Anyone have any solid photos of the B(I).8 gun pack when fitted?

I’m also curious as to what types of bombs were fitted and how many could be carried in the two types of weapons bays (i.e. the full Brit bay without the gunpack and the B-57 bay).

I think a search on airliners.net for B(I).8s or a trip to Les B’s site will get you what you need for the gun pack. Bomb load wise, the full Brit bomb bay was 6x 1,000lb, or 10x 500lb. I believe the total armament weight on the Mark 8 was 10,000lb, that said, 6,000 internal stores, and 2,000lb underwings leaves you short of 2,000lb elsewhere. These are just the main bomb types though, as I think it could accomodate a range of target markers and larger amounts of practice bombs. B-57…hmm, I’m sure someone can do some digging on that.

**UPDATE, here’s a natty little view of the gunpack as fitted on a B(I).8 model kit which might help you:

http://www.ipmsusa2.org/reviews2/aircraft/details/qb_48/qb_48_canberra-gunpack.htm

Any idea what variety of munitions that were carried on the two underwing pylons in the Mk.8?

Some sources state that each pylon could take a 1,000-lb. bomb. Is that a misprint with each pylon capable of carrying a 500-lb. weapon thus being 1,000-lbs. total?

I’ve seen a picture of an Argentine Canberra with dual rocket pods on each pylon for a total of four. Could Brit Canberras carry four rocket pods?

This is a great topic, just stumbled across it. I have to echo Tim’s comments about it being hard to palette the idea of the US version being an improvement over the classic Brit design, but I have read many a comment to say this was true, simply from the tandem standpoint alone. That said, the offset angle of the B(I) canopy must have been nice for pilots.

One thing I think was a major improvement was the rotating bomb bay, reducing drag etc over target. Very natty idea, that. Interesting concept putting the MGs and later cannons in the wings too – from an interdictor standpoint, I wonder however if it was better to have massed firepower in a belly gun pack vs. spread in the wings? I guess having the bomb bay free though meant you could carry full internal bomb load over the 3x in the B(I).8 with gun pack.

Regarding Argentine Canberras with the twin Matras, I am not sure if the later B.15/16 Canberras could also carry this arrangement; it’s possible and perhaps someone can confirm. Even so, I doubt the earlier B(I) types could carry twin rockets like that. The Roland Beaumont book states 1x 1,000 bomb on each underwing plyon, or Sneb rocket launchers but not 2x on each station.

You Tube had a cracking documentary about the B-57 development a while ago which talked a lot about a lot of this discussion. Here is a small nice B-57 vid with some early colour footage of the RAF B.2 pattern model arriving in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBsqy5MFFDY

Good point SpitfireMan, perhaps the reason the controller had the climb too steep.

OK, I think I finally understand what you’re getting at now. You’re saying rotate the photo 90 degrees right…well if that is it, then I am well and truly wrong and I see the port wingtip. 😀

Honestly the whole time I’ve been losing my mind because of the way the photo was orientated and because of the angle the writing was written. If only I had seen this from early on! You all must have a lot more perceptive eyes than me!

Chaps, I think there has been some confusion. B-108 was part of the two flight group that went out on 1st May. It was damaged either by missile impact or clipping the sea on a low level turn. B-110 was shot down that day in the other flight group. B-108 was repaired on return to an emergency airfield, I forget the name, and presumably the torn wingtip ended up in the museum after that.

On the 13th June, B-108 was shot down by the Sea Dart and crashed into the sea. There was some discussion of whether any wreckage was found on land near where she went down, but no evidence has come up so far. There was also discussion regarding if she was severed in two, but accounts from Captain Pastran, the survivor (now decesased) show he was able to throttle back the engines and deploy airbrakes, implying the airframe was all in one piece still.

Chaps, glad to see this is getting some coverage here. B-108 ended up in the sea but all reports do not indicate it severed in mid-air. Only two Canberras were shot down, which you have both mentioned as B-110 and B-108. B-108 was damaged, either by impact on the sea or a possible missile impact on 1st May, but the jury is still somewhat out on that one.

I have covered the loss of B-110 and 108 here:

http://www.nazcastudios.com/grupo2/malvinas-conflict-uk.html

and there was a superb thread on it starting here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=81971&page=15

and also over at Zona Militar, including much discussion on what happened to B-108 on the 1st.

http://zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/showthread.php?t=18569&page=10

Going back briefly to the possibility of a fake, again I doubt it, but who knows. Seems unlikely to me. That piece is from a photo taken from an Argentine museum.