A pair of Orenda 11 engines would give a nice extra performance kick and weight savings compared to the Avon as well.
-
I've just finished reading a book on the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II
In it they went into the USAF's 'AX' (Attack Experimental) program. Originally the AX was supposedly the size of a Martin B-57 (aka Canberra). So this had me thinking .............
Has anyone seen the maneuverability of the Canberra? It's really amazing to see just how nimble the Canberra actually is! (Anyone in Australia who can get to the Temora Aviation Museum in NSW's can see this when they fly the Canberra there!!)
So I was wondering if anyone would like to have a crack at a B-57/Canberra modified to meet the 'AX' RFP?
THis of course would entail the fitting of high bypass turbofans (either rear fuselage mounted or the engine nacelles made larger in diameter to accommodate the new engines.
I think the tandem cockpit of the B-57 or the bubble cockpit of the Canberra B(1).12 interdiction model would have to be a must!
Oh and of course the installation of the General Electric GAU-8 30mm cannon and the wings fitted with a mired of hard-points for a mass of external stores!
Maybe a twin tail fin arrangement for better low altitude stability?
Just imagine the loitering time of this baby on station
Anyone up for drawing this?
Profiles would look great in the mired of camo schemes that the USAF tried on the YA-10 prototypes!! (I'll post some of these later!)
M.A.D
-
You'd have the fuel capacity to get adequate range replacing the Avons with dry F404s giving a higher top speed without enlarging the nacelles. Fit the GAU-8 in the weapons bay as a semi-permanent installation and have both wing and wingtip hardpoints.
-
You'd have the fuel capacity to get adequate range replacing the Avons with dry F404s giving a higher top speed without enlarging the nacelles. Fit the GAU-8 in the weapons bay as a semi-permanent installation and have both wing and wingtip hardpoints.
Thanks elmayerle for your reply and input!!
My only concern with your advice on the GE F404's in place of the Avon's is that the USAF's 'AX' RFP was formulated in the 1960-70's, before the GE F404 was about!
I like your idea of the bomb bay / GAU-8 arrangement! This would also eliminate the massive mussel flash to the pilot! This would also eliminate a lot of need to intrude into the actual fuselage space (although the massive ammo drum would probably need to be redesigned).
Keep the thought alive and coming my friend
M.A.D
-
Whilst on the topic of 'What If' Canberra's, I long time ago I had a fascination with the prospect of a carrier-based variant of the venerable Canberra. As already mentioned, I've always appreciated the Canberra's endurance (and agility!).
So this is what I came up with on another forum .......
I have always liked the versatility of the Canberra light bomber design. As I've always liked the idea of a carrier-based variant. I thought I would have a go at doing a couple of variants for use by the Royal Navy, if they had of continued with their Elizabeth Class conventional carrier program.
My navalised/carrier-based Canberra is in answer to the Royal Navy’s Operational Requirement for a cost effective carrier-based ASW/Anti-ship platform to operate from its new Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.
The Royal Navy, although deeming the likes of the Grumman S-2 Tracker as an excellent design, although seems it too slow in terms of transit speed to a from patrol/hunting area for practical tactical use.
While it had been briefed by the US Navy of its up and coming VSX program (Lockheed S-3 Viking), to replace the Tracker, the Royal Navy sees this as a long term project that it will follow with interest as it matures into the prototype stage of development.....
As a consequence of both time and cost, of the VSX, the Royal Navy reverted to requesting options of modern ASW sensor systems being fitted into an off-the-shelf aircraft.
English Electric teams up with Grumman to incorporate most of the ASW sensors and avionics into a modified Canberra B (1) 8 airframe
The following modifications are incorporated into the Canberra, so as to carry out the ASW/Anti-ship role:
-Outer wings are hinged for folding to minimize deck-spotting factor and ease of using deck elevators.
-A surface-search / attack radar is fitted
-A Martin style rotary bomb bay/fuel tank arrangement is incorporated (i.e. XB-51, B-57,
Buccaneer style). This is done to allow fuselage fuel cells to be replaced by ASW
avionics in the fuselage.
-Two 16-round sonar buoy launchers are fitted at the rear fuselage
-A retractable MAD boom (as the type used by the Grumman S-2 Tracker) is fitted at the
rear fuselage.
-A tail fin EW/RWR pod is fitted.
-The landing gear is beefed up for carrier-landings
-The nose landing gear has a longer strut /oleo to give an improved angle of attack on
take off
-An additional cockpit is fitted (although I think I like the B-57’s tandem arrangement
better!)
-The RR Avon engines are up rated for more thrust on take off.
-Facilities are made for the fitting of RATO for heavy take offs launches
-A retractable arrester hook is fitted
-Avionics are fitted to allow the use of MK-44 light-weight ASW torpedoes and AS.30
ASM’s
As per the other website I forward the following request:
I welcome anyone to have a go at putting my drawing in Royal Navy colours and markings of the day!
I would like the outer folding wings to lay over more, so as to rest on the engine nacelles (but I can work this out via the 'Paint' program I used to draw the profile!). Once again I welcome anyone who can do this to improve my want of this profile.
M.A.D
-
You'd have the fuel capacity to get adequate range replacing the Avons with dry F404s giving a higher top speed without enlarging the nacelles. Fit the GAU-8 in the weapons bay as a semi-permanent installation and have both wing and wingtip hardpoints.
Thanks elmayerle for your reply and input!!
My only concern with your advice on the GE F404's in place of the Avon's is that the USAF's 'AX' RFP was formulated in the 1960-70's, before the GE F404 was about!
I like your idea of the bomb bay / GAU-8 arrangement! This would also eliminate the massive mussel flash to the pilot! This would also eliminate a lot of need to intrude into the actual fuselage space (although the massive ammo drum would probably need to be redesigned).
Keep the thought alive and coming my friend
M.A.D
For period engines, why not use the TF-33 fit of the RB-57F, with oversize fan shrouds on the front of the nacelles?
The only problem with fitting the GAU-8A in a belly pack would be muzzle blast effects on the fuselage, which is one reason why the muzzle in the A-10 is well ahead of the nose. MiG-27s fitted with the less powerful GSh-6-30 in a belly pack have experienced all sorts of trouble with damage to nose gear doors and inspection panels. In one case, the vibration made the entire front control panel fall onto the pilot's lap!
-
You'd have the fuel capacity to get adequate range replacing the Avons with dry F404s giving a higher top speed without enlarging the nacelles. Fit the GAU-8 in the weapons bay as a semi-permanent installation and have both wing and wingtip hardpoints.
Thanks elmayerle for your reply and input!!
My only concern with your advice on the GE F404's in place of the Avon's is that the USAF's 'AX' RFP was formulated in the 1960-70's, before the GE F404 was about!
I like your idea of the bomb bay / GAU-8 arrangement! This would also eliminate the massive mussel flash to the pilot! This would also eliminate a lot of need to intrude into the actual fuselage space (although the massive ammo drum would probably need to be redesigned).
Keep the thought alive and coming my friend
M.A.D
*chuckle* Well, how about a dry version of the VFX/FX engine for the long term with a pair of TF41s for the near term (note, I am partial to the TF41, thinking it a better engine than the TF30 that should've replaced the TF30 in more roles than it did). You would need some nacelle enlargement ('bout 10 inches increase in engine envelope diameter if I remember correctly, but you'd need a larger inlet for the higher mass flow).
-
As a thought, instead of a GAU-8, use a pair of Mauser KCA cannon as used on the Jaktviggen; they use the same rounds. For something more "off the way" a GAST twin-barrel cannon chambered for those rounds. I think the twin Mausers would look nice faired into the weapons bay.
I'm scheming an A-10 testbed with two Gepods, in addition to the internal cannon and other external armament. I'm thinking "Gunfighter" with appropriate nose art would work here.
-
Thanks to Greg posting that link to all of the aviation videos in the Back Bar topic "Don't Blame Me" (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3353.0) I found two videos about the B-57 Canberra on that page:
B-57 Canberra Development (includes some footage of the Martin XB-51) (http://imageevent.com/okbueno/mopic?p=80&n=1&m=-1&c=10&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2)
B-57B Canberra Performance (http://imageevent.com/okbueno/mopic?p=81&w=4&c=10&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=0&z=2&l=0)
-
Well there was also Canberra WD952 Bristol Olympus in place of RR Avons that first flew in 1952 and took the world altitude record in 1953. I remember reading somewhere that test pilots were so impressed with the improved performance that there was a recommendation that an Olympus powered version be developed to become the standard production version.
-
Canberra related transport aircraft:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps6ef6382e.jpg)
-
^^^^
is there any better drawing of this?
-
Not that I am aware of.
-
IIRC, TSRJoe built one. He may be able to supply picture pictures/drawings.
-
Canberra with A-1E Skyraider cockpit/canopy
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/canberra_A1E.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/canberra_A1E.jpg.html)
-
Canberras with Lockheed's wings and Allison engines
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/canberra_allison.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/canberra_allison.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/canberra_allison_a1.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/canberra_allison_a1.jpg.html)
-
Someone asked for swept and delta wings y this thread. :) ;)
Swept wing Canberra
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/canberra_swept.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/canberra_swept.jpg.html)
Delta Canberra
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/canberra_delta.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/canberra_delta.jpg.html)
-
Crossing Canberra and Intruder
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/intruder_canberra_01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/intruder_canberra_01.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/intruder_canberra_02.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/intruder_canberra_02.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/intruder_canberra_03.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/intruder_canberra_03.jpg.html)
-
I really like these Canberra derivatives, could easily see some of them flying with the FAA!
-
Crossing Canberra and Intruder
I'm ahead of you there Carlos, I'm using an A-6 cockpit in my STOVL Canberra (see post #6). Mind you, I am using a polished up Vulcan canopy over it ---
-
^^^^
Love your STVOL Canberra!!! :-* :-* :-*
BTW, I also considered Strikemaster canopy
-
Carlos: I do like that swept tail on your Canberra derivatives :-*
-
^^^^
Just skewed original tail 30 degrees
-
^^^^
Just skewed original tail 30 degrees
And still made of wood? :) :D
-
More Canberras. Hehehe many of you will recognize turboprop engines and some will recognize wings too. ;)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/intruder_canberra_04.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/intruder_canberra_04.jpg.html)
-
Inverted Mustang fuselages?
-
^^^^^ :)
-
Canberra with the Brit style offset canopy... to allow room for the GAU-8 in the nose?
-
Did any version of the Canberra carry a refuelling probe for AAR?
-
Did any version of the Canberra carry a refuelling probe for AAR?
Several did experimentally but none that I am aware did so on production variants.
-
Hmmm…subtle whiff in mind. ;)
-
How about the RAAF, really missing having guns on their Canberra B20s (as per the .50cals and 20mm fitted to the USAF B-57s) in Vietnam for the COIN missions, adopts the Pave Gat M-61 Vulcan in an Emerson turret (as in the video back on page one).
What I would really like is the RAAF, impressed with the Olympus Canberra demonstrator decides to order a Batch II from GAF using the existing jigs and fixtures, as a cheaper option than replacing them with V bombers. The B20s would be relegated to the RAAF reserve, training, reconnaissance and maybe ESM/ECM as well as possibly selling remaining aircraft to the RNZAF. While developing this improved version GAF becomes aware of the changes Martin are incorporating into the B-57B, in addition to those already adopted in the B-57A and follows suit introducing the rotary Bombay, tandem cockpit canopy and wing guns (4x30mm Adens though).
These aircraft serve in Vietnam along side the USAF and adopt the Tropic Moon III and Pave Gat mods converting them into extremely viable COIN and close support aircraft that remain in service into the early 90s, last seeing combat during Desert Storm in 1991.
-
As an alternate to the above, maybe the RAAF acquire some Canberra B(I) Mk.12s interdictiors for use in Vietnam...or perhaps the RNZAF deploy theirs there...
Taking it one step further, what about a Canberra B(I) Mk.12 updated with FLIR and terrain following radar (say taken from Grumman Intruder) to provide basis for updated interdictor.
-
Well, they are not WHIFS but I believe the Canberra Kid won this war:
(http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af35/canberra-sig/DSC01490a.jpg)
From 72nd Scale Aircraft (http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/index.php?showtopic=702&st=30)
-
What a fantastic collection, I have about a quarter of those shown including a RB-57D & F and a bunch of those weird Brit Canberras
-
So what if there were a requirement to provide the Canberra (and B-57) with in-flight refueling capabilities? Several aircraft from that time period were fitted with both AAR features. Examples are the F-101 Voodoo, F-105 Thunderchief, and some versions of the F-84 Thunderjet/Thunderflash.
If this practice had been continued for the B-57 it might have been given both types of refueling features. For the British Canberra I would suspect it would be just the probe for the hose and drogue type connection. As for the style of IFR probe, would it just stick out like probe on the A-4 Skyhawk, F-100 Supersabre, and, A-3 Skywarrior? Where would it be located? On the wing or fuselage? Would space have been available to have the IFR probe hidden away under a door on the fuselage like the F-4 Phantom (Navy and Marines), F-101 Voodoo, and, F-105 Thunderchief? How about a Canberra with the Tornado style semi-retractable IFR that was hidden away under a bulge/bump on the fuselage?
How about a KB-57 Canberra or a Canberra K? Hose and drogue unit in the rear fuselage with the HDU from the KA-6D Intruder or KA-3 Skywarrior attached underneath the fuselage?
Any other suggestions?
-
I have been toying with the idea of a B-57 derived night/all weather interceptor similar in concept to the EE. P.12 all-weather Canberra fighter. Maybe arm it with early Sparrow missiles and/or Falcons.
-
Speaking of Canberras: http://canberratalk.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&num=1264155317 (http://canberratalk.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&num=1264155317)
-
Taking the aerial refuelling Canberra idea a step further, what about RAF Canberras operating in pairs with one as a buddy refueler so as to increase strike range?
-
Use only the fuselage, paint it meat red, model up a bun, put mustard on it and voila, it's an oversized hot dog advertisement for some sidewalk cart.
-
In reference to the refueling probe location, if it was added on after the aircrafts final design it would be the exposed probe while is designed into the aircraft from the start it was the retractable type. At least from this era. So I don't believe the Canberra was initially designed with war in mind so an exposed probe would be appropriate. Of course it's your project, go any way you wish.
-
Taking the aerial refuelling Canberra idea a step further, what about RAF Canberras operating in pairs with one as a buddy refueler so as to increase strike range?
In the latest Air-Britain quarterly Aeromilitaria (Sept 2014), there's an 'in-flight' photo of Canberra (WH734) operated by Flight Refueling Ltd fitted out with a hose and drogue and refueling a Mk.8 Meteor (WE934). The caption says the event was the first jet-to-jet refueling in Jan 1954. The hose drum is set at the forward end of the bomb bay.
And here's a photo of it refueling a Javelin --
http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AI/AI56-1/21-2.jpg (http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AI/AI56-1/21-2.jpg)
-
For a tanker version, go with the rotary weapons bay of the B-57 and use a bulged door as on the Buccaneer with the HDU at the aft end.
-
In early 1956, the 4080th SR Wing moved to Laughlin AFB, Texas. Midair-refuelling capable RB-57Ds (Group B and the sole Type C) were deployed in 1957 to Rhein-Main AB, West Germany to support USAFE operations. All RB-57D operations were under heavy security and very little information ever leaked out about their early operations.
[Emphasise added]
[Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_RB-57D_Canberra#USAF)]
-
IIRC the RB-57Ds had AAR refuelling sockets somewhere on the fuselage. I have NO idea how I know this, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere.
'Goldfish Bowl' canopy Canberras might have had a job with having a probe in the nose somewhere as there's precious little space to get the pipework past the cockpit area. Perhaps a roof mounted probe a la Buccaneer that ends up directly over the canopy so the pilot can see the action properly? Maybe a wing mounted probe like the USAF F-84s had?
-
IIRC the RB-57Ds had AAR refuelling sockets somewhere on the fuselage. I have NO idea how I know this, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere.
'Goldfish Bowl' canopy Canberras might have had a job with having a probe in the nose somewhere as there's precious little space to get the pipework past the cockpit area. Perhaps a roof mounted probe a la Buccaneer that ends up directly over the canopy so the pilot can see the action properly? Maybe a wing mounted probe like the USAF F-84s had?
Why not like the Valiants? A nose mounted probe with external pipework to carry the fuel around the goldfish bowl to the fuel tanks behind?
-
IIRC the RB-57Ds had AAR refuelling sockets somewhere on the fuselage. I have NO idea how I know this, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere.
'Goldfish Bowl' canopy Canberras might have had a job with having a probe in the nose somewhere as there's precious little space to get the pipework past the cockpit area. Perhaps a roof mounted probe a la Buccaneer that ends up directly over the canopy so the pilot can see the action properly? Maybe a wing mounted probe like the USAF F-84s had?
Why not like the Valiants? A nose mounted probe with external pipework to carry the fuel around the goldfish bowl to the fuel tanks behind?
Yes indeed, that'd work, and so terribly 'British' too, old chap. :D
-
I have been toying with the idea of a B-57 derived night/all weather interceptor similar in concept to the EE. P.12 all-weather Canberra fighter. Maybe arm it with early Sparrow missiles and/or Falcons.
And/or Genies..... >:D
The difficulty with the B-57 is that the pilot's protruding canopy is much nearer the nose than it is on a B(I).8, so there's less real estate to convert into a big radome as per the P.12. However, as the B-57G shows, there's plenty of scope to add a big radome onto the front of the existing structure, so this could well work out.
If you went full ADC on it, imagine how many Falcons and Genies you could get in the bomb bay!
EDIT: Wow! I just went and tried it and the answer is "not as many as you'd think". The B-57 bay is almost exactly the same length and width as the F-106's. The only difference is that the -106 bay tapers to the front while the B-57 bay doesn't, so it might be possible to get two Genies and four Falcons in by doubleing up the configuration at the back of the -106 bay, i.e. two Falcons either side of a Genie.
-
IIRC the RB-57Ds had AAR refuelling sockets somewhere on the fuselage. I have NO idea how I know this, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere.
'Goldfish Bowl' canopy Canberras might have had a job with having a probe in the nose somewhere as there's precious little space to get the pipework past the cockpit area. Perhaps a roof mounted probe a la Buccaneer that ends up directly over the canopy so the pilot can see the action properly? Maybe a wing mounted probe like the USAF F-84s had?
Why not like the Valiants? A nose mounted probe with external pipework to carry the fuel around the goldfish bowl to the fuel tanks behind?
It'd look pretty much like the A-37B setup.
-
a couple of Canberra ideas ...
-
I have been toying with the idea of a B-57 derived night/all weather interceptor similar in concept to the EE. P.12 all-weather Canberra fighter. Maybe arm it with early Sparrow missiles and/or Falcons.
And/or Genies..... >:D
The difficulty with the B-57 is that the pilot's protruding canopy is much nearer the nose than it is on a B(I).8, so there's less real estate to convert into a big radome as per the P.12. However, as the B-57G shows, there's plenty of scope to add a big radome onto the front of the existing structure, so this could well work out.
If you went full ADC on it, imagine how many Falcons and Genies you could get in the bomb bay!
EDIT: Wow! I just went and tried it and the answer is "not as many as you'd think". The B-57 bay is almost exactly the same length and width as the F-106's. The only difference is that the -106 bay tapers to the front while the B-57 bay doesn't, so it might be possible to get two Genies and four Falcons in by doubleing up the configuration at the back of the -106 bay, i.e. two Falcons either side of a Genie.
Plus a few Genies under the wings. "Loaded for Bear" ;D
-
I have been toying with the idea of a B-57 derived night/all weather interceptor similar in concept to the EE. P.12 all-weather Canberra fighter. Maybe arm it with early Sparrow missiles and/or Falcons.
And/or Genies..... >:D
The difficulty with the B-57 is that the pilot's protruding canopy is much nearer the nose than it is on a B(I).8, so there's less real estate to convert into a big radome as per the P.12. However, as the B-57G shows, there's plenty of scope to add a big radome onto the front of the existing structure, so this could well work out.
If you went full ADC on it, imagine how many Falcons and Genies you could get in the bomb bay!
EDIT: Wow! I just went and tried it and the answer is "not as many as you'd think". The B-57 bay is almost exactly the same length and width as the F-106's. The only difference is that the -106 bay tapers to the front while the B-57 bay doesn't, so it might be possible to get two Genies and four Falcons in by doubleing up the configuration at the back of the -106 bay, i.e. two Falcons either side of a Genie.
Doesn't help the Canberra fighter but does bode well for a strike F-106 8)
-
I have been toying with the idea of a B-57 derived night/all weather interceptor similar in concept to the EE. P.12 all-weather Canberra fighter. Maybe arm it with early Sparrow missiles and/or Falcons.
And/or Genies..... >:D
The difficulty with the B-57 is that the pilot's protruding canopy is much nearer the nose than it is on a B(I).8, so there's less real estate to convert into a big radome as per the P.12. However, as the B-57G shows, there's plenty of scope to add a big radome onto the front of the existing structure, so this could well work out.
If you went full ADC on it, imagine how many Falcons and Genies you could get in the bomb bay!
EDIT: Wow! I just went and tried it and the answer is "not as many as you'd think". The B-57 bay is almost exactly the same length and width as the F-106's. The only difference is that the -106 bay tapers to the front while the B-57 bay doesn't, so it might be possible to get two Genies and four Falcons in by doubleing up the configuration at the back of the -106 bay, i.e. two Falcons either side of a Genie.
Plus a few Genies under the wings. "Loaded for Bear" ;D
Perhaps http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-68.html (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-68.html) instead of Genie missiles? that could get interesting.
-
Thanks for that titbit. Qetzalcoatl! Love it! ;)
-
Well, I found the Javelin nose cone fits a Canberra very well
-
Thanks for that titbit. Qetzalcoatl! Love it! ;)
I'm thinking that a pair of those, plus any needed radar upgrades, would look quite nice on a Lightning.
-
Found this on YouTube this evening.
Very interesting documentary on the Canberra:
Great Planes - Martin B 57 Canberra
https://youtu.be/B7C7soGMIhY
-
You might prefer the British version "The English Electric Canberra Definitive Documentary"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7gK7QOeN0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7gK7QOeN0)
-
My version of a Canberra liner.
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/CanberraLiner.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/CanberraLiner.jpg.html)
Compare with official airliner project: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=699.msg53564#msg53564 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=699.msg53564#msg53564)
-
How about a RAAF FAW version to follow the original 48 B20s to provide the RAAF reserve interceptor squadrons with an interim all weather interceptor? Thinking a Martin B-57 tandem cockpit configuration, radar nose, internal ADENS, perhaps 6 of them, and maybe Olympus instead of Avon. Sort of a P.12 but better and ideal for conversion into a specialised night intruder once replaced in the interceptor role by a more advanced type in the late 50s, early 60s.
-
Rereading the topic after the discussions on new acquisitions and I saw M.A.D.'s suggestion that a modernised Canberra is adopted instead of the A-10. How about this aircraft, using turbofans and with a strengthened airframe, including armour, is fitted with a PAVE GAT setup using a 30mm ATK in the bombay, Hellfire, Maverick, Paveway family, self defence Sidewinder and Shrike/HARM/Sidearm. Subsequently upgraded with Brimstone, JDAM, SDB I and II, APKWS, as well as controlling UCAVs. The idea of the larger aircraft is if engaged by SPAAGs the return fire with the ATK, if by SHORAD they lob an ARM, if its a Laser guided missile they use hellfire or rockets, plus gun to throw of the aim and still have enough ordinance onboard to engage the primary mission targets. Maybe a Wild Weasel EA-57 to support the regular A-57s.
-
Looking through Black Box Canberras and seeing where they carried Red Dean missiles on trials and I keep thinking of an interceptor variant of the B-57 with those hardpoints carrying AIM-47 or AIM-54 missiles as well as Sidewinders on the four wing outboard hardpoints and your missiles of choice in the weapons bay. Alternatively, perhaps an ER version of the AIM-47 or AIM-54 on those "Red Dean" locations with a booster stage to "reach out and touch" incoming bombers?
-
^ Hmmm, looking at an Italeri B-57B and a Revell F-14D (both 1/72), it shouldn't be too hard to graft the Tomcat's cockpit and nose/radome section onto the B-57. They've certainly added far uglier noses to Canberras over the years. >:D
-
Maybe an early 60s emergency interceptor with an air launched Tartar and big radar, could use the Standard ARM from the Hasegawa Weapons Pack. Updated with an enhanced version once the Standard becomes available. Could have been an Australian response to Indonesia's acquisition of TU16s, I know they got them to deal with the Dutch carrier if they had to over "West Papua" as it was then, but we Aussies can be a fairly arrogant bunch and think everything is about us. Actually I wonder if that is why we are so paranoid about everything these day "can't do that, we might upset the neighbours" when the truth of the matter is the only neighbour who gave a stuff was Mahathir who built his brand on bashing Australia and finding offence at everything for internal political reasons. ;)
-
Hmm, air-launched Talos and a big radar perhaps? Backed up by other AAMs on the outboard wing hard-points?
Another thought for the B-57, a bulged rotary bay with a fuel tank, like that fitted to RAF Buccaneers?
-
What about just using the B(F)-57 with some good old AIM-7 Sparrows
-
What about just using the B(F)-57 with some good old AIM-7 Sparrows
That too but this is the age of trump so everything has to be th biggest and the best now. ;)
-
Anyone got the length of the B-57/Canberra Bombay readily at hand?
-
Anyone got the length of the B-57/Canberra Bombay readily at hand?
According to the IPMS UK Canberra SIG (http://ipmscanberrasig.webs.com/) in the section devoted to the B-57 Canberrs, it states that the B-57 Canberra bomb bay is from station 214 to station 439 (http://ipmscanberrasig.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=156425392) which comes out to 18.75' (5.72m).
The station diagram for the UK/Commonweath Canberra is also shown but the details are a bit hazy thanks to the image.
-
Thanks Jeff. Maybe have a Missilier style B(F)-57 carrying a couple of AIM-7s under the wings (say 4 in total) plus another couple in the weapons bay. Or maybe even give the weapons bay AIM-4s or dare I say even AIR-2 and/or AIM-26.
-
Colin @ Freightdog has in 1/72:
In our 'what-if' aircraft range, this 1/72 scale resin set includes parts to convert the Airfix Canberra B(I).8 kit into the projected All Weather Fighter project, the P.12 Interceptor. Based on the B(I).8 airframe, the conversion includes a new AI.18 nose radar, a twin Scorpion rocket pack mounted on the bomb bay and huge Red Dean missiles on extended wing tips. The project never left the drawing board, however all three elements were tested separately on various Canberra airframes. Parts can also be adapted to fit the Frog/Novo/Revell B(I).8 base kit.
(http://www.freightdogmodels.co.uk/images/p12resin.jpg)
-
Thanks Jeff. Maybe have a Missilier style B(F)-57 carrying a couple of AIM-7s under the wings (say 4 in total) plus another couple in the weapons bay. Or maybe even give the weapons bay AIM-4s or dare I say even AIR-2 and/or AIM-26.
Under wing location of the missiles would probably be best, clearance inside the bomb bay was tight. Add to that the distance from concrete to the bottom of the fuselage was only about 24.0" (61.0cm) and you are looking at near impossible positioning of your weapons and the erks trying to load the things. Even the EE Canberra was limited by this same physical distance and it was designed to carry a 5000 pound bomb which required the aircraft to drop the nose landing gear to hike the back end up into the air, an awkward position for a person and just as awkward for an aircraft that normally rests flat on the ground supported by three wheels.
IPMS UK Canberra SIG has an image of the Canberra in just such a position to demonstrate the position required for loading that 5000 pound bomb and all that is missing is the "Boom Chcka, Wow, Wow" porn music track to establish the mood. :)
-
What about just using the B(F)-57 with some good old AIM-7 Sparrows
Kinda reminds me of this config...
(http://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3805/10459444853_885a37ef42_o.jpg)
-
Yep
-
Under wing location of the missiles would probably be best, clearance inside the bomb bay was tight. Add to that the distance from concrete to the bottom of the fuselage was only about 24.0" (61.0cm) and you are looking at near impossible positioning of your weapons and the erks trying to load the things. Even the EE Canberra was limited by this same physical distance and it was designed to carry a 5000 pound bomb which required the aircraft to drop the nose landing gear to hike the back end up into the air, an awkward position for a person and just as awkward for an aircraft that normally rests flat on the ground supported by three wheels.
IPMS UK Canberra SIG has an image of the Canberra in just such a position to demonstrate the position required for loading that 5000 pound bomb and all that is missing is the "Boom Chcka, Wow, Wow" porn music track to establish the mood. :)
Of course it would be impractical for the 5000 pound bomb, but for missiles, maybe have a "service pit" like in some garages, park the Canberra over that and load the missiles from there? (thinking of putting AAM's in the former camera bay of my Mbox PR.9 here)
-
A quick question, what is the wingspan of the Canberra from engine to engine?
I hope someone can answer this.
Ken
-
The Canberra had a wingspan of 19.51m (64ft). Using the plan image below, I have calculated that the centreline of then engines would have been 6.22m (20ft 5inches) apart. I hope this helps. :)
(http://i.imgur.com/TVY5jiP.png)
-
Curious to know what is driving your query. ???
-
Thankyou Claymore that is very informative.
It's at times like these where google is not always my friend.
Instead its the knowlegeable persons who are on here who answer awkward questions put forward by people like me who do research and still cannot find what they are looking for.
Judging by the plan view, perhaps I should've asked what the tailplane span is instead!
Greg, back when I posted this, I was looking at working out where the hingeline would be for a folding-wing carrier capable Canberra.
OK first go.
In the 1st image is fold line 1 just outboard of the engine nacelle almost inline with the tailplane. Question, how shallow would the wing lie over the engines?
The further outboard we go obviously the shallower the wing fold angle, which is where I've put the wing fold line 2.
However, here's the problem, moving the wing fold further outboard increases not only the hanger and deck footprint but also trying to fit it on a lift.
That is what the 2nd image tries to show
All this is academic if the wing spars are in the wrong place and would a 64ft+ wingspan aircraft even fit on any post war RN carriers?
So what about the mission?
Simular to the Douglas A3D, Nuclear strike,Recon, EW, Tanker.........you name it
So does anyone have an opinion on this? I look forward to reading them
Ken
-
You're welcome. I'll get back to you tomorrow with the tailplane span. :)
-
You sir are a Gentleman and a scholar
-
Just a thought, how about a short (6" to 1') constant chord section, with flap, outboard of each nacelle and then the hinge? That would keep your footprint down keeping you from putting the hinge through a flap; it also gives a bit greater wing area for a little lower approach speeds.
To model it, you'd need bits from two Canberra kits, but it is doable. Perhaps this version could even adopt the rotary weapons bay that was developed but never put into production.
-
Or perhaps a true marinized version would move the engines closer to the fuselage centreline to
reduce the considerable yaw caused by an engine-out, conditions that might be recoverable with
the land-based aircraft at altitude would cause more issues at low-level and probably be fatal if
occurring on approach to the carrier.
-
Or perhaps a true marinized version would move the engines closer to the fuselage centreline to
reduce the considerable yaw caused by an engine-out, conditions that might be recoverable with
the land-based aircraft at altitude would cause more issues at low-level and probably be fatal if
occurring on approach to the carrier.
That requires a repositioned landing gear and, really, you're well on your way to a straight-wing variant of, predecessor to, the Buccaneer at that point. You're past doing a derivative of an existing design into doing a new, but related, design.
-
You could, actually, drop the wings on that "Wing Fold Line 1" down further if you angled the wing-fold join as per the Grumman Tracker.
(http://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/TimAB2MTHanvQWPwhBc6mp/dc3ce868-3088-4472-8886-465623615e12.jpg/r0_0_3000_1920_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
(http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/tracker_cs2f2_dimensions_b.jpg)
Rough example:
(http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq311/GPlachy/Claymores%20plan%20view%20of%20the%20EE%20Canberra%20FW1%20angle%20mod_zpslpee0tpe.png)
Although the Canberra wing shape may make it a bit awkward (you'll have to play with your images to work it out).
-
You're welcome. I'll get back to you tomorrow with the tailplane span. :)
As promised...
(http://i.imgur.com/u2H9C4t.png)
-
If you raised the wing to shoulder mount it would lie almost flat ;)
-
Perhaps something a little funky to keep the wings folded within the span of the tailplane and yet also within the height of the tail fin...
(http://i.imgur.com/rlIGgP0.png)
-
There has been online some considerable debate about what the wingspan of the tailplanes on the Canberra were. Some model companies took incorrect measurements, something the bloke from Aeroclub noted in his plans, which he took the wingspan from the aircraft manual. It provoked a fairly high level shit storm a couple of years ago on Britmodeller and other forums. Was he correct or were the model companies correct? I have no idea. As this is intended for a Whiff, I'd say, just go with whatever the model company did.
As to the RN FAA operating Canberras off Carriers? Again, this is a Whiff, just simply say, "well they had carriers which could handle the plane in this universe!" Solves most problems JMNs might claim.
Personally, I'd go with the double fold wing fold. It seems more British to me, than that funky American style of angled fold on the Tracker. The British were always practicable. I'd put the first fold just outboard of the engines and the second the appropriate distance from the tip to keep it all under the fin height. The British carrier hangars were always a bit more cramped than the American ones, because of the use of the flight deck as an armoured strength deck overhead.
-
might help, a c.1952 study for a Canberra B.2 for carrier operation noted 'wing folding outboard of the engine' (i assumed immediately outboard compromising the flaps etc as little as possible ?) and 'arrestor hook mounted at the rear transport joint'
cheers, Joe
-
Claymore, I really like the Gannet style origami wing.
Although I'm attempting to keep things simple more or less RW and not add unnecssary empty weight with lots of hydraulics and hinges and what-nots.
Which brings me to another question-power.
What can I use to push it along?
Well I COULD leave the Avons in as they are the engines of choice and as far as I know, Avons wern't replaced with anything else through the Canberras lifetime.
However, I've been looking at the Spey. But, there is a huge difference between the two.
Avon
L: 126 in (10.5 ft 3,200 mm) D: 35.7 in (907 mm) Dry wht: 2,890 lb (1,310 kg) Max thrust: 12,690 lbf (56.4 kN)dry
Spey
L: 204.9 in (17.9 ft) (5204.4 mm) D: 43.0 in (5.8 ft) (1092.2 mm) Dry wht: 4,093 lb (1856 kg)
Maximum thrust: Dry thrust: 12,140 lbf.
Differences are-Spey is 78 in (6ft 5in) longer, 8in wider and 1,203lb heavier than the Avon
OK, I've looked at a cutaway and it seems like the engines hang off the front of the engine bay main spar ring which means to install Speys will extend the nacelles by nearly 6 feet and by half a ton more!
So what to do? leave the Avons or Nail on the speys and add ballast/avionics/fuel in the rear to maintain the CG?
Why Speys I hear you cry?
In my Whiffworld,there will be evolved Scimitars, called Sabres, Spey powered natch, OR sea Gnats/Sea Hornets as Fleet Air Defence/Strike escort. Buccs for Anti-ship and Sea Canberras as Conventional/Nuclear Strike/Tanker support/EW.
COD is provided by Spey powered modded BAC 1-11's with stern ramp called Pelicans.
So whaddaya think?
-
Okay, the dimensions you have for the Spey are for the afterburning Mk.202 installed in the F-4K and F-4M. You really need to look at the variant of the Spey installed in the Buccaneer to get a good grip on the applicable dimensions as I suspect they are somewhat less
-
Another option would be the R-R/Allison Spey 168-62/TF41-A-1
developed as an engine option for the A-7.
Rating: 14,250 lbs thrust
Weight: 3,252 lbs
OAL: 102.6"
DIA: 37.5"
-
RR / Bristol Olympus as fitted on Canberra WD952
-
Moderator merge of the two Canberra topics to consolidate the discussion in one thread.
-
Good idea Jeffery I Wondered where this went.
elmayerle, a stoopid mistake on my part as I only had a saved image of a Spey from an F-4K and wondered why the engine was that long.
I have studied this website http://buccsociety.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=restorations&action=print&num=1183924984 (http://buccsociety.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=restorations&action=print&num=1183924984) which is a mine of wonderful photos for the engines and everything else Bucc related. It shows the Spey is quite compact really, so it is doable.
So without further adoo I give you the BAC Sea Canberra SR.1
Differences-front to back. Folding radar nose, fixed IFR probe, extended nosewheel, catapult horns, tandem seating, enlarged nacelles for the bigger engines. Folding wing (Not shown), Sea Eagles under wing, Increased fin area, arrester hook and RW bullet on top of fin.
comments and opinions please
-
I still think a 1/72 Canberra fuselage would make a great Churchill Cigar model....
-
Or perhaps a true marinized version would move the engines closer to the fuselage centreline
Almost going back to this concept:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Canberra_July_1945_zpsroa8pzz6.png)
-
Not quite, I'm thinking more along the lines of something half-way between the Canberra
installation and the CF-100 as far as positioning from the airframe centreline is concerned.
-
Not quite, I'm thinking more along the lines of something half-way between the Canberra
installation and the CF-100 as far as positioning from the airframe centreline is concerned.
With only a narrow space between the nacelles and the fuselage, I think you would start to get some significant interference drag/turbulence down that valley. Possibly mess up the airflow over the tail something fierce. Almost the worst of both worlds, I think. Though it's been a while since my aerodynamics course, so it might not be as bad as I imagine.
Paul
-
Not quite, I'm thinking more along the lines of something half-way between the Canberra
installation and the CF-100 as far as positioning from the airframe centreline is concerned.
With only a narrow space between the nacelles and the fuselage, I think you would start to get some significant interference drag/turbulence down that valley. Possibly mess up the airflow over the tail something fierce. Almost the worst of both worlds, I think. Though it's been a while since my aerodynamics course, so it might not be as bad as I imagine.
Paul
Which is why higher or lower tails suddenly became the vogue for jet aircraft...
-
Not quite, I'm thinking more along the lines of something half-way between the Canberra
installation and the CF-100 as far as positioning from the airframe centreline is concerned.
With only a narrow space between the nacelles and the fuselage, I think you would start to get some significant interference drag/turbulence down that valley. Possibly mess up the airflow over the tail something fierce. Almost the worst of both worlds, I think. Though it's been a while since my aerodynamics course, so it might not be as bad as I imagine.
Paul
Yeah, a narrow space that really creates interference drag. It's why drag reduction packages for Learjets have a much thicker pylon, that eliminates the drag-inducing valley between fuselages and nacelle.
-
The Canberra nacelles are smaller diameter than the fuselage, so I'm not sure it would be that much of an issue unless
they were brought extremely close to the fuselage, without fairing in ala the CF-100, anyhow I wasn't talking anything
that extreme, more like this (quick n' nasty drawing mod of port side):
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/CANBERRA_01.png)
-
anyhow I wasn't talking anything that extreme, more like this (quick n' nasty drawing mod of port side):
Isn't the distance between the fuselage and the nacelles used as the height of the main gear? Bring the nacelles in and you have to shorten the gear or telescope them, which is heavy and complicated (= prone to failure).
Just thinking out loud.
-
Bring the nacelles right up to the fuselage, with fairing in, and use outward retracting gear with the major rib holding the main landing gear trunnions also serving to hold the hinge halves for the folding wing?
-
Turboprop Canberra and Phanberra
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Phanberra01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Phanberra01.jpg.html)
-
Nice! 8)
-
Love all three of those!
-
How about a fighter version of the Canberra, not just radar fitted etc. but more along the lines of the Hornet vs the Mosquito, or the Cobra verses the Huey?
Canberra wings and engines with a narrow diameter fuselage, tandem cockpit, radar, cannons, etc.
-
How about a fighter version of the Canberra, not just radar fitted etc. but more along the lines of the Hornet vs the Mosquito, or the Cobra verses the Huey?
Canberra wings and engines with a narrow diameter fuselage, tandem cockpit, radar, cannons, etc.
For the period, early-50s through 70s the wings and engines simply don't cut it as a proper day fighter. The wing shape and airfoil are not going to cut it for maneuverability and the engine power isn't there for good energy management in a dogfight. Engines out on the wing are also not at all good for roll rate, a key maneuverability metric. And, of course, as soon as you get into the mid-60s, the supersonic fighters take over and you're relegated to fighter-bomber like the Hunter and even the F-100 Super Sabre.
Now, you might be able to configure it as a bomber interceptor roughly equivalent to the CF-100, Javelin, Starfiire, etc. Especially if you could get the speed up to something over 620 mph as the Clunk and Javelin were known to be notoriously slow and hard to position for intercepts and would have had a real problem with Badgers in the shorter engagement times of Europe.
As interceptors they wouldn't have the speed to do stern chase intercepts with the early IR missiles, but would have to rely upon ahead angle intercepts with radar missiles, which were bigger and needed a good radar for the period. Unfortunately, radar guided missiles really wouldn't be available until the late 50s early 60s and even those early missiles required a stern chase attack vector.
Or, of course, you could be firing Genie's, but pitching nuke rockets at nuke bombers over the rather congested airspace of Europe has never been a politically viable option.
While an interesting conjecture, I don't think there is anything in it, practically. the various technologies don't quite line up to suggest a useful project.
Paul, the party pooper.
-
See here: http://adolfoalfonzo.blogspot.com/2011/08/canberra-p12.html (http://adolfoalfonzo.blogspot.com/2011/08/canberra-p12.html)
-
Interesting video once you get past the first part to what matters most for this topic on the EE Canberra. RAAF: Conversion To Canberras (https://youtu.be/UTs3KtFX-jw)
-
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%2520ALBUM%2520B/RCAF%2520CANBERRA%2520B8.07_zpso62qpnal.jpg&key=aa086c74ff7fef92221818712ec71e85f7785bfda986ba5804a4fb0fd322146d)
-
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%2520ALBUM%2520B/IDF%2520CANBERRA%2520B68.05_zpsyxyukczi.jpg&key=0cd6f9cde7fad914cf47936101c10ac139c1570a483090cd64b5f8aa0ccdf6fa)
-
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%2520ALBUM%2520B/LIBYA%2520CANBERRA%2520B65.05_zpsujg3emjh.jpg&key=901003571bde8182735ec4d6f3118086fa6ab872e8d5ade6065e8b079011fe2a)
-
Um...... Canberra with missiles :-*
Source HERE (https://modelingmadness.com/review/korean/gb/pohlcanb8.htm)!
-
It's a really nice kit too -- I've got one of them
-
Nicely done! :smiley:
-
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/0246dd0e-5d49-4d08-a8ae-daa09f0b309f/dafq3sw-903f40ef-ad12-44cb-8b5a-0ec9c9ec0012.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzAyNDZkZDBlLTVkNDktNGQwOC1hOGFlLWRhYTA5ZjBiMzA5ZlwvZGFmcTNzdy05MDNmNDBlZi1hZDEyLTQ0Y2ItOGI1YS0wZWM5YzllYzAwMTIuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.gKqqar1la35L-oM2CNsv0hQo0GLK3zXEzrwONzw8EzE)
-
Lovely scheme! Maybe incorporate the 2-seat cockpit from the B-57 (for the GIB)?
-
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/0246dd0e-5d49-4d08-a8ae-daa09f0b309f/dafq3sw-903f40ef-ad12-44cb-8b5a-0ec9c9ec0012.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzAyNDZkZDBlLTVkNDktNGQwOC1hOGFlLWRhYTA5ZjBiMzA5ZlwvZGFmcTNzdy05MDNmNDBlZi1hZDEyLTQ0Y2ItOGI1YS0wZWM5YzllYzAwMTIuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.gKqqar1la35L-oM2CNsv0hQo0GLK3zXEzrwONzw8EzE)
Yes, a beautiful piece of artwork by Clave dare I say to a request for my Alternative ADF ORBAT.
The RAAF appreciating both the range, speed and manoeuvrability of the English Electric Canberra bomber and with its Operational Requirement for a long-range all-weather interceptor to counter the newly introduced Indonesian Tu-16 Badger bomber threat. Initially favouring the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck over the Gloster Javelin, this favour changed when GAF proposed the adoption of the English Electric Canberra they were then license manufacturing for the RAAF, mated to the proven Hughes AN/APG-40 radar and fire-control systems of the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck; the incorporation of four wing-mounted Aim-7 Sparrow capability and two Aden 30mm cannon in a quick change pack. GAF also included a fixed large fuel tank in the Canberra's bomb bay, so as to give the interceptor Canberra maximum range and time on station, without the need of external drop tanks........
Oh, I should also note Bill (Clave) gave this Canberra Interceptor the designation of designation A(I)8!
MAD
-
The Italeri 1/72 B-57 kit has a nose like that as one of the options
-
Random idea: SEAD "Wild Weasel" style Canberra, probably based on Canberra B(I).8 and equipped with either Martel ARMs or perhaps US supplied AGM-45 Shrikes?
-
That is my idea behind this project
-
Some lovely stuff in this thread. Here's one I've been thinking of for a while:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51998179063_2d70e8026a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ndUg3F)EE Thunder (https://flic.kr/p/2ndUg3F) by Dave Bailey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/190327384@N02/), on Flickr
-
Here you go Dave. I can no longer find the online version.
-
Nice! But they've put the engines a little too far inboard, which would require a major reworking of the main landing gear.
-
Well spotted !
The engines need to be over-and-under, like a Short Sperrin . . .
cheers,
Robin,
-
Nice! But they've put the engines a little too far inboard, which would require a major reworking of the main landing gear.
I concur Dave.
-
Well spotted !
The engines need to be over-and-under, like a Short Sperrin . . .
cheers,
Robin,
Good idea too.
-
Different eras (early and late) of Canberra bombers. :thumbsup:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/EE-Canberra-Bombers.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/d685bf09-dbe5-43bc-b42e-a1e008f7ef26)
-
I like. I know it goes against the spirit of the Canberra concept (essentially a jet Mosquito) but I do like the idea of a stinger tail gun.
-
... but I do like the idea of a stinger tail gin.
Are you drinking gin and tonic again Greg? ;D
-
Yes…but fat fingers were to blame that time.
-
Stinger tails -- yeah! yeah! yeah!
-
T tailed Canberra: the Very British Bomber. ;) :thumbsup:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CanberraBuccaneer.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/2b340565-7b83-48bb-afca-3830ca78bb0f)
-
Hmmm...