English Electric Canberra

You're the not only one who loves that curved display line at OW. Sadly they can't fly right round the bend anymore due to the new CAA rules but they can still turn into it slightly to show the top sides still.

A Canberra back over the skies at Old Warden...there's a nice thought.

Great pics, thanks for posting them.

Steve

Thanks bv5. More lovely shots there.

I remember seeing WJ680 occasionly at shows although certainly not as often as WK163 though.

It was sold to an owner in Australia in the end.

Steve

stevie wrote:

It was sold to an owner in Australia in the end.
Steve

Hi Steve
Yes and funnily enough I was working down at Bournemouth on a contract (after Dunsfold closed) whilst 680 was being prepared for ferry out to Oz,I did try to be helpful with advice for changing the No 3 fuel tank (big rubber bag tank) but was ignored LOL.

Lovely shots again. Thanks for posting them up.

I was up at Doncaster 'Vulcan visiting' & hoping to get some shots of 163 at the same time but they had moved her out of the Hangar a day or two before to make way for a forthcoming function which was a bit of a bugger. The empty Canberra size space in the corner was such a tease

Steve

A sort of question, if I may.

Back in the 60's/early 70s, when I was a ground radar fitter in the tower (air traffic one - not the one in London!) at Binbrook,and we had 85 squadron Cranberries flying around, there was often a 'warning' for them of "Icing Let-Downs in Force". Usually cold, damp evenings? But only on the Canberras and nothing else that flew in or out of the base.

Just out of curiosity, how did icing affect the Canberra in particular? I understand icing problems on civil aircraft and how the affect of icing can be a 'problem'. So what was it about the Canberra that made it especially particular to them? I have, maybe, ideas of: engine air intakes perhaps getting iced up a bit causing an engine stall or flameout; or wings and/or tailplanes getting more ice than is good for them - thus affecting aerodynamics.

Was there something particular about icing problems on the Canberra?

ChrisTheAncient
Just out of curiosity, how did icing affect the Canberra in particular? I understand icing problems on civil aircraft and how the affect of icing can be a 'problem'. So what was it about the Canberra that made it especially particular to them? I have, maybe, ideas of: engine air intakes perhaps getting iced up a bit causing an engine stall or flameout; or wings and/or tailplanes getting more ice than is good for them - thus affecting aerodynamics.

Hi Chris - It was to try and avoid Engine IGV (inlet guide vane) icing,I believe the pilots had to avoid the RPM range 6250 to 7250 (6000 to 7000, pre Avon Mod 5278) during Icing Approaches.

At Cottesmore we had this incident on an OCU Canberra B2

13 Mar 73 Canberra Mk B2 WJ677

At the start of a radar approach, both engines wound down and did not respond to immediate efforts to relight. The navigator was instructed to eject and did so at some 400 feet and 160 knots. Almost immediately, however, the engine wound up again and the pilot accomplished a normal PAR and safe landing.

Earlier in the sortie, because of an undercarriage malfunction the aircraft had been flown in icing conditions fix several minutes with both engines at 6800 RPM. When engine power was lost, neither occupant observed a generator failure; in this aircraft, generators come off line below 3000 RPM. When the prescribed drill had failed to cure the undercarriage problem (a residual nosewheel “red” after retraction) the pilot lowered the landing gear vide the standard emergency drill and was thus committed to an approach, with 6800 RPM, through icing conditions.

Without prejudice to the outcome of the Board of Inquiry, it is though unlikely that flame-out had occurred, but rather that engine surge was induced by ice in the intakes and that normal operation was restored by the pilot’s eventual action in closing the throttles. The AOC has emphasised to operators of Canberras not provided with engine anti-icing the need, in icing conditions, to avoid the RPM range 6250 to 7250 (6000 to 7000, pre Avon Mod 5278) even if for other reasons and contrary to FRCs, the undercarriage is down.

It took a long time to find the Nav (sarbe failure ?) and all my mates were called out to help (luckily I was out ),but eventually found ok,they did not tell the Line about the ejection and the see in crew did wonder about the large pole sticking out of the nav hatch area.
In the cold light of day - the leg restraint sheer pins had not sheared but the poor old Nav ('Slim' Pocock) had taken a section of cabin floor with him - result Cat 3 (but maybe later changed to Cat 2 assist).

bvs wrote:

........the leg restraint sheer pins had not sheared but the poor old Nav ('Slim' Pocock) had taken a section of cabin floor with him..........

Was the reason for this explained. Incorrect pins installed?

@bvs...

Many thanks for that info. And good detail!

I like to think that I was partially right in suspecting it might be engine related; but your explanation really clarifies it all for me.

Chris

PETERTHEEATER wrote:

bvs wrote:

........the leg restraint sheer pins had not sheared but the poor old Nav ('Slim' Pocock) had taken a section of cabin floor with him..........

Was the reason for this explained. Incorrect pins installed?

I was not involved in the repair Peter,but I assumed it was corroded/weakened floor/support structure,637 was already long in the tooth by then LOL