P-61 or Reverse Lend Lease Mosquito

[Glider]

No, they didn't need to as the developments of the Canberra were more than sufficient. The PR mk 9 had a larger wing, uprated engines and a max ceiling of over 60,000ft broadly similar to the RB-57. I have nover been able to find a definitive official max Operational height, but as the earlier versions reached 54,000ft over 60,000 for the final much modernised version sounds ablut right.

If anyone has better information I wold appreciate it

 

[Shortround6]

No but there were 3 different PR versions built new (plus a number of conversions in/for other nations) with different engines and the last not only had engines about 50% more powerful than the first but 4 extra feet of wing span.

 

[GregP]

We had maybe 2 - 3 volunteers at the museum who flew or worked on B-45s.

All these guys loved them, but most people recall their service aircraft fondly, I think.

The U.S. B-45 had many firsts, including being the first U.S. jet bomber to drop an operational nuke. Being the first operational jet bomber sort of leads to "firsts," though, whether you intend it that way or not.

 

[pinehilljoe]

English Electric nailed it with the Canberra. I think its the best example of the early mid 50's technology. Even the USAF couldn't argue it was the best plane in choosing to build it over domestic models.

 

[Neil Stirling]

Canberra B.6

Neil.

 

[Old Wizard]

 

[parsifal]

was there a lot of difference between the brit and US models. ive read that local components went into the US version, but really was a carbon copy.

RAAF used Canberras in recon until the 1980s.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

There was a joke going around when the Tornado was being developed that MRCA actually stood for "Must Refurbish Canberra Again".

 

[GregP]

The main difference was the U.S.A. put a tandem-seat canopy on it. I think we also used our own engines. But it was pretty much the same aircraft until they grafted on the really LONG wings of the RF-57F. That one proved to be able to go WAY up there, but the big wings were a bit fragile and more than one broke a wing when landed hard.

Great airplane, in most versions, and I can't pinpoint a version that wasn't.

I have long loved the Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon (WWII version), Tempest, Sea Fury, Canberra, and was / AM a real fan of the EE Lightning (I could mention other British types and a few from other countries as well). I always wanted to see a Lightning fly in person, particularly the vertical takeoff after liftoff ... but alas, it never materialized over here. It would have had to have more range for the U.S.A. to acquire them.

I've never particularly been a fan of the looks of the newer canard jets, either the Typhoon or the Rafale, but they DO perform well. Can't debate that, anyway. Most in here know what I think of the F-35, but I seem to be in the minority. We get a new President soon, and I guess we'll see how he likes it when that comes around ... I can't affect it in any way and have no axe to grind.

It would be nice if the new jets looked better, like their ancestors, but stealth doesn't always LOOK good. Funny, the Russian jets LOOK good ... why can't ours? Ha! Maybe we should buy Sukhois ...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good discussions - the B-57, RB-57 were great birds, I believe they had shot gun starters,

Greg - I'd like to know your source that says a Canberra can out turn a MiG-15. Several Canberras were brought down by MiG-15s while flying ferret missions.

F-35? Performing brilliantly! Accolades from all operators, Italy has their own production line, and VMFA-121 just deployed to Iwakuni. In all the war games this aircraft has participated in, (which gets little press) it kicked ass. A recent article about dogfighting with this aircraft...

"The whole concept of dogfighting is so misunderstood and taken out of context," Berke said in an interview with Business Insider. "We need to do a better job teaching the public how to assess a jet's capability in warfare."

"There is some idea that when we talk about dogfighting it's one airplane's ability to get another airplane's 6 and shoot it with a gun ... That hasn't happened with American planes in maybe 40 years," Berke said.

"Everybody that's flown a fighter in the last 25 years — we all watched 'Top Gun,'" said Berke, referring to the 1986 film in which US Navy pilots take on Russian-made MiGs.

But planes don't fight like that anymore, and comparing different planes' statistics on paper and trying to calculate or simulate which plane can get behind the other is "kind of an arcane way of looking at it," Berke said.

And it drops bombs pretty damn good as well!

F-35 Pilot: Here's What People Don't Understand About Dogfighting, and How the F-35 Excels At It | F-35 Lightning II

 

[Shortround6]

was there a lot of difference between the brit and US models. ive read that local components went into the US version, but really was a carbon copy.

RAAF used Canberras in recon until the 1980s.

US versions used a licensed Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire because at the time the licenses were taken out (production planned) the Sapphire offered more power than the currant Avon. Wright did a few major revisions to the design which caused production to slip by two years (but produced a better engine) and the Avon stayed pretty much off-shore. Probably to the detriment of US aviation.
US tended to stick guns in the wing of the Canberra. Other differences ????

 

[parsifal]

Good discussions - the B-57, RB-57 were great birds, I believe they had shot gun starters,

Greg - I'd like to know your source that says a Canberra can out turn a MiG-15. Several Canberras were brought down by MiG-15s while flying ferret missions.

F-35? Performing brilliantly! Accolades from all operators, Italy has their own production line, and VMFA-121 just deployed to Iwakuni. In all the war games this aircraft has participated in, (which gets little press) it kick ass. A recent article about dogfighting with this aircraft...

"The whole concept of dogfighting is so misunderstood and taken out of context," Berke said in an interview with Business Insider. "We need to do a better job teaching the public how to assess a jet's capability in warfare."

"There is some idea that when we talk about dogfighting it's one airplane's ability to get another airplane's 6 and shoot it with a gun ... That hasn't happened with American planes in maybe 40 years," Berke said.

"Everybody that's flown a fighter in the last 25 years — we all watched 'Top Gun,'" said Berke, referring to the 1986 film in which US Navy pilots take on Russian-made MiGs.

But planes don't fight like that anymore, and comparing different planes' statistics on paper and trying to calculate or simulate which plane can get behind the other is "kind of an arcane way of looking at it," Berke said.

And it drops bombs pretty damn good as well!

F-35 Pilot: Here's What People Don't Understand About Dogfighting, and How the F-35 Excels At It | F-35 Lightning II

Way off topic, but I have heard President Trump is critical of the F-35 because of costs. I hope there isn't another round of unjustified criticism....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Way off topic, but I have heard President Trump is critical of the F-35 because of costs. I hope there isn't another round of unjustified criticism....

Yep - once again he's shooting his mouth off before learning all the facts. I hope his defense secretary nominee "Mad dog" Maddix slaps some sense into him.

Ok - back on topic. I don't see a Canberra out-turning a MiG-15

 

[BiffF15]

FBJ,
I haven't flown it, but also have heard nothing complimentary either. I also can't help but understand a businessman looking at the military procurement system and going WTFO. And yes, it's had many many cost over runs.
Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FBJ,
I haven't flown it, but also have heard nothing complimentary either. I also can't help but understand a businessman looking at the military procurement system and going WTFO. And yes, it's had many many cost over runs.
Cheers,
Biff

Agree Biff - here at the academy I've heard a lot of good things and few negatives, at least with the AF birds Agree on the cost over runs but as I said before, one has to look into where they came from. As you know there's always someone somewhere looking to add on another requirement or to solve a problem that doesn't really exist! LMCO will never say "I don't think we could do that."

 

[GregP]

Hi Joe,

Source for the Canberra stuff was general scuttlebutt from Vietnam. No specific information. I rode motorcycle trials in Arizona for 20 years with a friend who was aircrew in a B-57 and he had some tales and mission talk, but nothing I could confirm personally as I have not ridden in a B-57 ... just his word on it. I believed him and still do, because he didn't have any tales of herosim. They were all tales of normal missions and trying to get accurate hits. He was aircrew, but not the pilot, so his concern for the bombing accuracy was his job. They took a flak hit once, according to Frank, and the B-57 handled it well. They didn't catch fire but DID start losing primary hydraulic pressure when they were on final approach. The popular tales he and a couple of buddies he used to bring along on rides told were that most of the B-57s that got lost were due to AAA flak, SAMs, or being surprised from behind while still heavily loaded. Once they were light, most former B-57 people were pretty sure the B-57 would out maneuver almost anything they saw attacking, IF they saw it in time to avoid the initial burst or the initial missile.

But, hey, perhaps loving their combat mount is nothing new . And just because they thought it was that way doesn't make it a fact. It just happens to be the only personal information I have ever heard on the Martin B-57 Canberra. If you get the impresion they liked the B-57, you're right. Some guys didn't because they hated the first 300 feet of climb after takeoff. In fact, the main gripe about it seemed to me to be the ejection seat. More than one former B-57 crew lamented in the bar after riding that you had to get from ground level to 300 feet in hieght AGL on takeoff before you could successfully eject if there was a big problem. So ... if you lost a vacuum cleaner on takeoff, you were going to ride it in if you couldn't stay airborne with one hair dryer running. The real issue was that if you tried to jettison all the load, it would take too long or the ordnance would come down on friendlies (your own base). If the B-57 was light, no problem. But light B-57s weren't very good at bombing anything. Pretty much the same today for bomb trucks. They have GREAT power reserves when light, but arent light very often when departing on a combat mission.

The museum's B-25J literally jumps into the air on takeoff, but we aren't carrying a bombload, either. We have an aluminum step ladder (to get up to the engines) and a wood box with likely engine spares and some tools in the bomb bay, and it doesn't mass much. So ... I'm not surprised it feels spritely on initial acceleration.

I can give some first-hand information on WWII warbirds in modern-day operations and maintenance (admittedly not as much as you can), but have zero first-hand 1970s combat aircraft information except for UH-1 Huey helicopters. To this day I still don't like riding in a Huey. If it is a twin-engine Bell 212, fine. The original single-engine UH-1? I'll pass unless they can tell me specifically how that airframe was modified to cure mast bumping. Even then, I'd pass unless it was a dire situation. Nothing wrong with the airframe or engine. But the original system for tilting the rotor was flawed if abrupt aft-stick maneuvers were flown. That isn't normal in peacetime, but if you are ingressing way down low over jungle, abrupt pullups are required on a much more frequent basis. I'll pass on it, as I said.

So, wing loading says that a loaded B-57 should slightly turn better than a MiG-15, and a light B-57 really SHOULD. That doesn't translate into WILL turn better in real life, but I have never heard it wouldn't from any of the 5 - 6 former B-57 aircrew I used to hang with. If anyone knows of B-57 combat evaluation reports that are available ... hopefully online, I'd love to read them all.

Personally, I think that if anyone SAW a MiG-15 in Vietnam, they were simply mistaken. I'd surmise it was a MiG-17.

This makes me want to see the maneuvering envelope for a MiG-15 / 17 (which we could probably find somewhere) and the one for the B-57 (good luck finding that one!). I'm thinking that the MiG could turn, at best corner speed, at some 8 g or so and the B-57 was probably limited to maybe 5- 6 g, but the best corner speed of the B-57 probably means that at the best corner speed for the B-57, the MiG can't turn hard enough to follow with stalling. To know that, we'd need the "g-available" graph for both planes.

We MIGHT find it for the MiG-15/17 but I have serious dounts about for the B-57 because it wasn't a fighter ... it was an attack-bomber. We're much more likely to find something like angle of dive and lowest altitude for successful pullout charts than we to find g-available charts.

Any books on it that stand out? I've never run across one but, I have also never really searched for one either.

Hi Joe,

Regarding your quote from Berke, I believe he is missing the entire point, failing to SEE that he is missing it, and failing miserably in even trying to asses whether or not he even MIGHT be wrong.

I have ZERO doubt that the initial firing pass in a fight with the F-35 versus anything else will take place differently from "getting on the 6" and firing either a missile OR a gun. That will most likely never happen, and I don't want to claim it would, ever. I'll concede the F-35 is a great ambush predator ... no problemo.

But the F-35 carries only 2 AAMs. If, say two F-35s meet with, say, 4 less-stealthy but still capable foes, such as maybe Su-37s, they may well remain undetected through the initial firing pass. Once the F-35s fire their FIRST missile or gun, the stealth is out the window and everyone knows where everyone else is, or at LEAST has a good idea of it. Missiles don't come from out of nowhere ... somebody shot it at you.

Every other Russian foe flying a capable aircraft that is still in the air after the first pass has all his weapons, is mad as hell, and is faster and more maneuverable than the F-35 is. He also probably has more fuel to play with. So the F-35 can't run away because the enemy will close from behind rapidly and have a good view of any heat plume the F-35s are producing. No matter how I consider it, I see the F-35 getting in some good first licks and then being in a real problem situation. Once the enemies are in Mark 1 eyeball range, all the stealth in the world won't help a bit. At that point, if you can't dogfight, can't out turn, and can't outrun the opposition ... and also can't outlast them on fuel aboard at the time, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. You're gonna' be more unhappy than a vegetarian at a B-B-Q.

Since we arern't producing more F-35s than the enemy has fighters, we cannot afford a more or less 1 : 1 loss rate.

If we aren't in a an all-out war and are engaged in normal "hot zone" action, the ROE sill state we can't use BVR capability. We'll HAVE to close and identify, and get within eyeball range before we shoot. And that's right where the F-35 does NOT want to be.

I could be mistaken here, but we are NOT usually the ones with the superior numbers in most fights. Usually the enemy is more numerous. He has more missiles and more friends about. Once the 2 AMMs are expended, how will the F-35 survive the aftermath of the fight if there are healthy enemies about and in a less than happy state of mind, and if they know where the F-35s are or approximately so?

I have an open mind here and will galdly listen if there is a plan for this situation that will work most of the time. I just haven't been able to come up with one myself, other than to be flying something else other than the F-35, or to have something else escorting the F-35 to cover the withdrawl once empty of AAMs.

Perhaps this isn't a good place to dicsuss it. If not, I can come back in and just erase this. No real issue, just wondering what happens when you get within visual range and are out of missiles and stealth doesn't really help. That's when you need a good airframe to live. Outside of within visual range, I like the F-35 just fine, and am looking for a reason to like it overall, including within visual range.

 

[swampyankee]

It sounds like the UH-1 was flawed in that its specifications and design did not well reflect how it would be used in service. I didn't work for Bell, but for a somewhat larger helicopter company.

A tale: my manager when I worked at Lycoming needed to test to see how the T-53 ran with bullet holes. He brought in his trusty M1911 Colt, clamped it in a vise, and had the techs rig it so it could be fired from the test cell's control room. The engine was shot through a couple of places -- the test was done before I started there, but the engine kept running even after some shots through the compressor and combustor housing. Bendix added a "get home" feature to the fuel control, which was not much more than a valve.

The guards were very much unamused when they had him open his briefcase on the way out....he had some 'splaining to do.

 

[GregP]

I'm not too sure the UH-1 was flawed as much as nobody ever expected a helicopter pilot to be cruising along, right above the treetops, and suddenly pull the cyclic stick all the way back. He's a video on mast bumping:


View: https://youtu.be/MNo3VgSe86Y

Would sort of ruin the afternoon if you were at 110 knots and 150 feet, unless you landed in some really soft and overgrown trees and were luckier than a cat with all his nine lives still unspent.

 

[swampyankee]

I'm not too sure the UH-1 was flawed as much as nobody ever expected a helicopter pilot to be cruising along, right above the treetops, and suddenly pull the cyclic stick all the way back. He's a video on mast bumping:


View: https://youtu.be/MNo3VgSe86Y

Would sort of ruin the afternoon if you were at 110 knots and 150 feet, unless you landed in some really soft and overgrown trees and were luckier than a cat with all his nine lives still unspent.

I suspect that the UTTAS spec included cruising along just above the treetops and pulling the cyclic hard up. Usually, specs are written based on what people have done before, and got to do all sorts of things nobody had done before. I'm sure that a lot of pilots and aircrew would have been happy to avoid that kind of pioneering.

 

[GregP]

Could be they knew that scenario was probable, and just didn't machine the hole in the main rotor hub big enough to handle the deflections experienced under actual air loads when the helicopter was heavily loaded.

Either way, I knew two guys at Ellsworth AFB in the mid-1970s who had investigated Vietnam crash sites and discovered mast bumping to be the primary cause of the accident. One of them said there were more incidents of it earlier in the conflict, but they didn't know what had happened. He discovered it almost by accident when he revovered the main rotor hub that still had the top of the main shaft attached. The tube was cleanly broken off, and the impact marks on the main shaft tube matched the impact marks on the hub. When you moved them just right, the scratches and dents lined up perfectly.

That led him to investigate whether or not that could happen in-flight while still firmly on the ground. When it snapped, everyone ducked for cover and nobody was hurt. Well, that was the story ... I was't there for it. But the video above seems to indicate it happened, and it's NOT the first time it has come up. After that, knowledge of the possibility became more known and people started being quite careful with Huey cyclics sticks. I believe the DOD and Bell kept it as quiet as they could, but newer chopppers didn't even have that possibility. The problem was what to do with the thousands of Hueys in active service. I was not a chopper pilot, but I believe they left them in service and did immediate remedial training on what NOT to do in-flight. Altogether NOT a great solution, as far as I'm concerned. But it was probably the most expedient one, and these WAS a war on. Sorry, a Police Action was in progress.

I kinda' like fixed-wing aircraft, myself. But, if I had the opportunity to learn to fly a heli, I might. I'd have somewhat of a leg up, because I can fly an RC heli without gyros. Not great, but the knowledge of what happens is there ... at least in the fingers and brain. Ain't gonna' happen most likely.

I miss nickel Heineken beer night at the club. Who knew it was expensive back home? We sure didn't!