English Electric Canberra – pilots position question

Slightly ‘off piste’, I know, but the centre-line ‘fighter-type’ cockpit canopy of the USAFs B-57 looks familiar.

Was it an existing canopy used on another type of aircraft, or specially designed for their Canberras?

Incidentally, I think it looked better then the EE version.

Bri 🙂

It might have done (until they hung those stupid long wings on the RB-57)

I realise it was intended as a radar equiped bomber from the start for the non existant B.1, but by the later marks there must have been kit available – the B-57B on didn’t have a bomb aimer, a feature which could have been built into B.(I).6s and 8s at least.
Surely having the prone bomb aimers position did require at least one crew to move around, to get from the nose position to the seat.

You would think that the pilots position is more similar (all be it slightly of centre) between the B.2-6 and the B.57B than that of the B.(I).8 & PR.9.

The pilot’s position was not the whole reason for the limitations to our Canberras. The main reason was that on ALL airframes the flying control runs ran down the port side of the cockpit, through the pressure bulkhead and down the port side of the bomb-bay. As one of the important criteria for the Canberra was that all airframes had to have a high degree of interchangeabilty (cockpits, bodies, tail sections, wings etc), re-designing the control rod runs through the pressure bulkhead etc was considered not cost effective and un-justifiable.

So did EE design the nose and canopy used on the B-57B, or was that designed by Martin?

EE only ‘proposed’ a tandam arrangment. It was independently fully designed and developed by Martn – as was the revolving bomb doors of the B-57.

I’m also summizeing that the RAFs insistance on a visual bomb aiming position, and the ability of at least one cew member to move between positions (on all marks bar the PR.9), probably precluded the more practical American layout on the British produced Canberras.

The Canberra was designed at the outset to be a radar bomber, not visual at all. The failure of the development of the radar bombing system meant that EE had to produce a visual system airframe. The ‘walk-about:rolleyes:’ feature of the crew was happenstance only – except in the B(I)8 of course where it was built-in from the start.

🙂

You would think that the pilots position is more similar (all be it slightly of centre) between the B.2-6 and the B.57B than that of the B.(I).8 & PR.9.

So did EE design the nose and canopy used on the B-57B, or was that designed by Martin?

I’m also summizeing that the RAFs insistance on a visual bomb aiming position, and the ability of at least one cew member to move between positions (on all marks bar the PR.9), probably precluded the more practical American layout on the British produced Canberras.

When you look back it is perhaps surprisng that EE / BAC didn’t adopt this layout for their twin crew Canberras

Eng Elec proposed this tandem layout for the B.6 onwards but as it would have involved significant costs to re-position the pilot and all the flying controls from the cockpit it was rejected by the MoD of the time. The proposal design was, however, included as part of the documentation gifted to the Martin Aircraft Co along with two B.2 ‘template’ airframes.

🙁

I personally disagree with that Bri, to me the interdictor biased B-57B onwards were the worst looking of the Canberra breed.
BUT it must have been the most practical layout in every respect. From normal cockpit entry and exit, both crew visibility, and especially practical crew escape. When you look back it is perhaps surprisng that EE / BAC didn’t adopt this layout for their twin crew Canberras

Slightly ‘off piste’, I know, but the centre-line ‘fighter-type’ cockpit canopy of the USAFs B-57 looks familiar.

Was it an existing canopy used on another type of aircraft, or specially designed for their Canberras?

Incidentally, I think it looked better then the EE version.

Bri 🙂

Just don’t tell him!
It is surprising just how big the fighter canopy is, a good head on shot reveals this.

Thanks pagen01 & John for the very informative answers.

I will now have to eat humble pie and admit to the B(I)8 modeller that I was wrong……. 😮

It was probably a senior moment thing – I must have read that the 8 & 9 pilot’s positions were in the same place (albeit with different access/canopies) – and my aging brain ‘converted’ this into ‘pilot’s positions in ALL Canberras.

Ho hum…..

Cheers

Ken

The pilots position varied from the normal “B” types to that in the T.4 and in the B(I).8 and PR.9.
The pilots seat, in the “fighter canopied types, was moved back and higher up on an extension of what had been the Navs seat rail, against the pressure bulkhead, in the “goldfish bowl” canopied bombers, . In the T.4 the 1st dickies seat was moved slightly to port to make room for the second (swing) seat and this caused difficulties later with the change of “bone dome” having very little clearance for the curvature of the canopy, giving a tall pilot a lop sided look.

John

Thats a negative, on the B.(I).8 and the PR.9 the pilots seat is mounted at the same position against the angled cockpit bulkhead as the NAVIGATOR is on the B.2 – 6 etc ‘goldfish bowl canopy’ types. The seat is also mounted higher up than the original navs’ seat, I don’t know by how much, but I would guess a couple of feet.
On the earlier types the rear crew are firmly seated within the fusalage diameter, where as the pilot of the 8 and 9 protrudes quite a bit, hence the substantial fighter type canopy. The whole idea of this Albert Draper designed mod. was to give the pilot improved visibility.
If anything maybe the nav on the 8 and 9 sat in the older types pilots position.

As a note, there is also substantial differences between the 8 and 9 nose, especially internally. The 8 was accessed by both crew via a small door on the starboard side. The pilot had to negotiate his way into his ejector seat and sat under the fixed fighter style canopy. The nav sat in a fixed seat forward of him. A ram operated deflector ahead of the crew entry door was the only help the nav got to escape.
The 9 had a hinged canopy of the same fighter style as the 8, and the pilot enterd his seat through this. The nav entered his ejection seat via the hinged nose cone, again he was seated ahead of the pilot.
The two types also have differeing nose profiles.