English Electric and Martin B-57 Canberra

[Jeffry Fontaine]

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.  :)

[Gingie]

What about just using the B(F)-57 with some good old AIM-7 Sparrows

Kinda reminds me of this config...

[GTX_Admin]

Yep

[Kelmola]

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)

[kengeorge]

A quick question, what is the wingspan of the Canberra from engine to engine?
I hope someone can answer this.
Ken

[Claymore]

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.  :)

[GTX_Admin]

Curious to know what is driving your query.

[kengeorge]

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
 

[Claymore]

You're welcome. I'll get back to you tomorrow with the tailplane span.  :)

[kengeorge]

You sir are a Gentleman and a scholar

[elmayerle]

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.

[jcf]

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.

[elmayerle]

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.

[Old Wombat]

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.





Rough example:



Although the Canberra wing shape may make it a bit awkward (you'll have to play with your images to work it out).

[Claymore]

You're welcome. I'll get back to you tomorrow with the tailplane span.  :)

As promised...

[kitnut617]

If you raised the wing to shoulder mount it would lie almost flat   

[Claymore]

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...

[Rickshaw]

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.

[tsrjoe]

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

[kengeorge]

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?

[elmayerle]

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

[jcf]

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"

[Volkodav]

RR / Bristol Olympus as fitted on Canberra WD952

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Moderator merge of the two Canberra topics to consolidate the discussion in one thread. 

[kengeorge]

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 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