Seems a bit harsh and slightly goading.

Harsh? Maybe. Goading? Not really, just sufference.

The problem with all of this is relying on memory and other peoples versions of the facts, even if slightly incorrect it is still worth posting your version if only to eek out the actual truth in someway.

The ‘truth’ has been offered not only by exmpa but also by alertken. And, as exmpa was a Vulc driver I would go with his ‘truth’.

Vulcan aerobatics is certainly one subject that sometimes falls into the subject of exagerated claims!

Right!

.

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.

🙂

hi and thanks for replying
you beleve that the window would have come from a ship????????

SS Canberra – of Falklands fame. That’s called a joke by the way.

. . .do you know were i would be able to have it identived in the uk
thanks for your time teresa any help is realy apprecated

Could be identified here . . . if you post a picture of it. Not counting the canopy or nose glazing, standard Canberras only had three ‘windows’. PR versions had about nine. Post a pic, let us see what you’re talking about.

😎

558 outside the Base Hangar at BZ last week (Thurs I think). Taken on a phone so qual is not great.

No real reason for this post, just recd this from someone and thought it may be of interest.

Ten days? Never happen. The paperwork won’t be finished for at least another month. 😉

.

What a jumbled mess! Looks like some demented schoolboy’s bedroom. Not sure that airframes are best displayed hanging by threads from the ceiling – the Lightning at Cosford being one example.

Anyway, surely everyone knows that Hendon is basically a shop with a few aircraft added in for interest.

😡

When I was in, used ‘u/s’ mostly, even in F700s. Term that has not yet been mentioned, but used extensively in my day, is when something goes ‘t i ts up”.

Agree about the term stateside ‘ramp’ though. Aircraft were on the pan or on the ‘line’.

:rolleyes: