Here’s a wierd one –
It’s WK164 and as can be seen, the bomb aiming blister is upside down. It was photographed in company with the MRF’s PR3 WE173 so one assumes it was rigged-up for some sort of trials but I wonder if anyone knows what or why?
By: pagen01 - 1st March 2009 at 14:57
I’m surprised, seems good to me, only closely studied my PR.9 version though. Better than the Classic Airframes which has a very dodgy nose profile and ‘sit’.
Have you noticed Dimsod tailplane error, I can’t find any reference to it!
By: Chox - 1st March 2009 at 14:41
You ought to have some issues with it Page, as the more you look at it, the more you realise what a mess it is! It’s not exactly awful but for a modern mainstream kit of the Canberra costing nearly £30 I think they ought to have done a whole lot better!
By: pagen01 - 1st March 2009 at 14:13
I must admit I don’t have any issues with the Airfix Camb, other than the deep horizontal lines on the rudder.
Now the Airfix Nimrod tailplanes – how the hell no one has done a correction for these I do not know!
By: Chox - 1st March 2009 at 01:21
John, I assume that your new “greenhouse” canopy will be rather better than the Cammet one, regardless of their two DV windows!
What amazes me is that Cammmet produced new control surfaces and yet they didn’t produce anything to replace the bizarre wing tip shapes or tip tanks. When I mentioned this to the Cammet guy, he claimed he’d never heard any comments that these parts in the Airfix kit were in any way deficient! I sometimes wonder where these guys get their information and advice from!
Postfade, as I said earlier, in the magazine article from which I took the photo, the aircraft is on detachment with the MRF’s PR3 so it was evidently being employed on met work of some sort, but heaven-knows what. On the basis of the comments made on this thread, I’m guessing that the bomb aimer’s glazing may have been purely incidental and that it had nothing to do with the work on which the aircraft was being employed at the time, circa 1974. I can only asssume that the modification was made for an earlier test programme of some sort, but I can’t imagine what. As mentioned by Scorpion, an upwards-looking camera mount might be the answer although it sounds like a pretty risky business, positioning a camera (and the aircraft carrying it) below and behind an aircraft dropping stores!
By: Postfade - 28th February 2009 at 19:31
Tim (Chox),
TT18Timbo suggests ‘single crew conversion’. This copy of a post from PPRune mentions it, alas nothing about a ‘nose job’:
(http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-269642.html)
Oblique96:
Used to have fun arriving at any RAF airfield on a visit, on board a T4 or B(I), to dismount and watch the eyes of the groundcrew widen when they realised that the cab had been modded for single crew (pilot that is :O) operation. From memory, all that was needed was the re-positioning of a couple of switches to the front end.
Incidentally, they tended to have a better nav. fit than most operational Canberras – VOR and Decca, to name 2, – in addition to the usual.
I see that WK164’s nose section is, or was, supposed to have survived at Foulness. We just need to pop along and look……
Another post from this forum that I tracked down stated:
(http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-51966.html)
Consul
Sorry, no info on the schemes used…..However, it could be that the light blue – a smart looking scheme I agree – denoted use by the Bomber Maritime Test Squadron at BosDwn. I have a colour pic of WK164 in similar colours when with the BMTS.
So it could be related to it’s ‘maritime’ usuage.
DT
By: John Aeroclub - 28th February 2009 at 18:47
The canopy mould is almost ready to run
rah!:)
Page, I seem to think someone’s already done it – Cammet possibly?
Apparently Cammnet did a prototype conversion but put two Dv’s on the canopy. They had used the T.4 pretend prototype as reference. As for the optical flat not being used for dead ahead work, I would have thought it perfectly capable of this but will stand corrected. WK164 was with A&AEE and the PR.3 with the Met flight.
John
By: scorpion63 - 28th February 2009 at 16:17
A sextant can be used in fixed upward position, Transport Command had them on Britannias, and although I’m not fully sure on this, I think they were fitted into a receiver slot in the cabin roof. Anyone confirm?
Periscope sextants are fitted to many aircraft types from the Brittania, as mentioned, through the V force types, some Canberras, Nimrod, Hastings T5, etc,etc. 360 degree vision horizontally and unlimited upper vision, assuming you’re above cloud of course!!
By: Mondariz - 28th February 2009 at 15:17
I’m sure it can be used like that, but its not practical, as you need line of sight to whatever object you are aiming at.
By: pagen01 - 28th February 2009 at 15:04
A sextant can be used in fixed upward position, Transport Command had them on Britannias, and although I’m not fully sure on this, I think they were fitted into a receiver slot in the cabin roof. Anyone confirm?
By: Mondariz - 28th February 2009 at 14:15
LOL I know what a sextant is for. Might be my gramma, that made it appear different.
What I was saying was; that a sextant is no use, if you only can aim forward and upward. You need to be able to fix the sextant on celestrial objects, that might not be in front of the aircraft.
Thats why other aircraft that use sextant navigation have an astrodome.
By: Chox - 28th February 2009 at 14:15
Page, my mistake, it’s Alley Cat Resin who have the SC9 listed in 72nd and 48th scale, although I don’t think they’re released yet, or listed on their web site, but they’re noted in their advert in SAMI magazine.
By: Chox - 28th February 2009 at 14:10
Think Scorpion may have the answer there then, although it doesn’t explain what the aircraft was doing on detachment with the MRF’s PR3, but I guess the odd nose glazing might have been merely coincidental by this stage.
By: pagen01 - 28th February 2009 at 13:00
I don’t think it would be practical to use a sextant for navigation, when you only have forward/upward visability.
How about a camera for chase-plane use?
PS. I just noted JA had posted the same camera/chase-plane idea….
That is what a sextant is for, navigation! And usually used in an upward direction!
The flat of the nose glazing on this canberra wouldnt be facing forward, it would be facing at an angle upwards, so not very useful for chase plane work
By: scorpion63 - 28th February 2009 at 12:07
Upward facing cine camera for weapon release trials, the same mod was done on another airframe at Boscombe down in the early 70’s for Martel trials.
By: Mondariz - 28th February 2009 at 11:37
I don’t think it would be practical to use a sextant for navigation, when you only have forward/upward visability.
How about a camera for chase-plane use?
PS. I just noted JA had posted the same camera/chase-plane idea….
By: pagen01 - 28th February 2009 at 11:17
Excellent, is there a link or anything as I’ve not seen it on Hannants? It should be relatively straight forward as no strange curves and the extreme nose is Lighting radome. I made one for 1.72nd, but something better required for the bigger one.
By: Chox - 28th February 2009 at 11:06
The canopy mould is almost ready to run
rah!:)
Page, I seem to think someone’s already done it – Cammet possibly?
By: John Aeroclub - 28th February 2009 at 09:27
The canopy mould is almost ready to run.:)
John
By: pagen01 - 28th February 2009 at 08:38
If we are going to add wish lists, how about a nice SC.9 conversion in 48th!
By: Chox - 28th February 2009 at 02:29
It’s somewhere in the States but I don’t know where. I pulled it from an old article in Air Classics but the author spectacularly fails to actually say anything about the two aircraft – just a few paragraphs of general blurb about the Canberra and no explanation as to where they were and what they were doing there. There’s a DC-6 parked next to one of the aircraft so I assume it’s an airport somewhere, perhaps Nevada judging by the scenery.
As I said, I assume it was some sort of met work, as it was with the MRF’s PR3, but it’s certainly an aircraft I’ve never seen before!
Anyway John, ignore the bomb aimer’s blister and concentrate on that canopy (*hint hint*)- I wish Airfix had looked at a few more photographs like this recently!:D
Sign In
February 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm