EE Canberra and Martin B-57

[PR19_Kit]

TF-33s, no contest. 

[kitbasher]

I've looked a bit closer at using a Dominie nose to create this and it's possible, with a bit of shunting and reshaping.

Just overlaid a FROG/NOVO Canberra B(I)8 on to Jetstream plans and the latter's fuselage depth, width and cross-section look to be a spot on match.

Now seriously fighting off the temptation to be diverted down that particular whif rabbit hole.  I already have two, possibly three, ideas for the Lightning, Hunter and Canberra GB and frankly don't need another!

[Mossie]

I've looked a bit closer at using a Dominie nose to create this and it's possible, with a bit of shunting and reshaping.

Just overlaid a FROG/NOVO Canberra B(I)8 on to Jetstream plans and the latter's fuselage depth, width and cross-section look to be a spot on match.

Now seriously fighting off the temptation to be diverted down that particular whif rabbit hole.  I already have two, possibly three, ideas for the Lightning, Hunter and Canberra GB and frankly don't need another!

Just to feed temptation, Robert mentioned the Sword U-125 kit that lacks the bulge of the Dominie and has a more curved windscreen that could match the mock up well.  After my experience with the Dominie, I think either the U-125 or Jetstream would be an easier option.

[Zero-Sen]

[Old Wombat]

 

[kitnut617]

I've actually used a Prowler cockpit detail set in my STOVL Canberra although I went with a Vulcan canopy to go over it, polished out though ---



What I did was to use the port side of the cockpit as is, but then used the rear starboard side of the cockpit so I had a radar console in the instrument panel.

[ysi_maniac]

Different eras (early and late) of Canberra bombers.

[su27rules]

 

[ysi_maniac]

T tailed Canberra: the Very British Bomber.

[Weaver]

Some questions here that I can't answer from any of my books. I'd be very grateful if anybody with a Canberra reference book could see if it has the answers.
 

1. How long was the Canberra's bomb bay? Specifically interested in the RAF version, not the B-57's, which was shorter.

2. How much ground clearance was there under a Canberra's bomb bay for loading bombs?

3. Does anyone have a reference stating as a fact that the Canberra definitely could, or (more likely) definitely could NOT carry a Tallboy bomb?


Note that it's my belief that a Canberra could NOT carry a Tallboy: this came up in a discussion with a historian who I believe has misread a source document, who's not an "aircraft guy" but won't be told by those who are, and who won't accept any online source as reliable.

[PR19_Kit]

Don't know about the others, but No. 2 I can answer, and it's 'Naff all!' 

It's VERY low and I always wondered how they loaded bombs on the bomber versions. When I was putting the sampling valve on XH131 back in the day, in the flare bay on a PR9, which is to the rear of what was the bomb bay, we had to crawl under the deployed doors on our hands and knees!

This pic, filched from BritModeller may help.



Scaling drawings says that the bay is about 22 ft long and 6 ft wide though.

[Gondor]

Note that it's my belief that a Canberra could NOT carry a Tallboy: this came up in a discussion with a historian who I believe has misread a source document, who's not an "aircraft guy" but won't be told by those who are, and who won't accept any online source as reliable.

Tell your Historian, books have mistakes as well as parts of the internet. And as an Historian, he should know to check primary sources when doing research, so he should go ask the RAF or BAE.

[Weaver]

Note that it's my belief that a Canberra could NOT carry a Tallboy: this came up in a discussion with a historian who I believe has misread a source document, who's not an "aircraft guy" but won't be told by those who are, and who won't accept any online source as reliable.

Tell your Historian, books have mistakes as well as parts of the internet. And as an Historian, he should know to check primary sources when doing research, so he should go ask the RAF or BAE.

That's the problem: he's got a primary source from the RAF: a 1950s document that talks about attacking a Russian canal lock system with Tallboys and Canberras. The trouble is that, as far as I can tell from the excerpts he's posted, he's misreading it. I think that it proposes two alternative means of attack: Tallboys (bomber unspecified) and Canberras (low level with 1000lb bombs). However he's conflated the two and has Canberras dropping the Tallboys.

Because it's a primary source, he's insisting that it must be right and everything else must be wrong. He's already rejected anything online that contradicts it, so since I don't have a primary RAF source, the next best thing is a published book. I agree that books have never been the "gold standard" that they're held up to be and have got worse in recent decades. I think the problem is that academically trained people tend to subconsciously conflate "published" with "published in a peer-reviewed journal" and so give commercially published stuff a status that it doesn't deserve.

[Weaver]

Don't know about the others, but No. 2 I can answer, and it's 'Naff all!' 

It's VERY low and I always wondered how they loaded bombs on the bomber versions. When I was putting the sampling valve on XH131 back in the day, in the flare bay on a PR9, which is to the rear of what was the bomb bay, we had to crawl under the deployed doors on our hands and knees!

This pic, filched from BritModeller may help.

Scaling drawings says that the bay is about 22 ft long and 6 ft wide though.

Cheers Kit - I may have a go with picture evidence today.

[Weaver]

IT'S OKAY!

I just went to check the thread again, and somebody's obviously got through to him because he's deleted the offending posts. Thankfully, he hasn't taken the hump and deleted the whole thread, because it's otherwise interesting. How things should be (more or less).