Thanks for the photo, certainly an interesting beastie. Sort of a 360 Sqn hand me down fitted with a dusty bin wannabe on the top.

Cheeky! The frame is a B.6(R).

Would be correct in thinking that WT305 is an ex B (i) 6?

No, a B(I)6 was a different beast altogether. Only commonality was the basic B.6 frame. BTW, I say again, B(I)6s only ever flew with one sqn – 231 Sqn in Germany.

How many where there & if anyone has any colour photos any chance of dropping me a PM as I see a modelling challenge for “Bexs Canberra Ceiling Corner” looming.

Standard NATO grey/green with off grey/white underside and no sqn markings when in Zabra config. Previously had 51’s Red Goose on fin. Camo extends over the elongated nose.

Ok silly question time now, anyone know if its possible to get hold of a retired aircrafts service record?

Ross will know I expect. Check with him.

John Aeroclub
Many thanks for the diagram, most interesting not to say enlightning. What a strange state of affairs for the T.4.

.

For some reason Canberra overall length is not measured over the pitot head,therefore a B.6 at 65’6″ becomes 66′ 3″ in true overall length.

That would be because the original position for the pitot head was on the lower port side of the nose just behind the nose glazing.

.

I think you’ll find that remark somewhat at odds with the day to day operations carried out by the RAF’s Maritime squadrons. They were probably “in contact” with more soviet units daily than any other part of the RAF!

Totally different state of affairs Peter, totally diffent. Read again what Jacko wrote . . Cold War participation that was active and hot (as opposed to deterrence).

The ‘Maritime’ sqns carried out look-see ops as did the F-4s and Lightnings with the Bears. All this was pugnacious only in so far as it meant “We see you, now p*ss off!” 51’s aircraft went aggresively into harm’s way (to use an amusing Americanism). The ‘clashes’ were never publicised and the public would never have been told of any of the confilicts.

Hope this helps.

.

Jacko
You have been busy. To answer your question in post #16, I joined 51 on return from Geilenkirchen in early 65. Stayed with them until 67/68, a period which included fitter’s course at St Athan in 66.

Spent some of last evening digging out a ‘notebook’ I had for my time on 51, thought it might contain some useable detail. Find, however, that although it’s fairly full of detail it is pretty much all of the airframe fitter type for the Cans, Comet and Hastings – flap/undercarriage timings, tyre pressures against differing fits, part nos for ‘bits’, and other rigger type stuff of no real interest here. Not a lot about the whys or wherefores of the Canberras (interest wasn’t encouraged). Anything I ‘know’ will have come from being part of the sqn.

Couple of points come to mind though . . .
When I joined the sqn there was WJ775, WT301, WT305 and WJ768, all with needle noses although the talk was of a change to the shape. 305 was undergoing a longish preparation for going away for an upgrade ‘fit’ (CSE?).

I seem to remember that the Cans (775 and 301) were nicknamed ‘TX’ (‘Emitter’) and RX (‘Receiver’), can’t recall which was which, but it seemed to make a difference in the fit’n’kit department as each was treated and worked in a different manner. For example, when the Comet flew it was usually accompanied by ‘TX’ which would depart a few hours earlier (always seemed to be around 04:00!).

During my time on the sqn my recollection is of there being only two Canberras in actual full time use (775 and 301). 305 was away on elint upgrade and WJ768, which had come to us from BCDU, seemed to spend pretty much all of its time tucked away in the back of the hangar with an RAF St Athan airframe mod team working on it. It was there for a many a month. 768, by the way, eventually flew out to Akrotiri for use as a fire fighting brick in 1974, such a waste.

Can confirm the exceeding small living space in the Cans for the backseaters, not easy to get in or out – and it got very hot in there, very hot. Also, I recall they went u/s a fair amount, mostly with electrical faults in the massive power generation kit they employed. The spec kit was always going down and being fiddled with.

What we need here is a fairy that was on 51 at that time. Surely Jacko you of all people with your connections must know one or two aircrew/SO’s who spent time on 51?

As for 775 being rescued . . . this would be good but somehow I doubt it will happen. It’ll do no real good pursuing it on this board though as it’s not a P-51 nor would it fit in with the airframes at Old Warden. :dev2:

:diablo:

Jacko
I consider there were only 16 basic different types of Canberra (not counting export types). The rest of those on your impressive list should be considered as sub-types. For example, the B.6 was the basic type all subsequent mods and variants – B.6(BS), etc – were effectively B.6s with different ‘fits’. However that’s only my opinion.

Also, when the Canberra was in service it would have been difficult to find any two airframes that were exactly the same, (fit, features and the like) even on the same sqn! Individual Mod states accounted for much of this as did ‘local’ mods and features. The four on 51 sqn were definitely not all the same when I was on the sqn as each had a separately defined task. In fact, we used the designation B.6(R) for these airframes. But again this was probably a designation ‘local’ to 51.

All Canberras were 65ft 6in in overall length except the PR.3, 7 and 9 which were 66ft 8in. This dimension, of course, is basic and takes no acccount of the differring nose fittings that could be employed (B.6(R)s for example.)

PR.3 had two seats, pilot and nav. Nav’s seat was never on centreline as far as I can make out. You’re right about the lack of optical flat and the additional 14 inch ‘plug’ to provide for a fwd camera bay – all PRs had this mod. Also you’re right about the fuel fillers. If you wish you can crawl all over a ‘live’ PR.3 (WF922) at the Midland Air Museum, Coventry Airport. This is one of only two complete examples left in the world, the other bein WE139 at Hendon (and try getting anywhere near that!)

The stb seat in the T.4 was, as you note, a swinging affair hinged at the top. It could be swung forward (and locked) for nav access, or backwards (and locked) for left hand seat pilot access. Usually, the right hand seat pilot (mostly ‘trappers’) would remain strapped into the right hand seat when it was swung back so that the ‘student’ could be changed thus making a ‘running’ change during training sorties. To facilitate this the control columns were pushed fully forward and the ground crew would insert a special ground lock at the base of the right hand column to hold them that way whilst much scrambling with cursing (various) went on. Nose wasn’t exactly solid, just no glazing. A T.4s nose cone could also be swung open (like a PR.9) but hinged on the port side not stbd side as with the 9. Don’t know if early T.4s had a fourth seat fitted but would think not as there would be no point. Some Indian Air Force friends have the impression that their early T.4s didn’t have ejector seats at all! Find this hard to believe though.

Your B.6(Mod) has been dealt with above. The tail warning kit was Orange Putter.

Yes, B(I)6s were three seaters. Also, the B(I)6 was wired for nuclear delivery as was the B(I)8. Only 213 Sqn in RAFG were equipped with the B(I)6.

The B(I)8 wasn’t actually a derivative of the B(I)6. The B(I)8 prototype came out of the aborted B.5 (VX185) target marker variant. The B(I)6 was produced as an intrim interdictor (utilising ‘bits’ developed for the upcoming 8) to cover the delay in the B(I)8 production line. As with the 6, the 8 was wired to deliver a US type nuke. For take off and landing, nav sat in a built-in, non ejecting seat against the pressure bulkhead and positioned below and to the pilot’s right. It wasn’t truley a Rumbold seat as it wasn’t foldable. During flight, the nav moved fwd to take his place on a swivelable, folding ‘dicky’ seat mounted to the floor. This allowed him to sit at his permanantly down nav’s desk. This ‘dicky’ seat could be folded to locate out of the way under the nav’s desk, thus allowing crew entry via the entrance door. The desk faced to port with a small window over it. Nav could also move fwd onto the pallias that was used in the bomb aimer’s position. This position was usually used to for the nav to take photos with a hand-held F-95(?) camera – or a ‘personal’ camera.;)

Nav’s flying suit included a large pocket on the right hand leg whis held his ejection oxy supply. The windbreak door was pneumatically operated not hydraulic.

I’ve nothing to add about the PR.9

The U.10/14 and D.10/14 remote controlled drones all had PR.9 type hyd controls. Woomera and the Royal Navy (728B Sqn) used these as guided missile targets. All were later re-designated D-10/14 when the meaning of ‘U’ was changed from ‘Unmanned’ to ‘Utility’.

As for the seating in the T.11/19s, don’t really know, but all the pics I’ve seen of the T.11 seem to show just one seat up-front. You could always check with the Newark Aviation Museum I guess. As for this Canberra, I’ve always been intrigued by the fittment of a windbreak door – pneumatic by the way as with the B(I)8. Can really see no logic for it and would be appreciative of a good explanation. Unless they regularly carried a 4th crewmember on the usual Rumbold seat?

B.15/16, E.15. Not overly familiar with these Cyprus boys. Accept what you say about them.

The remainder of your impressive list reads right to me (for what it’s worth :rolleyes: ) but as I said at the beginning individual Canberras could, and did, differ in many ways (which is why cockpit panel collectors have such a hard time I guess).

Anyway, thanks for your post Jacko, most welcome and interesting, filled in a bit of this sunny Sunday morning.

By the way, in another place you mentioned a variant you had inadvertantly left off your list. Can’t think of it so any chance of revealing it here?

.

Following on from Martin’s comment about the Argosy’s interior, here’s a couple or three shots showing same.

Would like to reinforce Martin’s comment that you should really get along and see this aiframe. With both cargo doors open it’s a genuine ‘walk-through’ experience.

As I understand it the whole question of aircraft such as those mentioned being allowed to fly in the UK comes down, fundementally, to whether or not a ‘manufacturer’ is prepared to take on the mantle of ‘responsibile authority’ for their airworthiness – ie BAe.

.