Did you know that registration to Fighter Control is completely free and brings you lots of added features? Find out more....
Canberra PR9?
Canberra PR9?
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
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
Re: Canberra PR9?
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
7
#KeepFightingMichael #banthebulls
Re: Canberra PR9?
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
http://www.search.ask.com/web?apn_dtid= ... 9472774910
Re: Canberra PR9?
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.
Re: Canberra PR9?
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.
Re: Canberra PR9?
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.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
Re: Canberra PR9?
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
However the first PR.9 suffered a failure of the increased broad chord wing (ie) the longer bit between the fuselage and the engine
Re: Canberra PR9?
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?
Re: Canberra PR9?
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
Re: Canberra PR9?
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
Re: Canberra PR9?
Image of Phantom FG.1 XV589 at following link.
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/proj ... e_Open.htm
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/proj ... e_Open.htm
Re: Canberra PR9?
Ah yes those are the ones I was thinking of. The hedgerow/perimeter fence that is visible was the perfect spot for landing shots....
Re: Canberra PR9?
Thanks for the replies, much appreciated.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Rsdave and 94 guests