Page 27 – Key Publishing

LesB

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 681 total)

← 1 2 3 … 26 27 28 … 44 45 46 →

Author

Posts
November 25, 2005 at 5:02 pm in reply to: Google #1397517

LesB
Participant

It’s their Argosy.

November 25, 2005 at 4:59 pm in reply to: Beyond Saving? #1397527

LesB
Participant

WK124 has been there since 1991. Potted history here

Here’s a pic of it in better times – at the Canberra’s 40th at RAF Wyton, 1989.

November 14, 2005 at 8:52 am in reply to: WF922 has its eyes back #1409019

LesB
Participant

Thanks motf, very encouraging of you to say that. Mostly it’s because the three of us are all ex-RAF Canberra blokes – with a Chiefy in charge. . . 😉

You should cut along and get some pix of it (and the other ‘frames) sometime. I personally would like some good cockpit internals taken as I don’t have a wide enough lens for my Cannon (only have a 28mm from my 35mm days). DB has a batch but they were taken some time back before the latest phase.

🙂

November 14, 2005 at 12:18 am in reply to: WF922 has its eyes back #1409202

LesB
Participant

Les, Get Malc to repaint that ‘VN799’ the other side of the fence in its correct colours and markings?

No. We like it the way it is. Let it go Albert.

November 13, 2005 at 11:47 pm in reply to: WF922 has its eyes back #1409211

LesB
Participant

Thanks Dave and Albert, I’m sure Malc will be pleased to hear your comments.

As for the internals being “back to how it was”, well, that is something that the majority of visitors won’t actually see unless they ask specifically.

One point though, there’s still a lot of “trials” equipment and mounting points in the air frame. In fact, in the F-52 pic the blue painted equip panel and orange wiring are trials-fit gear. This equip is scattered throughout and pretty much embedded and integrated into the structure so, unfortunately, WF922 will never actually be revertable to RAF standard as it was when with, say, 39 Sqn. It’s just unrealistc to even think about stripping it out. But as I’ve said before, with just a little licence Malc’s got this PR.3 now nearly as good as the only other one at Hendon. And you try getting anywhere near that one! 😎

.

November 9, 2005 at 8:05 pm in reply to: T4 Canberra #1416082

LesB
Participant

Want to commend Damien on his usual hi-qual pix and, of course, all the other pic takers in this thread. Makes my efforts look feeble.

Eyes closed?

At rest at its new home.

“OK, we’ve got it. Now what?

Quite a day, historic in a way. WJ874 was crewed by Wng Cmdr Clive Mitchell (Sqn Boss) and Flt Lt Mike Leckey (pilot). By the way, I do believe Mike is one of the BoBMF Lancaster pilots.

My heartfelt thanks to the Air Atlantique crowd – top blokes all round.

🙂 🙂 😎

November 8, 2005 at 11:34 pm in reply to: T4 Canberra #1417563

LesB
Participant

The flight was supposed to be today, Tuesday, with an ETA at Baggers of 14:00. I was down at MAM today and it was definitely a bad flying day. I believe that the transit was postponed due to a steady 25+kt X-wind at Bag and v low cloud base. The conditions were out of limits for a T.4 (even in my day :rolleyes: )

I believe they will try tomog, leaving Marham at around 13:00 – 13:30.

For the time I was there all I saw in the luft (apart from a couple of seagulls) was the Air Atlantique Flying Trainer and the Air Ambulance chopper.

Although the Atlantique kite looked quite wobbly as it came in, it was obviously a good pilot (or student) at his home base. :rolleyes:

October 27, 2005 at 10:48 am in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1338163

LesB
Participant

. . . Maintenance and training must be a problem to some degree.

Not the point. True, the cranberry is coming to the end of its life but since 1949 (1951 with the RAF) it has carried out a multitude of tasks world-wide as well if not better than a lot of other frames. And maintenance was never a “cost” problem – it was a non-complex kite, completely suited to being “fixed” anywhere in the world over its time (and often was). 😎

As for being currently cost effective . . .that’s for the bean counters to say, but it still earns revenue for the MoD else it would be long gone. It is also salutory to reflect on the fact that there is no platform that can or will replace it in the future. It’s essentially the yanks that want to keep it flying doing strat reccon, and the 9’s will do that until around this time next year.

Unforgiving? Yes. Dangerous? Yes, in complacent hands of both air and ground crew. But the Canberra in all its roles more than satisfies the thread’s original question. You can argue that it couldn’t operate from a carrier, well, OK, I’ll give you that. :rolleyes: But that doesn’t detract in any way from the fact that the Canberra, designed as a medium bomber, went on with hardly any design changes to fulfill the task requirements of just about everybody, including foreign air forces and the civilian aerospace industry. In fact, two examples are currently in revenue earning service in the states.

October 26, 2005 at 1:46 pm in reply to: some aviation black humor #1338534

LesB
Participant

RAF Wyton – 70s. Met brief for Chipmunk (Trainer) flight.

Met man: “We’ll have regular showers throughout the day.”

Question from Chipmunk pilot: “How long will they last?”

Met man: “About 15 minutes each”.

Question: “How frequent will they be?”

Met man: “About 3 or 4 each hour”.

😉

October 23, 2005 at 10:56 am in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1340801

LesB
Participant

APC104

Matters not that Canberras were splashed by Harriers, the question posed was “Most Cost Effective Multi-Role Jet Aircraft”. In answer to this question the Canberra surely has no equal.

.

October 22, 2005 at 12:10 pm in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1341210

LesB
Participant

I’ve never seen a Canberra flying and to me they always look ungainly and like they’d be hard to manouvre about the sky in combat, especially strafing the ground, when compared with the A4K, Vampire or Blunty. I guess this impression is probably quite wrong, but I’ve not had the chance to see one in the air.

Graceful kites David, most elegant. The Canberra moves through the luft with an ease that belies their deadly purpose. Have seen Canberras do most aeros that fighters can do – including bomb-burst type displays with four or more ships – and it’s a bomber! :rolleyes: Also have seen the B(I)8s on ground attack at Nordhorn, they can move a lot of mud and make mincemeat of old MT vehicles. Pretty much the same cannon as a Hunter really.

Our Canberras were sold to India after we got the A4K’s. I wonder how long they lasted there and if they outdid the Skyhawk’s run of lifetime? I also wonder if any still exist.

Yes, the IAF still have one (or maybe two) of those flying as target tugs. Well, as far as I know they have. But whether they are ex-NZ or their own B(I)58s I don’t know. Have been trying for some time to see if any records exist to enable a match of NZ serial numbers but to no avail. 🙁

.

October 22, 2005 at 11:02 am in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1341228

LesB
Participant

The Camberra may have done other stuff, not sure as it was before my time but the books all state only that it was used for medium level interdiction bombing – what exactly did interdiction mean? My dictionary simply says ‘formal prohibition’

David, brief notes on the RNZAF Canberras here. 14 Sqn (B(I)12 Canberras) also included a ground attack role using rocket projectile underwing pods, used during Confrontation.

“Interdictor” basically means something like – go out and harrass the enemy 😉 . Our B(I)8s were to do this with a gunpack fitted in the bomb bay.

Couple of RNZAF pics for your interest. . .

The text on these pics comes from a former RNZAF 14 Sqn pilot.

. . . and with RP pods. . .

Always willing to talk Canberras – best multi-role airframe and Queen of the Skies. 😎
.

October 18, 2005 at 9:31 am in reply to: Anyone fancy a Canberra or Harrier cockpit project??? #1345548

LesB
Participant

The Canberras are…XH174; WH849; WH887; Anybody no more of their previous history?
The PR9 XH174 was at St Athan, so i presume they stripped it to keep the others going? LesB what say yee….?

Right here, just don’t get up as early as some. 🙂

PR.9 – XH174 – ordinary history. Ready for collection on 4 Oct 1960 went first to 39 Sqn at Luqa (Malta). Transferred for a while to the Ministry of Technology then returned to 39. Swapped between 39 and 13 Sqns ending with 39 when they returned the Wyton. Still at Wyton when 1 PRU was formed and flew with them until it was relegated to storage at St Athan in May 1989. Finally dismantled in May 1991, with the cockpit section going to RAE Bedford in Oct 91. Used as a spares christmas tree? Probably.

T.4 – WH849 – T.4. Ready for collection 24 May 1954. Initially to RAF Marham’s Station Flight. Has a long history of users – Station Flight RAF Conningsby, Station Flight RAF Binbrook, the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Thurleigh, 76 Sqn, 231 OCU, 85 Sqn, 360 Sqn, 100 Sqn, 231 OCU, 7 Sqn, 231 OCU, and finally 39 Sqn at RAF Marham. Transported to RAF Shawbury in 2002, supposed to enter long-term storage but became a source of spares

B.2/TT.18 – WH887 – Built in 1953. Issued first to 1323Flt next onto 542 Sqn (same people really). Then onto 21 Sqn at RAF Upwood where it ended up on the Station Flight. Converted to TT.18 configuration and transferred to the Navy in Nov 1969. Served with FRU, FRADU until loaned to Flight Refuelling. Returned to FRADU but stored at St Athan Nov 1986, released back to FRADU a month later. Another sojurn at St Athan and then back to FRADU again in July 1992. No date for end of service but it obviously ended with FRADU. Have heard snippets about this frame over time but nothing reportable. If anybody knows any further detail of its after-FRADU life be good to hear from you. Mark?

There would seem to be a fourth frame there as well, coded “AT”. Could be a T.4 or a PR.7. I’m trying to ID a Canberra that had code “AT” on the fin but as these codes were swapped and shifted about it may take a while. :rolleyes:

Hope this helps.

😎

October 17, 2005 at 8:35 am in reply to: A wander round the Air Museum at Santiago, Chile, in 50 odd photographs. #1346549

LesB
Participant

the one in the photo is FACh 343; 341 is in much poorer condition at the Museo’s facilities…

Thanks for the info Cessna, my typo in previous, should have read 343 of course not 347.

These are the two remaining (of three) PR.9s given to Chile after the Falklands. The pics I have of them are 1997 vintage with one taken in 2000 of 343 sans markings. Would appreciate any update news on them.

Pix by Avaro Romero Perez

October 17, 2005 at 12:40 am in reply to: A wander round the Air Museum at Santiago, Chile, in 50 odd photographs. #1346796

LesB
Participant

Mark

Good pic of the PR.9. There should be two there I think, 341 (ex-XH166) and 347 (ex-XH173). Would you know which one your pic shows?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 681 total)

← 1 2 3 … 26 27 28 … 44 45 46 →