Big Wing Canberra?

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Big Wing Canberra?  (Read 2259 times)
publiusr
Elite Veteran
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1544


« on: 09/14/2005 05:46 PM »

I seem to remember soome footage of a Big Wing Canberra that was going to be monitoring Discovery's descent--flying 'chase'. Anyone have any links?
Advertisement
« on: 09/14/2005 05:46 PM »

 
strut
Member
Full Member
**
Offline

Posts: 27
Location: Florida


« Reply #1 on: 09/15/2005 03:36 AM »

It was set up to record the recording for the KSC landing strip, so when it landed in California it did not happen.
Guess we will just have to wait until next time.   Lets see if I can upload this PDF file with this post.
I did this for some of my co-workers as a play on "Where is Waldo ?"

CLICK HERE FOR DOWNLOAD

More info at http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/launch/wb57_chasejets.html
Home of the 57's on the web at  http://jsc-aircraft-ops.jsc.nasa.gov/wb57/index.html

Robert
Space101
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 238
Location: Leeds, England


« Reply #2 on: 09/15/2005 04:20 AM »

Very cool photos thanks!

How much did the whole operation cost roughly on the new assent imaging for STS-114?
FransonUK
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 873


« Reply #3 on: 09/15/2005 01:21 PM »

So the one with the camera on the front of its nose...did the pilot have to fly alongside Discovery? And someone on the ground moving where the camera pointed to flim? I'm trying to think of my angles, but say this plane was at 20,000 ft. Discovery sets off, cameraman follows the assent by remote control. Where did the plane go to help film?
JamesSpaceFlight
Regular
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #4 on: 09/15/2005 01:23 PM »

Remember, Discovery wasn't going striaght up.  I'm thinking the chase plane flew downrange the best it could to keep Discovery in frame.
MKremer
Elite Veteran
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3824


« Reply #5 on: 09/15/2005 02:45 PM »

Quote
Space101 - 14/9/2005  11:20 PM

How much did the whole operation cost roughly on the new assent imaging for STS-114?

Without looking it up, I reacall a figure of something like $200 million. They added a *lot* of new cameras and tracking systems (including the Canberra cameras) as well as completely upgrading the existing sites. The imagery computer system hardware and displays were also totally upgraded, and I believe they hired additional specialists as well.
strut
Member
Full Member
**
Offline

Posts: 27
Location: Florida


« Reply #6 on: 09/15/2005 03:04 PM »

If you go to http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112301main_114_pk_july05.pdf and download the press kit go to pages 43 - 49, on Page 48 there is a graphic of the proposed flight path. It's an interesting read.  If you check out page 43 there are 19 HDTV cameras listed, I supplied the recorders for these cameras, and the recorders for the ET Camera recorded via S-band microwave downlink (P54,55)

Robert
strut
Member
Full Member
**
Offline

Posts: 27
Location: Florida


« Reply #7 on: 10/28/2005 04:04 AM »

Did anybody catch the video over the weekend that showed the shockwaves from the WB-57's it was on the History channel I think?
James Lowe1
Member
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 850
Location: New York City


« Reply #8 on: 10/28/2005 11:33 AM »

Can't say I did, and I can't see where it was in the schedule. Could it have been one of the Discovery channels?
Rocket Nut
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 279


« Reply #9 on: 12/09/2005 12:28 PM »

Quote
FransonUK - 15/9/2005  8:21 AM

So the one with the camera on the front of its nose...did the pilot have to fly alongside Discovery? And someone on the ground moving where the camera pointed to flim? I'm trying to think of my angles, but say this plane was at 20,000 ft. Discovery sets off, cameraman follows the assent by remote control. Where did the plane go to help film?

Just for the record...

The last time I saw that plane at a launch, It looked like it was at about 50,000 feet.  I don't know if they still use full pressure suits, but when I flew that plane in the 60s, we routinely flew well above 60,000 feet.  I flew that plane against rocket launches (minuteman missiles) and it took the missile over a minute to reach our altitude...plenty of time to get some good pictures...and all of our cameras pointed down.  

That plane is a 2-seater with equipment operator in back seat.

Regards
Chris Bergin
NSF Managing Editor
Administrator
*****
Online

Posts: 57098



« Reply #10 on: 12/09/2005 12:39 PM »

Welcome to the site! Great to have another pilot on board.
rsp1202
Elite Veteran
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1072


« Reply #11 on: 01/08/2006 09:49 PM »

As a bomber, did it have the rotating bomb bay door/weapons rack?
Rocket Nut
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 279


« Reply #12 on: 01/09/2006 11:34 AM »

Quote
rsp1202 - 8/1/2006  4:49 PM

As a bomber, did it have the rotating bomb bay door/weapons rack?

The long wing Canberras did not have the rotating bomb bay doors.  They were for reconnaissance only.  The bomb bay area was filled with sensors on a pallet-like structure that was raised and lowered by external equipment.  The short winged Recce versions that I flew in Viet Nam and elsewhere had the same features.  It allowed a quick change-out of pallets for differing missions.

I recall one instance where, on a short winged version, we had a problem with the hydraulics for the rotation mechanism. One of the unused hydraulics lines burst, draining the hydraulic system. Without hydraulics, we couldn't lower the gear and landed on the belly of the plane in Alexandria, Lousiana.  After that incident, many unused hydraulic lines were removed from those short winged recce versions of the Canberra.

Regards,

Larry
publiusr
Elite Veteran
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1544


« Reply #13 on: 01/26/2006 10:42 PM »

Will it be used for Severe Storm research this year?
Tags:
Pages: [1]
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2009 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.035 seconds with 18 queries.