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!
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@-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.
@@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....
@@-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.
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.
@@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.
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.
