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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal English Electric Canberra is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / British / European / North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Glanzed tip

The 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)[reply]

Losses?

Are any operational loss statistics available? Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors > United Kingdom

Survivors: UK

Should 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

There 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)[reply]

Error about surviving aircraft

Near 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)[reply]

Centre of gravity

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]