Jump to content

Canberra Bomb Aimers glass - why is it at different positions?


speedy

Recommended Posts

I'm curious myself now but perhaps I can speculate that it might be something to do with a change from high level to low level bombing. High level - horizontal, greater angle for low level. Perhaps later the visual bombing requirement was removed and the angle changed.

 

Perhaps someone on the cold war section might have more info. Other forums like PPRuNe and others similar may well have ex service people who can help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John (Canberra Kid) will, hopefully, either bear me out with this or politely shoot me down in flames but I think it's to do with the internal arrangements of the front fuselage.  

 

In Canberras with the original "goldfish bowl" canopy there was not enough room for the bomb-aimer to properly get behind the sight if it was mounted on the aircraft's centre line so it was displaced to starboard so that he could lie or kneel in the crawl way to the right of the pilot's raised cockpit floor.  For the sight to provide the optimum performance (accuracy) it had to be behind an optically flat, non-distorting panel.

 

When the "fighter canopy" B(I) Mk. 8 and it's derivatives were introduced the pilot's seat was displaced rearwards and upwards, being mounted on the bulkhead to which the navigator's seat had originally been attached.  This removed the control runs and original pilot's floor from the lower nose, allowing more room (just) for the navigator/bomb-aimer to get behind an axially-mounted sight.

 

PR Canberras didn't require a sight similar to the bomb sight (most of the cameras being mounted to allow for oblique photography) so the flat panel was dispensed with (the luckless navigator in the PR Mk. 9 had even less of a view of the outside world, having only the two small lateral day/night and or erect/inverted indicators and a periscope to look through).

 

When B Mk. 2s or 6s were converted to other marks, e.g. TT. Mk. 18 or B Mk. 16 respectively, it was probably considered uneconomical to delete or re-align the optically-flat panel so it stayed where it was, unless the entire front fuselage was swapped over during the conversion process.  Obviously conversions to T Mk. 4 got an entirely new, non-transparent nose, as did Mks 11, 17 and 22 for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...