Super secret Canberra upgrade on the beeb

Quixoticish · Post by **Quixoticish** » 21 Aug 2006, 13:41

http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/conte ... ry.shtml?6

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 21 Aug 2006, 13:43

That bloke from Reuters (?) has been at it again

airboatr · Post by **airboatr** » 21 Aug 2006, 13:52

just a observation....
why is the cockpit , :k: cocked over to the port ?

Post by **Garry Russell** » 21 Aug 2006, 14:38

Hi Joe

I think it was for improving downwards visibility.

Garry

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 21 Aug 2006, 14:41

airboatr wrote:just a observation....
why is the cockpit , :k: cocked over to the port ?

Like Garry, I'm into civvie rather than mil aircraft but I think I'm right in saying the bomb aimer lived in a 'coal hole' on that side. There was probably a good reason for it at the time, or at least the designers probabyl thoguht they had one

Post by **DaveB** » 21 Aug 2006, 14:59

The original design spec of the Canberra was for a crew of 2 sat side by side, hence the goldfish bowl you see on the other versions.. otherwise, it may have started as seen in the PR9.

ATB

DaveB :tab:

steve p · Post by **steve p** » 21 Aug 2006, 15:20

TobyV wrote:
airboatr wrote:just a observation....
why is the cockpit , :k: cocked over to the port ?
Like Garry, I'm into civvie rather than mil aircraft but I think I'm right in saying the bomb aimer lived in a 'coal hole' on that side. There was probably a good reason for it at the time, or at least the designers probabyl thoguht they had one

I'd love to hear the reason. Can't really blame Petter for this, as the Sea Vixen also had the same idea. Smaller canopy = less drag?

I would have thought that the ability to get a decent view to check your position would have been pretty useful for a navigator...

Best wishes
Steve P

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 21 Aug 2006, 15:28

I think it was more to keep outside light and relections out of the glass screens of their equipment, but I could be wrong.

Post by **DaveB** » 21 Aug 2006, 15:44

The Sea Vixen is a slightly different kettle of fish. The NO sit's below and to the RH side of the pilot. It's a chicken and egg situation I suppose. The equipment required to be carried by the SV (and noting the SV's operations) meant that a normal config couldn't be achieved without a bigger airframe

ATB

DaveB :tab:

airboatr · Post by **airboatr** » 21 Aug 2006, 15:53

DaveB wrote:The Sea Vixen is a slightly different kettle of fish. The NO sit's below and to the RH side of the pilot. It's a chicken and egg situation I suppose.............

ATB

DaveB :tab:

any reports of the NO accually hatching??