Mention should have been made of the PR Canberra's role in photographing the Soviet Union before America had its Lockheed U2 .
@plymouth571419 күн бұрын
Apparently after Gary Powers' U2 was shot down the US President forbade any further flights and the US military was so desperate that they had to beg the RAF to fly their recon missions for them in the Canberras!
@socaljarhead7670Ай бұрын
The Canberra did absolutely everything that was asked of it. Superb aircraft.
@alanparkinson549Ай бұрын
You've got the labels for the Lysander and the Whirlwind photos crossed over!
@user-en9zo2ol4z21 күн бұрын
I have always considered the Canberra to be the first in a winning line of aircraft from English Electric. Remarkable in its day, to such an extent that even the USAF were forced to purchase them, as they lacked any aircraft with its unique abilities. Reading chief test pilot Beaumont's book about his very first flight across the Atlantic, the tower at Washington needed identification when he arrived seeking landing instructions The tower had not noticed him at his height or direction. While in use by the RAF, it ran any number of spy missions over Soviet territory, while the Soviets remained oblivious. Further, I have viewed this beautiful aircraft many times, and always marvel at its relatively small size, being smaller than many modern fighter jets. Despite which, it could carry a serviceable bomb load, and reconnaissance cameras. The Canberra had a very distinguished career, even being used during the Vietnam War, where it served admirably.
@billballbuster7186Ай бұрын
It was without doubt one of the best aircraft of its generation that was a great export success eventually flying with 15 air forces. It was built under license in the US as the Martin B-57 from 1953, winning a competition with five other aircraft for the contract. Some later Reconnaissance and Intruder variants saw action in the Vietnam War from 1963 to 1972.
@-lightningwill-6014Ай бұрын
Apart from being produced under license by the US some African air forces still fly their original canberras today which is a huge testament to the engineering used
@Sacto1654Ай бұрын
The USAF had seriously looked at the Martin XB-51, which was a highly-innovative plane in its own right. But development difficulties with the XB-51 resulted in the choosing of the B-57, which was built in large numbers for the USAF. The USAF versions also had a new nose design with tandem seating and a much larger canopy. And it was Martin who developed the RB-57D and eventually RB-57F, planes that could fly at nearly 70,000 feet in altitude and could carry much larger cameras than the U-2.
@billballbuster7186Ай бұрын
@@Sacto1654 The B-57 was based on the early Canberra B Mk2, but with different canopy. Interestingly the B-57 style canopy was used later on the B Mk6(I) Interdictor and later reconnaissance versions.
@davem2369Ай бұрын
@@-lightningwill-6014no, they don't. The only Canberra's in use today are the NASA ones
@ianhelyar6383Ай бұрын
I remember seeing the Canberra flying from Amberley in Queensland, when I was a lot younger. I always thought it was a beautiful plane, reminiscent of a Spitfire. If form follows function, the Canberra was just about perfect.
@iffracemАй бұрын
Sadly, a lot of the Australian Canberra's ended their careers as target drones.
@mikenewman4078Ай бұрын
When I started working at Amberley the Cranberries were still flying and the Pigs were being introduced. The Canberras were so graceful doing touch and goes, the Pigs were every inch meanness personified. The touch on go in a Pig was obviously more complex but spectacular. They reminded me of a Water Hen, all the orange bits flashing, then slam, slam, slam all the spoilers etc closing, a big boot in the arse and gone. No Canberra type grace, just raw power. The difference between Poms and Yanks I suppose.
@ianhelyar6383Ай бұрын
@@mikenewman4078 every time my dad saw an F111, he'd say, there goes 60 million of my money! But we had them for a looooong time!
@richardcoggins739Ай бұрын
I wish you could have covered the use of the Canberra by the US Air Force during the Vietnamese War. Hopefully you can do so in a future video.
@neiloflongbeck5705Ай бұрын
Wellington, New Zealand, is the furthest capital in the Empire/Commonwealth.
@hangie6525 күн бұрын
Excellent historical review of the Canberra.
@JoshJones-37334Ай бұрын
They have one at Wings Over the Rockies. When I was there a few years ago they let me sit in it. The volunteer curators there are great. Give them a visit if you’re ever in Denver.
@JoshJones-37334Ай бұрын
Edit: as pointed out the WOtR bird is a Martin
@jamesmcclure815Ай бұрын
The US used a Martin Aircraft made variant in South East Asia. I missed any mention of that.
@mickvonbornemann3824Ай бұрын
H’mm no mention of the American variants, some of which are still used by NASA today.
@danmcdonald9117Ай бұрын
Canberra is so beautiful
@LeonAustАй бұрын
You should of mentioned that the Australian Canberra's excelled in the Vietnam war, with ground troops from Australia and the US preferring a Canberra's than others.
@ChuckieFinzterАй бұрын
I had the honour of working on them between 1985 and 1988 at RAF Wyton. (B2, B2t and T4).
@onenote6619Ай бұрын
If nothing else, the Canberra showed the potential of even the early jet engines. In all regards the airframe used conventional aerodynamics and construction, but it used them very well and leveraged the engine advantages.
@EvilrocoАй бұрын
I guess whoever did the graphics knows mothing about aircraft , how cold you confuse a Whirlwind (twin engine fighter) with a Lysander (single engine observation plane with gull wing and spatted fixed undercarriage) And then the narrator calls the Wyvern a "fighter jet" despite the plane clearly having a propeller. that's as far as I got ,not worth wasting time if that's the accuracy of their film.
@EvilrocoАй бұрын
@@terrystevens5261 Clearly whoever made the vid was confused ,or they wouldn't have made so many errors in the opening minutes . How could you trust anything else they say ? The wyvern was Turbo prop after the initial MK , no one talking about aviation calls it a jet , and it wasn't even a fighter but a strike aircraft so wrong on both counts.
@heneagedundasАй бұрын
@terrystevens5261 They actually labelled the picture of a Lysander as a Whirlwind, and vice versa. That seems pretty confused to me.
@brianwillson956729 күн бұрын
At least the picture of Mr Petter is correct! Get that one wrong would be an even greater insult to the man.
@warpartyattheoutpost4987Ай бұрын
Thanks! I'm ordering 3D printed miniature Canberras for the UK and ANZAC for our Cold War Axis&Allies house rules. This really helps!
@matthewmoore569810 күн бұрын
Broke multiple records wouldn’t surprise me if a couple still stand!
@frankmitchell3594Ай бұрын
The WB-57 variant of the Canberra is still used by NASA.
@kevinbarry71Ай бұрын
The capital of New Zealand is farther from London than is the capital of Australia
@beh1972Ай бұрын
Useless fun fact, at 2326km Canberra and Wellington share the title for the worlds most remote capital cities
@user-vl5wg7gu7gАй бұрын
Nasa had a U2 and B-57 in hanger 936, I saw the B-57 take off ( new engines) like a scalded cat. They were doing high altitude ice crystal testing.
@misterthemad99427 күн бұрын
Dude just called the wyvern a fighter jet...
@brianwillson956729 күн бұрын
The cranberry was, quite simply, two or three steps ahead of anything of its time.
@joegoldberg8770Ай бұрын
Why no mention of Canberra extensive service with the United States.
@user-dl3se9iy4r20 күн бұрын
Yes I agree the Russian missions. Also if I remember correctly 3 Sqd based at RAF Geilenkirchen in Germany had a Nuclear role with two aircraft held in Quick Reaction Alert. However I was only 8 then but the USAF were on the Station I think for that purpose.
@user-dl3se9iy4r20 күн бұрын
I have just checked Jack T C Long's book Three's Company who confirms this and the weapons were Uncle Sam's. Page 177.
@davidpeters6536Ай бұрын
Why no mention of the Martin B-57?
@alasdairclark4213Ай бұрын
I think the recon version was in service into the 2000's
@victorhs25820 күн бұрын
NASA still flies the WB-57 N928NA, registration expires on June 30, 2024.
@FortuneZer0Ай бұрын
"Lusaka tower, this is Green Leader."
@TonyPalmer103Ай бұрын
Who did the start graphic
@wallycox457923 күн бұрын
I liked this but I wish it had covered the US variants.
@mebeasenseiАй бұрын
Weren’t these in Vietnam.
@xyzguy5903Ай бұрын
Yes, they were. Stationed at Phan Rang AB, just south of Cam Ranh Bay AB. 1969. Saw then personally.
@brettcoster4781Ай бұрын
Both the RAAF and USAF operated Canberras in Vietnam. The Australian ones were built in Australia (B20 version, with the original canopy) and the American ones were US-built B57s with the 2-seat tandem canopy.
@AlistairGaleАй бұрын
Hey Dwayne : CaNberra might want to change the thumbnail
@propman3523Ай бұрын
Didn't the US produce this plane under license?
@kelvinfoote9897Ай бұрын
Yes, as the Martin B 57, with a greater wingspan and tandem cockpit.
@josephbaca5214Ай бұрын
Lysander accidentally placed above non lysander in intro.
@wafudave6041Ай бұрын
Missed out the T17 varient.
@paulgamble7548Ай бұрын
Were also early nuclear armed bombers under QRA in the mid 60s before the V Bombers took over. Scary and rather exciting.
@franciscook5819Ай бұрын
1:00 Whirlwind & Lysander labels are swapped. You missed some interesting facts. I offer some. The last RAF Canberra (a PR9) was withdrawn from service in 2006 marking 55 years since service entry in 1951. The highest published altitude of a PR9 Canberra is over 70,000ft (it took the world altitude record in 1957). At least one PR Canberra suffered shrapnel/gun damage flying a PR mission over Russia (the Kapustin Yar mission). That may well have been a B2 configured for reconnaissance. The Canberra was one of very few UK aircraft adopted (and modified) by the USA for its air force as the Martin B57 and for NASA. Three of the NASA aircraft (RB57Fs) are still in use, reengined with TF33 (like the B52), and are sometimes used to provide high altitude and downrange video coverage of space launches.
@victorhoe2321Ай бұрын
Interesting that Canada's last domestic all weather fighter, the Avro CF100 looks similiar.. It was part of NORAD and deployed to Germany as part of NATO's forces.
@neiloflongbeck5705Ай бұрын
RR also dropped the development of the large turbojet.
@liborrez6657Ай бұрын
Where is better U.S. variant B-57?
@theirthereandtheyre2947Ай бұрын
Forerunner to the U2
@m1t2a1Ай бұрын
The Americans flew them into the 80s.
@wafudave6041Ай бұрын
And the UK flew them into the 90s
@rocksnot952Ай бұрын
Even better as the RB-57.
@clangerbasherАй бұрын
Wellington..............not the bomber the capital of New Zealand............... A bit further on that Ozziietralia...........
@SchlipperschlopperАй бұрын
From concept the Canberra followed the German ARADO Blitz jet bomber from WW2
@BV-fr8bfАй бұрын
Surprised, no mention of the (American) B-57 (variant.)
@-lightningwill-6014Ай бұрын
Because not everything is about the Americans? It's a video on British aeronautics
@gort8203Ай бұрын
@@-lightningwill-6014 Perhaps you can't see past the large chip on your shoulder, but mentioning the Martin-produced version would only highlight the international success of the basic design. Such success was rare enough that I would think you would wish to highlight it.
@-lightningwill-6014Ай бұрын
@@gort8203 well, canberras are still flown in their original British configuration by a few African air forces operationally, like for bombing, there's canberras still being used for their intended role to today, how many b57s are still in combat operational service today?, there's 3 NASA test beds but it's a bit of a Vio comparing the two considering, and even then NASA also uses British canberras so....
@gort8203Ай бұрын
@@-lightningwill-6014 Wow, that's some twisted logic. Because some third world air forces still operate their version of an obsolete bomber the world's most powerful air force should still operate its version? Seriously? And again, your parochial attitude causes you to miss the point, which is not about which version is better, but the fact that the basic design was versatile and prolific. I hope you don't handle firearms, because you're likely to shoot yourself in the foot.
@rvsteve583Ай бұрын
@@gort8203 yah!
@swampmonster4935Ай бұрын
I believe the Gen 1 through the Gen 3 era of jet aircraft was the greatest. Every conceivable design was seriously looked at and we got some of the most unique and iconic aircraft. Seems like the newest era of military aircraft are becoming cookie cutter copies.
@GaryChurch-hi8kbАй бұрын
Really sad the RAF did not modify them with longer wings like the Americans did making them only slightly less capable than the U-2.
@JBinthesticksАй бұрын
Canberra PR9?🙂
@Eric-kn4ynАй бұрын
Cant compare to U2 which had much longer service life.
@GaryChurch-hi8kbАй бұрын
@@Eric-kn4yn Can you google? They are still in service with NASA.
@terrystevens5261Ай бұрын
@@Eric-kn4yn Had ? they still fly over my house on a regular basis.
@shirleydrury5565Ай бұрын
Don’t spilt hairs!!😂
@birlyballop4704Ай бұрын
Too much camber in the camembert!
@xgford94Ай бұрын
???caMberra???
@DwaynesaviationАй бұрын
Saw that too, will fix it asap 😂
@TonyPalmer103Ай бұрын
Spelt Canberra. Not Camberra
@Jack-bs6zbАй бұрын
spelled ‘Canberra’ not spelt Canberra
@shirleydrury5565Ай бұрын
Come on you are better than THAT!!😢😢😢
@TonyPalmer103Ай бұрын
Camberra
@ianhelyar6383Ай бұрын
@@Jack-bs6zb who cares how the semi-literate renegade colonials spelt it! ;-)
@terrystevens5261Ай бұрын
@@TonyPalmer103 Nope.
@indigohammer5732Ай бұрын
The Wyvern wasn’t a jet, the captions showing Westland aircraft are wrong. This isn’t even three minutes in...#pisspoor
@terrystevens5261Ай бұрын
The Wyvern was a turbo-jet.
@KapiteinKrentebolАй бұрын
Also got the Lysander and Whirlwind mixed up.
@bodan1196Ай бұрын
@@terrystevens5261 No, it's called a turbo-prop. 🙂 There are basically three "kinds" of gas turbin propulsion. The original turbo-jet, (not counting the Caproni as it was no gas turbin involved.) the turbo-prop, and the turbo-fan. The similarities, and differences of these, are quite interesting.
@terrystevens5261Ай бұрын
@@bodan1196 Yes, my mistake.
@Hopeless_and_ForlornАй бұрын
British engineers: I say, old chaps, this new Canberra looks absolutely stunning. Let's move a few things sideways and add a lot of bumps and protrusion until it looks like a typical British ugly stepchild of an airplane. And so they did.