Canberra PR.9 belly pod, any ideas?

The Systems 3 pod camera windows were covered by a moveable door to protect the camera windows.
See my other post.

The only problem with this being a system III pod is that it had no camera windows?

More from the photographer –

I think the reason why they parked the PR9 on that remote area was because the HAECO hangers would block the view from outside Kai Tak. Unless you were on the RAF Kai Tak side, you would not be able to see the PR9 that easy. The RAF Kai Tak ramp area was rather open, and without tall building to hide anything from ‘viewers’ on higher floors of those tall buildings around outside the base.
I still think that belly pod was not a System III. I’ve done some research on it and System III was an internal fit unit with three camera windows (1 vertical 2 oblique). There was no such windows visible around that belly pod, so I can only conclude it housed some kind of antenna for electronic equipments. Using the same gun pod shape would not have any aerodynamic problem, and can easily get cleared for flight.
When I took the photos, the RAF Regiment guard (unarmed) was next to me watching, and gave me five minutes to take the photos. I can only shot three photos because not only short of time, but also running out of film, as K64 slide was very expensive at that time !

The PR9 was never used for sniffer missions as far as I am aware. Once the Victors/Vulcans stopped doing it pods were fitted to VC10s. For example:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/05/30/uk-korea-north-britain-idUKTRE54T0YM20090530

There is a lot more info on here about that role

Just a wild guess, but China did some nucleair tests in the past. I am sure the RAF would monitor those? Although most of the latest tests were underground I would not be surprised if aircraft checked for contamination in the air and sea regions around Hong Kong.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/tests.htm

scorpion63
We always referred to them as ‘photogs’, they called us all sorts of names in return.
Kept the banter flowing well 🙂 They were in the building right opposite our line hut.

To remove the systems 3 pod the aircraft had the front and rear flare bay fairings removed. Then it was backed into a very small hangar with about 6″ wingtip clearance and positioned over a pit with a lift in it. The lift and a pod trolley were raised and the pod fitted to the trolley. The lift was lowered, the aircraft towed out, the lift raised and then the pod was taken under guard to the photogs building.
Many a wingtip was damaged getting the aircraft in/out of that hangar. The works & bricks people who built it used the dimensions of a PR7 instead of the PR9!!! Amazing that it actually fitted in.

PS
The early pods had a sliding cover that protected the camera windows.

Not photogs, Air Camera Fitters, the diminsions were given by the Station Nav Leader (he knows who he is) and as a navigator assumed that all Canberras were the same.

To remove the systems 3 pod the aircraft had the front and rear flare bay fairings removed. Then it was backed into a very small hangar with about 6″ wingtip clearance and positioned over a pit with a lift in it. The lift and a pod trolley were raised and the pod fitted to the trolley. The lift was lowered, the aircraft towed out, the lift raised and then the pod was taken under guard to the photogs building.
Many a wingtip was damaged getting the aircraft in/out of that hangar. The works & bricks people who built it used the dimensions of a PR7 instead of the PR9!!! Amazing that it actually fitted in.

PS
The early pods had a sliding cover that protected the camera windows.

That will be it then!!

If you want to see what was in the pressure capsule go to the USAF museum hanger at Duxford, one is on its servicing trolley very near a big black thing with long wings!

Reconnaissance Camera Type B…

No, The PR9 capsule was built by Short Bros at Belfast. The American sensor engineers were amazed at how heavy and strong it was during initial trials as it was “over engineered” as you would expect from a ship builder!!

Thanks, any more info would be very welcome, like what period of service was it used from etc?
Is the capsule at Duxford identical to that seen above on the Canberra?

No it was in the flare bay, the 6 tank is at the front, the B(I)8 had a full length bomb bay

Great info, was the capsule the same shape as the cannon pack?

They certainly seemed to know where to park that tug!

XH134 and XH169 were the original systemIII aircraft and I believe that after I left the system flight another airframe was modified. The capsule was pressurised with Nitrogen and air conditioned over a long period to stabalise the system before flight.
The more recent picture shows the LOROP pod which was a much more advanced design

I don’t think that’s the same mod, the bump on the original picture seems to protrude further from the belly of the aircraft and appears smoother.

More info-

Here is the other side view of XH134 at RAF Kai Tak. As you can see there was no squadron marking on it at all, and the number 134 was on the nose gear door. The aircraft was parked at a remote ramp in between RAF Kai Tak main ramp and HAECO, actually closer to HAECO.

Is it this ‘bump’, photographed on XH131 at Fairford in 2005?

The modifcations look a little more complex than ‘removing the doors and winching a crate into the bay’ as suggested elsewhere.

More from the photographer.

FYI the Canberra PR9 missions staged through RAF Kai Tak Hong Kong never overflew China. It skirt along the international air space boarding China, westward as far as Hainan Island. So far I can tell you is that the ‘information’ gained was shared with USA, and these were combined photographic as well as electronic missions.
I recall the same XH134 flew in and out of HKG three times within a 10 days period in 1982. I was told by my friends in HKG that hemp coloured PR9 also took similar missions in early 90s (92, 93 ??).
I was wondering what is that belly pod was for all these years, but can’t ask !! However someone told me that System III was internally mounted and not in a pod, as it was a camera system with windows. So we need more ‘light’ to shine on this mystery pod if it is really a System III, a fuel tank ? or what ?
BTW I can’t recall any squadron marking on this PR9, and it is not surprising that it didn’t carry any on such kind of mission.

I’d tell you, but then … 😉

I’m pretty sure it is the same camera as fitted to the U-2.

That’s my lunch break accounted for then!!!