PaperModelers.com - Canberra B(I)8 Redesign ( Skyline )

PaperModelers.com (https://www.papermodelers.com/forum/)

- Design Threads (https://www.papermodelers.com/forum/design-threads/)

- - Canberra B(I)8 Redesign ( Skyline ) (https://www.papermodelers.com/forum/design-threads/19033-canberra-b-i-8-redesign-skyline.html)

Canberra B(I)8 Redesign ( Skyline )

Wow! It looks to have great detail! Why was the cockpit not centered? Some other British craft had a similar configuration and I never understood why.

The reason the cockpit was not centered was because the B(I)8 was adapted from the high altitude B6 version of the aircraft. I was made to be field converted, if necessary in about 25 hours, from a B6 to a B(I)8 or vise-versa. The offset cockpit was a result of making design commonality with the B6, thus all of the major control linkages, brake hydraulics, pcu connections, avionics bundles, etc, would be easily disconnected from a B6 nose, and adapted to a B(I)8 nose. That also means all of the cockpit's control, avionics & static connections would put the B(I)8's cockpit in about the same general location as that of the B6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumato (Post 280970)

Let me rephrase the question " Why was the cockpit designed off-center in the B6?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmks2000 (Post 280959)

Wow! It looks to have great detail! Why was the cockpit not centered? Some other British craft had a similar configuration and I never understood why.

Found this tidbit Googling "... and offset fighter-type cockpit to improve visibility in the ground attack role..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagolden01 (Post 280974)

Let me rephrase the question " Why was the cockpit designed off-center in the B6?"

For the same reason virtually ALL medium bombers do; economy of space. The Canberra was originally conceptualized as a nuclear bomber, with capacity to expand into many other roles. The Canberra ( like other great medium bombers, like the HE111, Ju88, B25, B26, Blenheim, etc) had literally dozens of variants each, such as trainers, bombers, attack, interdiction, ASW, ECAM, pathfinding, interception, surveillance, transports, etc. Virtually all of these aircraft could be modified easily to add a radar operator, instructor, bombardier, or whoever without a dramatic redesign of the aircraft. Simple design economy is all it comes down to. Center aligned controls, like those on Douglas Boston were actually much more rare.

There were two distinct canopiy types for the Canberra - th4 "bomber" style bubble which was "normal" in location (although the pilot sat offset to the left and the navigator and bombardier were to the right and below him. When the interdiction (ground attack) version was designed it kept the pilot where he had been in the bomber version under a new "fighter" canopy. Bombers, trainers and most "utility" versions used the bomber canopy. The B(I) and later photo-recon versions used the fighter canopy.

Understand why the pilot is not situated in the center, that makes sense. It may just be the VISUAL thing of the canopy not being (or not needing to be) wide enough so it can center on the fuselage.

On many of the aircraft you mentioned, the canopy or glass was essentially centered on the fuslage even though the pilot was off to one side - just a design thing.

This B(I)8 shows every sign of being a mighty fine model.
It is also one of my favourite variants of the Canberra family.
For some reason, connected to my sense of aesthetics, the fighter-style offset canopy always seemed to have a far more appropriate look then the rounded dome canopy of other Canberra variants.

I look keenly forward to seeing progress in the rejuvenation of your design, and the model that emerges therefrom, Sumato. :)

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

The Canberra is a fine looking craft and this design looks like it will be a top notch model.
I'd never heard of them until I came across one in a Conecticut air museum. That one has the low dome cnaopy - looks mighty cool.