- The Canberra - Unsafe in 1950, Still unsafe

[Flatus Veteranus]

Pindi

Thanks for the reminder.

I was once President of a BoI into a student fatality on a UAS. We were drawn reluctantly ( having explored every alternative, however bizarre) to the conclusion that the student was killed probably as a result of attempting aerobatic manoeuvres at low level, unauthorised and beyond his capability. He crashed his Chipmunk close to his girlfriend's house. We concluded that the most likely cause of the accident was a gross breach of flying discipline. We may have been wrong, so I should have hated our findings to be published or shown to his NOK.

[Milt]

Learn From My Mistakes
Don't do what I did in a Canberra !

Extract from memoirs - RAAF Air Force Week Flying Display 1962

September 1962 saw more display practice in a Canberra which somehow had become my task by default. No one else was inclined to fly the manoeuvres which I had developed for the Canberra at light weight. This particular year was to take on some different developments. A few days before the display date of 17 September, a Squadron of USAF B57s had arrived from the USA. The Commanding Officer, Colonel Tom Aldrich, was allocated a house on the base and became a neighbour and close friend. His sqadron of aircraft were based at Avalon whilst his personnel were housed at Laverton. USAF U2s had already been operating from Laverton for some two years conducting upper air sampling. The B57s were to extend this research. Colonel Aldrich readily agreed to place two of his B57s on static display at Laverton for the air display.

The B57s had marked across their tails in large letters WEATHER to show their Weather Reconnaissance Role. In view of the America's Cup yacht races, then in progress in the USA between The US's WEATHERLY and Australia's GRETEL, enterprising RAAF airmen got to work overnight and neatly painted an appended LY to WEATHER on the B57s and GRETEL across the tail of the Canberra on static display next to the B57. This was a great crowd pleaser.

The display on Sunday 17 September was a huge success and was of course attended by most of the B57 Squadron personnel. I soon found myself in detailed discussions of comparisons of the Canberra with its USAF copy during a party in the Mess that evening. The comparisons of performance and manoeuvring capabilities of these similar aircraft went on for some time between us RAAF pilots and the USAF pilots who all had much more flying experience on their aircraft than we were ever likely to accumulate on our Canberras. Ours were fitted with more powerful engines and the cockpits were much different. Theirs had fighter type canopies with crew members in tandem and their airframes were somewhat heavier. The USAF pilots, and our own squadron pilots, had never been permitted to perform aerobatics. They were rather impressed by the routine which I had evolved for the display.

My routine was to start the display, using an aircraft at light weight having minimum fuel, by lifting off the runway at a speed well below normal and immediately raising the undercarriage whilst holding down low. At the end of the 5000 ft runway I would have accelerated to a speed of about 220 Kts, at which point I would pull up sharply into a 30 degree climb whilst executing two barrel rolls at maximum roll rate to the left. By the time the aircraft was first inverted, I would still be accelerating at full power and climbing away at about 400 feet. After comfortably completing the two climbing barrel rolls, I would pull power back to idle whilst pulling up to the vertical to bleed off speed for a stall turn to the left into a vertically down attitude and a flattening turn as I came back over the airfield for a fairly slow and low steep turn. During the turn I would open the weapon bay doors to release a full load of air filled meteorological balloons. The balloons floated down onto the crowd much to the delight of all, particularly the children.

Following the release of the balloons I positioned for a short field landing using anti-skid maximum braking to stop the light aircraft in about 2000 feet on the 5,000 ft runway. Just before stoping I would have the engines accelerating to full power whilst holding on the hot brakes for about 10 seconds. The take-off could then be achieved in about another 2,000 feet leaving about 1,000 feet of unused runway. This performance even surprised experienced Canberra pilots. My fuel load was, by now, well down leaving just enough for the later flight in the last events of the display - the handicap pylon air race and a mass fly past, which I was to lead.

The air race was flown at 500 feet around significant ground marks all within view from the airfield. All aircraft types were assigned a speed to fly 5 laps and were assigned a particular time to roll on take-off. A handicapper in the tower assigned speed corrections on each lap aiming to bring all aircraft over an airfield finish line as close as possible to the same time. The air race became a popular feature of the Laverton displays. The race was also useful in getting all aircraft airborne for the finale - the mass fly past.

Two Canberras were to take part in the fly past and I wondered how I may be able to arrange for both to fly in the air race under different handicaps. I found that a single engined Canberra could be identified from the ground if an engine was closed down, allowed to cool and then made to stream unburnt fuel by opening the high pressure fuel valve and throttle.

I elected to fly the single engined Canberra in the air race following a normal two engined take-off. This was the same aircraft I had flown for the individual display and by now had low levels of fuel in its tanks. My assigned speed was 200 Kts. At this speed there was inadequate rudder to maintain balanced flight as I increased power to maintain speed while turning hard around the ground markers. I began by feeding fuel to both engines from the centre fuselage tank. The tightest turn in the race was between Laverton and Werribee and as I yawed the aircraft around this turn on the first lap the fuel in the tank must have been forced to one side away from the pick-up point for the immersed booster pump. Suddenly my only operating engine failed.

I pulled up to gain height for a dead stick landing attempt on to the airfield, declared an emergency and then started to sort through my other options. The obvious thing to do was to go for a relight on the other windmilling engine so I closed off its streaming fuel and waited a while for the fuel to blow clear. It then lit up as expected and my emergency was now over. I then joined in on the air-race again, cutting a corner to get back into my handicapped position. I now had the time to sort things out, recalling that I had seen a low pressure fuel warning light as the engine stopped. This gave me the clue I needed to deduce the reason for the engine failure. I then relit the "failed" engine which continued to perform as expected. So I then shut down the other engine again and started fuel streaming.

Little did I know but a fire had been burning in its nacelle. A gap between the engine tail pipe and the jet pipe had allowed raw fuel to dribble down into the nacelle. This had not cleared before I went for the emergency relight and had been burning whilst I relit the other engine. Nor had the fire burned out before I started to feed more fuel from the streaming engine. I had not finished the next lap before I was presented with the dreaded glow of a fire warning light. I immediately closed down the streaming, pulled up again declaring another emergency and slowed to a lower speed before discharging the nacelle fire extinguisher. I was relieved when the fire warning light went out presuming that if there had been a fire then it had gone out. I had no desire to foul up the display with an emergency landing so I called off the emergency and rejoined the air race for the second time. The handicapper was now speaking with a frantic voice while I tried my best to exhibit a matter-of fact voice showing no further concern.

A passing Sabre pilot looked me over and reported no sign of fire remaining. I could not determine whether there had been a real fire so I determined not to restart the offending engine again.

We all completed the race in a mass scramble to the finish. I cannot recall which aircraft won. My mind was already working on what to do next. I had to stay on one engine and realised that I could achieve enough speed to still lead the fly-past. I also had to be the last to land else I would block the only runway useable. I did not want to divert to another airfield. The fly-past went according to plan - the landing sequence did not, as I came in tail-end charlie.

I had to close down on the runway and have the aircraft towed away. Inspection showed there had been a fierce brief fire which had caused some wing damage. The wing was removed and replaced. Geof Wilson, the navigator, knows all about adrenalin rush. He sat on his hands for a few days to stop them shaking and even volunteered to fly with me again. I would like to hear the story again as he now tells it.

[Jackonicko]

"NEWS
Ejection seats for crash jet researched

14 September 2004 06:30

Research was carried out into new ejection seats on the Canberra that crashed at RAF Marham, killing two pilots, the Ministry of Defence revealed last night.
But the work showed that modern equipment would not have operated properly on the 50-year-old aircraft.
And the Canberra was due to be taken out of service in 2003 - before the end of the rolling programme of tests on new seat equipment.
The news came in response to a newspaper report that Treasury chiefs had vetoed fitting Canberras with £1m rocket-propelled ejection seats in place of 1950s equipment because of the cost.
An RAF board of inquiry is investigating the cause of the crash at Marham on September 2.
Flight Lt Lawrence Coulton, 40, of Stoke Holy Cross, near Norwich, and Flight Lt Paul Morris, 38, of Shelley Close, Downham Market, died while practising emergency landings.
Sqn Ldr Caroline Edie, MoD spokeswoman for the RAF, said: "We cannot pre-empt the findings of the board of inquiry into the tragedy.
"We cannot comment on whether the ejection seats in the Canberra had any issue with regard to this accident at RAF Marham.
"Speculation can be very harmful, especially to grieving family and friends."
But she added: "On the issue of the ejection seat, this was looked at very closely back in 2001.
"A modern ejection seat in a Canberra would not perform in the same way as in a modern aircraft because of the design. The hatches and canopies meant the performance of a modern ejection seat would be lost.
"The Canberra was due to come out of service in 2003, anyway, and the rolling programme was going to last three years.
"So the aircraft was due to be taken out of service before the programme would have been completed, which is why the decision was made not to go ahead."
Sqn Ldr Edie continued: "The key thing for us is that this was a complete tragedy and our condolences are with the family and friends of the two aircrew who lost their lives.
"Flight safety is something we take incredibly seriously and it is one of our highest priorities. However, we also recognise that flying is risky.
"With regard to the Canberra, we accept that it is an old aircraft. But it is also a very safe aircraft, and the last accident involving fatalities occurred back in 1991."



Hmmm. I thought the last fatalities were in '93, not '91.

How would the Canberra's hatches prevent zero-zero seats from giving a useful expansion in seat envelope?

When was the PR9 ever 'due to go out of service in 2003' - certainly not in 2001, unless they were keeping it very quiet.

What a shame to see a serving officer (albeit one in Corporate Comms) resorting to this kind of spin. Honesty or a 'no comment' would be so much better than this kind of misleading tosh.

[rivetjoint]

My un-informed guess is that the time taken to blow the hatches and canopies clear would take too long given that zero/zero seats have to have an almost instant response?

Isn't there a reason why the Nav has to go first in the Canberra too?

[Jackonicko]

While a zero-zero seat in a Canberra might not have the same performance as the same seat in an MDC-equipped Hawk (say) surely the gyroscopes and rocket packs used in modern seats would expand the safe envelope.

[FJJP]

To fit rocket seats to the Canberra T4 would require a complete re-design and enlargement of the entire cockpit area of the aircraft. If you had ever flown the aircraft you would realise that - there is physically no space to fit the modern seats, which are considerably larger than the original seats.

As it is, there has to be canopy jettison before the seats fire, and the elevator snatch blow the explosive collar round the elevator control tube to allow the control column to be pulled clear of the pilots' legs.

The last accident was March 1991. Period.

Now can we please drop this speculation that is going to go nowhere.

[Jackonicko]

I hadn't 'twigged' that modern zero-zero seats (especially the modern lightweights, as used in the various turbine trainers) were any bigger than the zero-nineties in the Canberra, and had thought that other platforms had been upgraded with modern seats.

I'm ashamed to admit that I have flown the T4 (and in the B2, TT18 and other marks) but was still too stupid to pick up this fundamental difficulty. In my defence, it was 22 years ago!

Would the same be true for the PR9?

I sense your irritation with this, FJJP, but please cut me some slack. Had other journos made the same effort to ask questions like this, the seat story would not have run in the national press. I'm just trying to understand this so that when I am told to write about it, I do so in something approaching a helpful manner.

[Worf]

The Indian Air Force Canberra perspective

Sympathies to the families of the aircrew in the crash - the effect it has is devastating. I remember clearly watching a fireball (at dusk) from a Canberra crash at Pune airbase, while I was playing with the son of the pilot. I was about 9 then - and remember being confused for years about the suddeness of the departure of my friend from the airbase - a strange sense of loss that haunted me for years.

The Indian Air Force is the only one besides the RAF still operating the Canberra and probably has as much experience operating it. It took part in 4 conflicts - 1961 in the Congo, the 1965 & 1971 Indo-Pak wars and the Kargil conflict.

The experience with the Canberra in the IAF seems to be very much in keeping with the RAF responses I have seen on Pprune - a much loved but not to be taken lightly aircraft.

Air Cdre Pete Wilson of the Indian Air Force was one of the early pilots to introduce and fight with the Canberra. (A tribute from another great Indian pilot, late Wing Co Suresh is here
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Hi.../Wilson02.html) and a bio is here

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Hi.../Wilson01.html

His comments on the Canberra were
"The Canberra was a strong, docile, easy to fly aircraft, but it was obsolete when the IAF bought them. It had been made obsolete by the transonic fighter aircraft, which had been introduced at the same time. She could not survive as a level bomber in the day and use at night against relatively small targets such as airfield structures required radar bombing and marking equipment, which the IAF did not have.

It was effective against specialist targets like Badin during the day, but night use like the PAF B-57's were not possible because of the very poor light transmission of the windshield. Night shallow glide attacks on unlit ranges were an exercise in bravery, which brings me to the subject of IAF Canberra B58 navigators. They were unique in the world as aircrew, who flew on operations without a chance of getting out of the aircraft in an emergency. It was reprehensible, that the British aerospace industry should sell such aircraft and that the Indian Govt., should buy them."

The Indian Air Force pilots were unanimous in their opinion that the B-57 (that our adversary Pakistan flew) - that it was a much more survivable and effective aircraft.

If the US could make those drastic changes why didnt the RAF and British industry do the same - the introduction of the Intruder version B(I)8 was surely a chance to redesign the cockpit?

Here's to my fathers pupil Wg Cdr Issar - who landed a T.54 at night after an engine out, and waited till the navigator and trainee got out, too late to save himself from the fire. Your bravery is appreciated and your loss is deeply felt.

Worf

[Milt]

Worf

Fascinating post Worf. Thanks for lots I didn't know about.

Noticed the refefence to the Canberra as a "SHE' Is this because of the way she handled?

I used she in a previous post and pondered why. Went on to call the PRs , the B8s and the BI 6s as males. More aggressive perhaps.

Then I used to think of the Sabre F86 as a male and the Hunter as the female of the then fighter world.

Makes me think I have a throwback to ships which I think are all called she.

Does everyone think of the Canberra as she ?

[FJJP]

Jacko, I apologise to you without reservation - put it down to tired and emotional. You do deserve that extra consideration - you are one of the few journos who try to understand compared with those looking for the most sensational headline [and to hell with the consequences].

Without taking a tape measure to the physical article, I cannot give chapter and verse re: specfic dimension for the various seat types. What I can say, though, is that having flow the Harrier T4, I was highly impressed by the comfort and roominess of the seat [specifically taking into account the bum-spread that has occurred since flying the T4]!

But it is also a question of airframe construction and strength - the forced exerienced on the cockpit floor during the detonation and firing sequence would have to be re-vamped and probably beefed up, for example. The floor may collapse after the first seat firing, leaving the second seat with seriously degraded structure to work with. And the whole business of clearing the canopy and control columns from the pilot's legs would need a complete re-design. In the zero-90 days, well before the technology existed to save someone from a standing start, time delays were the order of the day to make sure the sequencing was as safe as possible. And it worked for hundreds of people. And, sadly not for others.

In the context of this subject, the main differences between us and the States are:

a. Our National philosophy towards the Armed Forces [them: get the best for the boys]

b. Money [them: we have more to spend on retro-fitting, especially when our boys lives are at stake]

c. The 'B52' mentality [them: when production is complete, take the first of the first, update and apply a.]

There has always been the fact of life in the aviation industry in this country that once the kit has been procured, major innovation/development is invariably an effective re-design from scratch [eg, Harrier GR3/7], with the many years of lead time involved. You just cannot throw some drawings together, sling a few bits of metal at the workbench and come up with a new cockpit to be bolted to the original fuselage - we are talking 5-10 years here. Witness the Nim MR4 case if you want an example. New technology is usually incorporated in new-build, and hitherto not retro-applied [although this philosophy has changed in recent years].

Finally, like it or not, the Def budget is finite, and it would be impossible to justify the expense of carrying out such radical modifications to aircraft with such a limited life remaining. And that even takes into account the modern touchy-feely, fluffy-bunny, duty of care culture which cosily surrounds us now.

I think the modern term is risk analysis...

[rivetjoint]

Just out of interest do NASA still fly their "xB-57s" and if they do what seats do they have?

[Jackonicko]

FJJP,

Many thanks.

While I haven't got seat dimensions (or weights) easily to hand, I'd be very surprised if modern seats wouldn't fit in the PR9. Remembering how snug the T4 was, perhaps fitting a pair of 10Ls or 16Ls side by side wouldn't work.

But I've been thinking about the need for a new cockpit - or even for some local strengthening. Are you sure? I'd guess that the Canberra was as 'over engineered' as many of its contemporaries, while the new seats are presumably lighter than their predecessors. And wouldn't a modern rocket powered seat actually impose more progressive acceleration, reducing the danger of compromising the structure?

Haven't MB made a fortune in retrofitting new generation seats (especially 10s) to aircraft of Canberra's vintage?

I can understand that the need to jettison nav hatches and canopy might make it difficult to incorporate the capability of modern seats. But with better seat performance (and with modern seats that 'right themselves' more quickly, surely the safe ejection envelope would be considerably expanded.

Or am I missing something again?


RJ,

Nasa do still operate to WB-57Fs. Dunno what seats they have.
It's all academic if the seats wouldn't fit, of course.

[John Farley]

Chaps

At the risk of stating the obvious a zero/zero installation needs a way of clearing the ejection path (nav hatch/pilots canopy) that will work at zero IAS. Not easy.

So usually it is better (and a lot quicker) to eject through the canopy using MDC to reduce loads on the seat/occupant.

But MDC is not a simple stick on fix as so much depends on the helmet/canopy clearance and canopy thickness plus there is the lead splatter issue re occupants face and so on. Thus going to a zero/zero installation involves quite a bit more than buying a better seat off today’s line.

JF

[Jackonicko]

Haven't some Canberras had frangible hatches? Can't you eject through the canopy in extremis? Couldn't canopy breakers be fitted as they were on older aircraft? Just asking.....

[Beeayeate]

The B.2 style canopies (eg the T.4) are remarkably thick as they are double-glazed so to speak. They're blown bubbles, designed that way to simplify pressurisation problems in the early 50s, and are around a half-inch thick plexiglass (or somesuch) with an inter-bubble gap of about the same size. If you get a chance take a look at the thickness of the round, direct vision window. Not only do the canopies shatter jaggedly, as I mentioned before, but the canopy needs air speed to get it out of the path of the ejectee and clear of the aircraft - it pretty much goes straight up without it (although I can't prove this). JohnF is on the button with his comment in this case.

Re frangibles; I think the PR.9 has a frangible nav's hatch, the older Cans used to have a frangible nav's hatch too, but, as an earlier post in this thread corrected me, as far as current T.4s are concerned, this seems not now to be the case.

Regarding 0/0 seats. The action would still, I believe, have to have a definite time-line - nav's hatch, canopy and then control column (most important). I don't think this seqeunce could be made fast enough to gain benefit from modern "instant" seats. No doubt some solution could have been found if the will had been there as recently as the 80s, but the time is well past for that now. (Take the canopy with the seat and separate later?)

One point that came to me while reading the thread is this. The Canberra was designed to come apart easily at transport joints. The the nose section could be, and fairly frequently was, changed without too much trouble. In hindsight developing a nose section for the B.2 type that could accomodate 0/0 seats would have allowed a "bolt-on" upgrade. Similarly a 0/0 for the PR.9/B(I)8 canopy arrangement could have been developed. Remember though that for the life of the B(I)8 the nav still had to roll out the door. That sort of "official" acceptance was (is?) rife so upgrading the seats was probably put on the back burner. There was plans for a "Super Canberra" I believe but they were abondoned at the promise of the TSR.2.

[Tim Mills]

What a fascinating post by Worf. Particularly the comments about the Canberra by Air Cdr Wilson, IAF, who had flown it in combat. Also the two attachments about an obviously well respected gentleman.

Having been designed as primarily a high level bomber, with three bang seats for the two navigators and one pilot, and then adapted for so many other roles, LL interdictor, LABS nuclear, ground attack gun pack, 2'' rocket, and PR, it was no wonder that compromises were made. The two crew B8, and B58, must have been an opportunity to have provided a bang seat for the Nav/Observer, as has been done for the PR9, but wasn't. But what about the B16, one pilot, two navs, only two bang seats because the Nav/Observers space was taken up with sideways looking radar, so he was in the same situation as the B8 nav. Our B15s had three bang seats, and I can't now remember the seat limits, and since we spent most of our time at low level, I don't know how effective they would have been. Better than being a Nav on the B8 or Nav/Observer on the B16!

Milt: I don't remember thinking of the Canberra as any gender, but now could be persuaded to think of her as a fairly gentle and well behaved old lady, who needs watching now and again.

I do feel that this may be becoming another general Canberra thread, and drifting away from the original posting which was a heartfelt response to the tragic incident at Marham. Maybe it should be merged with the previous one, as someone has already suggested.

[Jackonicko]

I had no idea that the B16 had only one navigator's ejection seat. Even 51's odd B6s had two. But didn't the PR3 and PR7 only have two seats, too?

Wheelbarrow,

Do you have any contact details? You can't be PM'd.

[hairyclameater]

Rivetjoint - I presume you mean "W" B57Fs??. NASA still have 2 on their books flying from Houston/Ellington on atmospheric & high altitiude research duties with bay and podded payloads.

They are converted RB57s with wings the size of Brazil and I believe they have AMI seats (now owned by BF Goodrich) B57As certainly had Douglas ESCAPAC seats.

Milt - fascinating stuff- stall turning a cranberry!!?? Good gawd your mad man, mad.
Found it difficult enough to see that the privately owned "B2" in Oz (ex RAF TT18 WJ680) features 2 loops in its display sequence!

[FJJP]

Hairy - easy to stall turn. Barrell rolls, wingovers and derry turns very easily, too [with the consent of the crew, of course].....

Unexpected manoeuvre blew the minds of the Lightning and F4 jocks!

[ImageGear]

B57-F

Aircraft is equipped with parachutes and rocket-powered ejection seats for both crew members. ?

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/s...411/WB57F.html