Did you know that registration to Fighter Control is completely free and brings you lots of added features? Find out more....

Canberra PR9?

A forum for discussing all things related to MILITARY AVIATION including Military Aviation news. No off-topic discussions here please.
Post Reply
Vulcan74
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:26 am

Canberra PR9?

Post by Vulcan74 » Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:55 am

Hello All

With having seen a Canberra PR9 at an airshow in the static park. I noticed the nose opened so that the navigator could get in & out. Was there ever the case of the nose being detached in flight as this did not look secure when open. Also was there a height restriction for this position as there did not appear to be much room inside.

Regards

Vulcan74

User avatar
seven
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by seven » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:44 am

I don't recall it ever happening to a Canberra. Certainly did to a Phantom, well caught on camera. But in that case the radar took the brunt of it, followed by the field. Don't recall there being a height restriction. We all have bendy knees after all ;)

7
#KeepFightingMichael #banthebulls

johnhowe

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by johnhowe » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:51 am

Although we have a lot of knowledgeable guys on the forum, perhaps pprune maybe able to help.
http://www.search.ask.com/web?apn_dtid= ... 9472774910

jem60
Posts: 3620
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Chedburgh, Suffolk

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by jem60 » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:31 am

I have a close friend who was a S/Ldr Navigator on P.R. 9s. No height restriction, actually he is quite short!, but says there was plenty of room, even for tall people, and no nose cone failure in the air that I am aware of. I will ring him this morning to confirm that though.

jem60
Posts: 3620
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Chedburgh, Suffolk

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by jem60 » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:16 am

Vulcan. Further to my previous, I have just spoken to David, who says that as far as he was aware there was no height limitation in the nav's position unless the guy was of very abnormal height, in which case he probably wouldn't be flying as aircrew anyway, and he assured me that if there WAS a nose cone problem, he would certainly have heard about it!!. :) Regards, John.

Richard E
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 9:34 pm

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by Richard E » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:53 am

seven wrote:I don't recall it ever happening to a Canberra. Certainly did to a Phantom, well caught on camera. But in that case the radar took the brunt of it, followed by the field. Don't recall there being a height restriction. We all have bendy knees after all ;)

7
XV589 P from 111 Squadron on 3 June 1980 whilst recovering to RAF Alconbury, the cause was attributed to wear in the radome's locking mechanism.

Vulcanone
Posts: 3528
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by Vulcanone » Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:53 pm

The only structural failure I know about is the fate of the First PR.9. The first few were built with the same style cockpit entrance as the B(I).8s had

However the first PR.9 suffered a failure of the increased broad chord wing (ie) the longer bit between the fuselage and the engine :(

NickB
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:07 am
Location: Thatcham

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by NickB » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:48 am

I'm sure a Royal Navy Phantom lost a nosecone off Cornwall back in the 70s and recovered safely back to VL - can anyone confirm this?

jem60
Posts: 3620
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Chedburgh, Suffolk

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by jem60 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:14 pm

Difference in the Phantom accidents was that the nose cone on the R.A.F one stayed at 90 degrees, ruining the aerodynamics whilst it was in a landing configuration, at a very low altitude. Amazing photographs exist of the R.A.F example. I suspect in the Navy one it became completely detached

Vulcanone
Posts: 3528
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by Vulcanone » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:22 pm

Indeed, jem60 is correct. One photographer captured 111 Sqn Phantom FG.1 XV589 on approach that day in June 80, others that were closer to the approach at that end of the runway rapidly retreated to the ditch on the edge of the field.. The remains of 589 later served the fire crews at RAF Coningsby

User avatar
T_J
Posts: 4301
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:32 pm
Location: Lincs

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by T_J » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:10 pm

Image of Phantom FG.1 XV589 at following link.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/proj ... e_Open.htm

Vulcanone
Posts: 3528
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by Vulcanone » Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:31 pm

Ah yes those are the ones I was thinking of. The hedgerow/perimeter fence that is visible was the perfect spot for landing shots....

Vulcan74
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Canberra PR9?

Post by Vulcan74 » Tue May 01, 2018 11:34 am

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated.

Post Reply

Return to “The Fighter Control Mess”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rsdave and 94 guests