The Martin B-57G; Laid the Groundwork 

It's why i no longer drink coke when watching Ed's videos.

You having a cheeky stripe or five there la, gowed! 😂😂

I haven't watched a RU-vid video whilst snorting a naughty G or two for ages. At least you chose a great channel to do so.

@@localbodit helps keep the ADHD in control

Maybe snort like a hog! Damn it, Ed! That’s why I love British humor!😂

Oh my word yes indeed, rare success for our post empire industry...

One of the few jets with ZERO-hours on its airframe and the only one the uk tried a prone flying position on.

My mom says the same about me!

remember seeing b57s with nasa marking flying over my home as a child

I live close to Ellington Field, south of Houston, where NASA hangers one of these aircraft. I see the WB57 flying on a regular basis. It has a very distinctive engine sound and its wings are huge. Beautiful aircraft.

@@robertbrodie5183 You can track it on Flight Radar as NASA 926 and NASA 928.

The WB-57 is a very different aircraft to the B-57. It is like comparing the F-104G with the U-2 - they started with the same airframe but ended at very different places.

I wanted to commant that too i love the B57 and the WB57 that looks like they just glued extra parts on it

Just had a quick look on maps, dated 2023. I see 6 at coordinates 32.16147226988309, -110.83774611028473 . Also wondering what are the planes to right of the B-57's with the rather large wingspan?

@@68Boca I'm pretty sure those three acft are the RB/EB-57D variant.

@@American_Jeeper NASA flies three RB-57 articles redesignated as WB-57, so the long winged birds would be the NASA type. Crazy that a 1944 proposal resulted in an aircraft still flying eighty years later. Then again, B-52s eventually will be sorted by carbon dating...

@@68Boca The AMARC inventory list shows 2 B-57Es, 5 EB-57Bs and 4 WB-57Fs soaking in the sun.

@@francoissouchay3887 The three WB-57F's are located at the Johnson Space Center Tail Numbers 926, 927, 928). The ones at Davis Monthan AFB are mothballed, so it stands to reason in my mind that they are part of the 21 built as RB/EB-57D's, which have a slightly shorter wingspan (32m) than the WB-57F's that NASA uses (37m).There is a fourth NASA WB-57F at Davis Monthan (Tail Number 925), but its wings have been partially dismantled. T/N 927 started her life out as a B-57B (original T/N 53-3918). In 1964 she was rebuilt as RB-57Fs by General Dynamics, and was given the new T/N 63-13295. She was retired in 1972 and mothballed until 2011, when she was completely dismantled and rebuilt by the Sierra Nevada Corporation at Centennial Airport, Colorado. Her Wright J65 turbojets were replaced with Pratt & Whitney TF33 turbofans, which were double the thrust of the original engines. Following her restoration, her first flight as T/N N927NA was in 2013.

Yep the RAF Canberra's had the same cartridge start up but i think the later ones used AVPIN , a very highly volatile starter fuel much H70 of F-16's and i think F-15's

To very good aircraft that did a job , thank you for your service . From an ex-RAF serviceman .

He really enjoyed the video.

I was a FAC in 'Nam and can vouch for the Canberra's incredible accuracy. The downside, however, was the long time between bomb passes as the 'Berra had to fly a large "racetrack" pattern that could take five to six minutes between drops. That was fine for pre-planned strikes on known and fixed targets like storage areas, but worthless for highly mobile events like troops in contact.

I have no idea what the facts there are BUT its certainly pretty plausible ....... Boats have good darrying capacity, lots of places to hide amongst the deltas etc Yet - maybe because of the coverage during the War - the Ho Chi Min Trail has acquired near mythic status.

I had thought those were mostly bored pilots trying to find something to do. There were even attempts to use IR Falcon and Sidewinder missiles to hit trucks and locomotives.

@@petesheppard1709 Great fliers. Crap economists.

Vietnam was a real wake up call for the air force. They thought they would only need to fight a strategic/nuclear war and that even maned aircraft might be phased out. Glen L Martin was even getting out of aircraft building and focusing on missiles Like the Martin Mace which I guess was a forerunner to cruise missiles. An agreement with the army made it worse. Since the Air Force wanted a monopoly on bombers and attack aircraft (they tried to take over the Navy's aircraft early on after WW2 , like the RAF did to the FAA after WW1.) The agreement with the army was that the army could have no fixed wing attack aircraft (the AF really didn't care about rotary wing aircraft) the Mohawks were not allowed to carry weapons but only reconnaissance. That was later changed, but it took a while.

@@Farweasel 😄 Well, it wasn't coming out of their pockets...

No i didn't either .

NURSE! He's forgotten his Meds again [The worrying thing is I can kind of see where you're going with that 'tho]

I think Rhodesia used Canberras?

They basically were the mosies successor in the light fast boomber role

@Thomas Baker it was the direct successor to the Mosquito in all roles, that is what it was designed to be. It had a 4x20mm gun pack with 500 rounds per gun as an option so could function as a fighter too.

@@juhopuhakka2351 They did. They were very widely exported and most commonwealth countries operated them. I think the Argentinians had some in the Falklands, not sure if they flew against the British, but they were in service. They were one of the best of their time. That's the British Canberras, the only other operator of B-57s was Taiwan maybe and Pakistan I think.

@@thomasbaker6563 A true Mosquito successor would have been faster than the jet fighters of the day, though 😉

I remember as a kid and i saw this when one day driving some where a Canberra of RAE came from behind and flew straight down the road that we was driving . The wing tips were over the the edge of both sides of the road and the noise and vibration was incredible . Obviously as a kid in the back seat i heard then was vibrated and also the shadow of this aircraft passed by us and went in front . I was excited by this and loved it but the RAE had to apologise to the general public for scaring vehicle drivers . Apparently it was testing some thing but they never said what . Made my day and every one of the family that was in the car , we was used to fast jets at low level doing their thing and to be fair liked it .

I think that's an incorrect conclusion. Altitude should have no bearing. It's more likely the result, or lack of result, from the general effectiveness of 20mm on something as simple as a truck. Sure, in WW2 fighters were strafing the heck out of German trucks, but that was a somewhat different circumstance. Often they were using .50cals that could easily put hundreds of rounds into a target in one or two seconds. Far more likely to cause critical damage or worse if incendiary rounds were used. Couple this with the inability of the Germans to repair or recover the vehicle made it effective. Even at the high rate of fire of the Vulcan at night and high speed, I would expect maybe half a dozen hits and less if they were only letting off judicious bursts. ( in the video he mentions 20 trucks for 4,000 rds. : 2 sec bursts, but at what flying speed?). A few explosive hits on a steel frame truck with an iron engine aren't going to put it out of action for long, if at all. These aren't aluminum frame aircraft, or vulnerable jet planes that every square foot is vital. The frame likely won't be damaged. Replacing some tires and an engine accessory or two, the truck is back in business. The Vietnamese wouldn't care about cosmetics of a few holes here and there. The more modern 30mm has a square of more explosive capability coupled with the use of depleted uranium that more or less melts the steel. They use a mix of HE and AP to achieve effectiveness. I don't doubt the study was done, they just arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

It was intended to take the fast bomber role of the Mosquito into the jet age.

I see what you mean (having searched out which one the 1988 XK8 Jag was) Had you said 'like a Hawker Hunter but flattened' I wouldn't have needed to search. Am I the only one so air-obsessed they needed to search? 🙄

After much head scratching just worked out the *PAVE* bit means 'Laser Guided'

It helps if your hobby's potholing of course.

😂 couldnt residt

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters And I’m so glad you didn’t! A little cheek is always appreciated. (When I was in school writing academic military history papers I always included a couple sly remarks in each one. I certainly enjoyed it when other writers included them for their readers, breaking up what is an otherwise painfully dry article.)

I think they were quite good at making trains (locomotives) as well. The Deltic was one of theirs.

@@paulqueripel3493 I read that just yesterday, the diesel loco's were another of EE's lines. Thanks for the info. TTFN

The Lighting was an amazing aircraft and was ahead of it's time . HOTAS hands on throttle and on stick , meaning everything that pilot needed to to do to do their job was readily available on stick and throttle . An idea that has carried on to modern fighters . As an ex-RAF serviceman my two favourite aircraft of the jet era are Lightning and Vulcan . I was lucky to see both and i love them . Both very impressive aircraft .

The black and yellow chevrons weren't search and rescue, they were target towers to train fighter pilots in air to air machine / cannon firing.

@@ChuckieFinzter The yellow & black chevrons were painted on the underside of the Canberra's wings.

@@Aengus42 Yes thats right... The last target towing squadron was 100 squadron (tatty ton) They flew TT18's with a Rushden winch target towing pod under each wing.

@@ChuckieFinzter Ahaa! Thank you! Now I can research them a tad. The bay was quite busy with the VOR DME equipment on Berry Head too.

PR-9's i think might be the longest serving Aircraft in the RAF , yes i know the BBMF are still serving aircraft to a point but the PR-9 was the longest operational as far as im aware . occasionally worked with Canberra's when i was at RAF Wittering and some other stations . Was always amazed at the so many different variants that there was . I thought it was bad enough that we have four different types of Harrier at RAF Wittering , plus then the Navy variants that would come in .

The Pilot of the B(I).8 was alone under the fighter style canopy with the Navigator in the fuselage, in the early models behind the Pilot and in the later models in front. Correction the Navigator was was in front in the early models and behind in the later ones.

@@neiloflongbeck5705 PR 9

@@ChuckieFinzter these used the same cockpit layout as the B(I).8.

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes this is correct for the B(I)8, but the navigator/ camera operator sat lower down to the right of the pilot and moved fwd to the glass nose to operate the camera. It was the Pr9 that had the navigator/camera operator in front of the pilot "locked" in the separate nose compartment of the aircraft. (No 1 PRU later to be 39 squadron were the last RAF Sqn to fly the coffin).

@Cancer McAids True, very true. But it still likely modified their behavior and weighed on their minds. They still bested the U.S. with their adaptability and drive for certain. What a waste overall, though. I wish my country had learned to not interfere with sovereignty.

Could that have been the *paint job* it was wearing?

@@babboon5764 No, it was a take-off on the name "Canberra." ETA: I pulled the trigger too fast. It's entirely possible the paint job could have something to do with the name, I just don't remember that as being the case. Also, I don't think it was in reference to a single B-57 named "Iron Cranberry," tho that too is possible. I think it referred to the Canberras in general, like "Aardvark" referred to F-111s.

Lol glad you enjoyed.