Super secret Canberra upgrade on the beeb

Chris558 · Post by **Chris558** » 21 Aug 2006, 19:06

Whilst we're on 'Canberra Queries', why was it named as such? (presumably after the Australian capital, but why?) and why weren't the engines closer to the fuselage, like the Bucc?

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 21 Aug 2006, 19:38

To me I have always thought that the arrangement was very like a scaled up Meteor, but consider you are building the first ever jet bomber. Where would you put the engines? I would probably put them where people had been putting piston engines on multi engined aircraft!

Post by **Garry Russell** » 21 Aug 2006, 19:43

That is pretty conventional layout for the time

The Buccaneer was much later

I would thing that the Canberra arrangement made it cheap and easier to build compared to wing root jet engines which was a common alternate then.

Maintenance was probably easier as well

Garry

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

TobyV wrote:To me I have always thought that the arrangement was very like a scaled up Meteor, but consider you are building the first ever jet bomber. Where would you put the engines? I would probably put them where people had been putting piston engines on multi engined aircraft!

While working on the Westland Welkin design in about 1943, Teddy Petter was also planning a jet design with one engine above the other. Wonder what that turned into?

Wouldn't sticking the engines on the wings make engine upgrades easier ala the Meatbox?

Best wishes
Steve P

Post by **Garry Russell** » 21 Aug 2006, 21:47

Good point Steve

There was a major re design in types like the Victor and Vulcan when upgrading to new more powerful engines to fit within the blended engine areas.

Same recently with the new Nimrod

Garry

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 21 Aug 2006, 21:50

steve p wrote:While working on the Westland Welkin design in about 1943, Teddy Petter was also planning a jet design with one engine above the other. Wonder what that turned into?

I know what you're thinking of, but didnt the Shorts Sperrin get that config into the air first?

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 21 Aug 2006, 22:21

TobyV wrote:...but consider you are building the first ever jet bomber. Where would you put the engines?

When did they start design on the Canberra anyway? I can't find any information other than the first flight in 1949 available on the 'net.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 21 Aug 2006, 22:28

Chris

Click on background and it says about it

http://www.bywat.co.uk/canframes.html

Garry

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 21 Aug 2006, 22:33

Okay, that answers several questions actually.

The design almost exactly parallels the North American B-45 Tornado development (almost to the month of several milestones and specification issuances) except that NAA managed to get theirs in the air about 2 years prior to the Canberra. Both have very similar performance however the Tornado required 4 engines to do its work compared to the Canberra's 2 which is probably a big reason to why it's stayed around so much longer.

nazca_steve · Post by **nazca_steve** » 25 Aug 2006, 16:15

Chris558 wrote:Whilst we're on 'Canberra Queries', why was it named as such? (presumably after the Australian capital, but why?) and why weren't the engines closer to the fuselage, like the Bucc?

I believe the Australian prime minister was on a visit to the UK shortly after the RAF unveiled the aircraft and he was given the honour of naming it, which he chose to do after the Aussie capital.