Question time again

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

Hi folks, in the effort to improve my woeful level of knowledge it's question time again. Whilst I can understand the leading edge inboard of the engines being further forward than it is immediately out board of them on the Mosquito as it housed the radiators, does anyone know why the same situation existed on the Canberra? Nothing obvious comes to my mind.
Original post
Profile picture for user Lazy8

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 549

The 'obvious' thing that came to my mind is that it was done so that a particular aerofoil section could be used, whilst still being thick enough to house the undercarriage and/or sufficiently meaty spars to support the engines. I don't know the truth of it, but that's my thought. Next!:rolleyes:

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

Actually that had never crossed my mind. Obviously didn't give it enough thought before I asked the question. I suppose there could also have been fuel or oil tankage in there too but if I'm wrong someone with better knowledge will soon put me straight I'm sure.
Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 5,811

The 'Long Chord' inner wing was only on the PR9 (and a couple of 'specials/development a/c for same) On the previous Canberra marks the inner L/E was near enough 'in line' with the outer L/E - the inner wing leading edge panels gave access to Cold Air Unit/Hyd Pumps/Air Con Gate Valves etc ! On those Canberras with 'wet' wings - the integral fuel tanks were in the L/E outboard of the engines. The long chord of the PR9 variants was an attempt to increase wing area 'on the cheap' - rather than extending the span ! But the Long chord inner wing could be 'Draggy' if the Angle of Attack increased slightly - so high altitude climbs had to be accurately flown !
Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 5,811

Canberra B2 cutaway The B6 and variants had Integral Fuel tanks in the outboard Leading Edges http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/canberracutaway_zps7bb1df0d.jpg

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

Thanks Baz, I'd actually forgotten that the PR9 was the only mark it applied to. I'm pretty sure they didn't waste the space though, no doubt they found something to tuck in there.
Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 5,811

Hi Mike The Canberras were generally speaking a pleasure to work on. I was posted to 231 OCU Cottesmore as a J/T Rigger (A fitt A) straight from Halton in 1972,I had not done any metal or woodwork at school and although I had graduated with quite good overall marks - I was glad to be posted to a relatively simple aircraft to adjust to the black art of riggering :D We had B 2's and T4's which even by then were getting on a little ! A few years later I did do some work on later marks at MEAS Marham - these were from the very eclectic 100 sqn (Tatty Ton /The Boneyard ) fleet,100 sqn had ended up with a collection of far too many different Canberra marks post the closure of West Raynham and 85 sqn ! I only did about 6 months in MEAS before I escaped from Marham ; ) MEAS = Mechanical Engineering (Aircraft) Squadron - The Hangar(s) which did the scheduled servicing for the based squadrons !

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

Nice to hear from someone who actually worked on them. I always liked the look of themso it's nice to know they were also generally nice to work on. I imagine that there were times when they made you curse a bit though. Any type will do that.
Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 5,811

Yes Mike - changing the Brake Control Valve on a Bomber version was er 'interesting' as it was between the upper and lower floor in a small gap - one could either see it or touch it - but not at the same time :D The Aileron Bias Actuator was similar but both these jobs were easier on the T4 because you could swing the nose open ! Corrosion was a significant problem - the metals used were quite old fashioned and susceptible to corrosion. I did manage to get a T4 ride (rare for groundcrew) - very quiet and smooth,I had been offered loads of B2 rides but could not see the fun in sitting at the back with no canopy !

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

Probably a lot of corrosion cased by contact between dissimilar metals too. Has to be one of my favourite military aircraft sine they went over to paraffin burners for power. That and the Hunter always appealed to me.

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 151

Comparing Canberra PR.9 to RB-57F Was the role of the PR.9 similar to that of the USAF RB-57F? I wonder how much fuselage modification would have been required to "strap on" a set of high(-ish) altitude RB-57F wings on to the PR.9? Regards, ...geoff

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

How true it is I don't know but I heard a story somewhere that a standard RAF Canberra PR9 took a photo from 10000 ft above an RB57 at what the USAF claimed was the 57's max ceiling. If it's true I'm sure the USAF would have been somewhat dischuffed at that.