I bought a 300D body in January and find myself well pleased with it. At first I was sceptical regarding its “plastic” construction but, in use, that aspect is not noticed. The bonus for me was/is that the lenses I have for my Canon 30 also work very well (and just as fast) on the 300D. In fact, there is an additional bonus in that due to the 1.6x aspect ratio difference between a 35mm and digital image I get an effective increase in focal length so my Canon 75-300 becomes an effective 120-486. True, I lose the 28mm wide angle facility on the 28-90mm but I can live with that. As I understand it the 300D has the same sensor as the 10D, in fact, some reports mention that the 300D is a “pared-back” 10D. How true this is I’ve no idea, but it works for me.

Connection to the computer is simplicity itself via the USB cable provided. You get a fair bit of graphics type software with the Canon, but I find that none of it is necessary so I don’t use it as the 300D is treated by Windoze XP as a removeable storage device – called the “Kiss” for some reason.

Haven’t had a chance to wield the thing at an airshow yet but I don’t expect any problems. My photography is orders of magnitude below Damien’s anyway but I’m well pleased with most of what I take and that’s the whole point to me. Also, the thing earns its keep as I do a bit of free-lance photography, since being made redundant last year, and the features the 300D has are sufficient for purpose. Also digital means that I won’t be paying for so-so “averaged” film processing this year (and the wife is pleased with the space released by not keeping 35mm film packs in the fridge).

So, I would say the 300D is a good bet for those of us who don’t have the “need” of the likes of Damien but want a good digital SLR.

This pic was taken in Feb in my back garden. Nothing spectacular I know, but taken hand-held and virtually vertically above me, I’m pleased enough with the result.

Ah, the infamous Canberra snatch unit. This was actually a two-part bit of kit, a “detonation collar”, which was fitted around the elevator control tube where it ran under the pilot’s port side control panel, and a spring (or two springs on some) attached to the bottom of an extension to the control column under the pilot’s feet. As has been said, when used the det collar severed the elev control tube and the snatch unit forcibly pulled the stick fully forward. It wasn’t always the case that this violent column movement smashed the yoke into the lower part of the inst panel, eg, it didn’t always happen thus on B(I)8s, but it seems to have happened often enough in other marks of Canberra to have become “legendary”.

Regarding EricMc’s tale – the incident described to you did happen I believe, don’t recall the aircraft at the moment but could look up the serial number for you if you’re really interested. The pilot, of course, acted magnificently in that he re-established some sort of flying control by using the “flying tail” trim (all electrical) and differential throttle. Mmm . . .have heard this tale recently somewhere, don’t recall all the detail but will try and find out.

The canopy jettison and the control column snatch unit were initiated indepenently of the ejection seat sequence. On B.2 and variants, there was a flap-covered control lever on the port panel which activated the column’s det collar system. Or the pilot could just jettison the fish-bowl canopy from another switch (ring of det boolts holding the canopy in place), then use the seat’s face blind and get out. Interestingly though, the B.2 type Pilot’s Notes say that the canopy was NOT to be jettisoned and the pilot was supposed to eject through it! The B(I)8 also had a separate a canopy jettison switch but it also had a combined canopy/control cloumn control lever (which activated both emergency actions). In the B(I)8 of course, the nav wasn’t provided with an ejection seat – brave guys those Strike Squadron navs.

Hope this helps, more than you wanted to know I bet.

Hi

Tank, your story sounds like a publicity stunt as happened with a Trident (mentioned by Distiller – thought that was at RAE Bedford though).

However, there were pilotless Canberras – variants U.10 and U.14. These were used as flying missile targets by the Weapons Research Establishment at the Edinburgh Field base, Australia in the early 60s – they were flown on the Woomera range.

Short Bros & Harland produced 17 U.10s and 6 U.14s by converting existing B.2s. These were painted overall white with various black markings applied for camera setting purposes.

So your mate’s tale is probably true from a publicity angle, haven’t heard of it myself, but that’s no indicator! 😀

JASE

Did they finally get the Avons then? Or just the hyd bits and legs?

Glen

15 Hunters at Kemble was magical and will probably never be repeated ……….but I might be more than a little biased ….DB/Les??

Only when you were riding your bike. :rolleyes:

WT519 ‘CH’ Canberra PR.7 ex 100, 13, A&AEE, 31. placed on the dump 1991.

I have a potted history and pics of WT519 on the Survivors pages of my Canberra web site.

One of the pics . . .