Talk:English Electric Canberra
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English Electric Canberra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Glanzed tip
editThe redesign is mentioned twice, once for 1947 and once in the prototype testing in 1949. Which of these is correct? Ciao --Pentaclebreaker (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Losses?
editAre any operational loss statistics available? Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Survivors > United Kingdom
editSurvivors: UK
editShould the Gate Guardian (PR9 XH170) at RAF Wyton be included?
Photo on right hand side of RAF Wyton page:
[XH170]
1952 British Canberra in northern california
editThere is an existing 1952 mark 4 English electric Canberra sitting at redding municipal airport in redding, ca. 2600:6C5D:4D00:365A:105:60B4:8704:D78A (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Error about surviving aircraft
editNear the beginning of the "Surviving aircraft" section, it says this:
"Several ex-RAF machines and RB-57s remain flying in the US for research and mapping work. About 10 airworthy Canberras are in private hands today, and are flown at air displays."
But down the page a bit, under "Australia", it says this:
"The museum’s Canberra is now the only airworthy example in the world, apart from three that are still in use with NASA for research purposes.[202]"
Clearly, something somewhere needs to be reconciled or corrected. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Centre of gravity
edit"The new engine position decreased the aircraft's weight by 13% and improved the aircraft's centre of gravity, as well as improved accessibility to the engines and related accessories; its downsides were slight thrust loss from the longer jet pipes and greater yaw during engine-out instances."
What does "improved" mean? S C Cheese (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have the source so can't adjust the wording but it would mean that the centre of gravity moved forward, an aft CofG gives controllability problems (prone to stalling/spinning etc). A very forward CofG also causes problems (elevator ineffective) but not as bad as the aft case. Designers specify a dimensional range for the CofG position and confirm it through flight testing. Center of gravity of an aircraft is the article that covers this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Improving" it simply means the thing flew better afterwards than it had before. But I agree with your real point, that the statement you asked about is uninformative and not well thought out. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)