The engines in the B57’s were licence built Armstrong Siddeley Sapphires

These were the Wright J65-W-1 to 5 series.

The original ‘fishbowl’ canopy had some severe limitations..Headroom being one and weapon aiming another and I could never understand why us brits did not adopt this design.

I recall ‘Bee’ Beamont saying once that English Electric proposed such a tadem seater design change for the Canberra in 1950 but it was considered too costly by the MoD so the plan and drawings were shelved. He believed these ‘plans’ were later transfered or ceeded to the Americans with the ‘pattern’ Canberra, WD932 when it was delivered in 1951. The original bubble type canopy was adopted in 1949 because it was easier to manufacture as part of a pressurised structure.

.

There are digital recce systems being used, but ‘Wet Film’ is and always will be (in my view) far better.

Must agree with this. Have seen some really stunning images from ‘wet’ which put digital to shame I think. For example, views of the Houses of Parliament taken from a 9 flying up the coast. Remarkable what can be made out on the image. And the images seem to be capable of unfussy enlargement of up to a yard or so square (if not larger in part).

Maybe matzos could get a couple of de-class examples to post on the forum. :rolleyes:

.

If anyone would like to see some more please let me know.

That would be good. Not a lot of chances left to see Cranberries at work.

Need any Talcum Powder in the sandbox? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Reasons that come to mind without in-depth research . . .

Rotation
FOD
Ground clearance for weapons fits

This last doesn’t always hold true though. Look at, eg, the Nimrod with its bomb doors open. Or the Canberra. That had to be jacked-up on the mains to enable nuke fit! (Canberras were fitted with an independently selectable nose u/c hyd valve that that could be used to ‘kneel’ the aircraft. But hardly anybody used this as it was a pain to set up.)

Regarding the JP.1, I understand the stalky u/c was because they utilised Piston Povost legs to keep costs down. The later JP’s however were ground huggers.

Anyway, I don’t really think later jets have really noticeable stalkiness. Maybe in the early days they could be said to have had but this, in my opinion, was due to ‘older’ oleo and u/c designs rolling over from the piston era.

.

I remember two examples; lying in the fuselage in the tropical heat at Gan with a large air blower trying to dry the electrical looms that had got soaked and were causing a certain fuse to blow (it sure beat any sauna I’ve ever been in), . . .

Well fatnav, that’s what you get for leaving your front door and hood wide open around 16:30(ish) when the rain was due. :diablo:

I was on Gan and well recall the 9’s and 7’s that seemed to saunter through almost weekly carrying boxes of Walkers Crisps in their panniers when east bound for the blokes at Tengah or Changi; and Chinese laquer work boxes and other trinkets on west-bound.

During the most of my time there (72-73) I was one of the three CanMen on the island as I recall. A rigger (me, ex 3 & 51Sqns at that time), an electrician (ex-58, 39 Sqn), and a sooty (ex-7, 13 Sqn). We certainly hacked a few snags on transit Cans – some I suspect just brought up to give the pilot and nav another day in the Blue Lagoon or on the beach or lazing in our glass-bottomed boat over the reef. 😉 In fact, me and the ex-58 Sqn bloke knew a few of the crews and managed to have some exotic-type trinkets etc flown home to our families at Wyton (we had both come from there).

Recall one pilot in particular, Fl Lt Bull. Top bloke, QFI and the ‘Grandad’ of all Canberra pilots. Did you know of him?

.