Talk:Martin B-57 Canberra/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Copyright Issues

Two paragraphs appear to have been lifted from a Wired article. The revisions appear to have been added at 11:24, September 14, 2012. See http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/air-force-universal-translator/ Tonytnnt (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm%7Caccessdate=2006-04-22
- In A-6 Intruder on Sat Jun 3 22:43:46 2006, 404 Not found
- In A-6 Intruder on Tue Jun 6 23:30:02 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
- In B-24 Liberator on Tue Jun 13 22:52:48 2006, 404 Not found

maru (talk) contribs 02:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 'first foreign aircraft since the Airco DH4', quote: the USAAF used Supermarine Spitfires, Bristol Beaufighters and de Havilland Mosquitos during WWII. What was the source of this quote?

End of NASA WB-57?

The stunning video and photography gained by the high altitude flying WB-57s during shuttle launches may soon be a thing of the past, as NASA evaluated whether to cancel the use of the two aircraft.

See:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4993

Royzee 11:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well they've sent one of NASA's birds to Afghanistan to do geological surveys, so... - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!}

Actually, I was at JSC about three weeks ago, and talking with the WB-57F program manager. Mr. Littlejohn says that NASA IS re-evaluating WAVE, but the WB-57F program is as active as ever in the science community. No thoughts of cancellation are pending, and a landing gear upgrade is in progress. Barrytilton 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I had prepared the stub of a page on the WB-57F, intending to cover both the history of this unique model (different engines, fuel, flight profile, payload, mission, lifespan, etc.) but the page was re-merged as a line in this Canberra page. Given the fact that this model has now proven to be one of the most enduring in research, I would like to re-argue for an actual contribution on this platform as a separate topic. Many of the pilots from F Troop are still around (my father happens to be one), and many of us have operated the platform since it migrated to NASA. I believe the story of this platform deserves to be told. Barrytilton 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me who re-merged it. I assumed you were a "fanboy" adding something on his favorite plane, and that the article would never be expanded beyond that point. My apologies; I should have asked first.

I'll be happy to help you set something up to follow the Aircraft Project's Page content guidelines. We will need a better name than just WB-57F to follow the project's naming conventions. I would suggest Martin WB-57F, or WB-57F Canberra, or whatever the official name used by NASA for the type was ("Canberra" or otherwise).

As long as you have verifiable, published sources, write away! - BillCJ 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Been away from the net working on aircraft integration the last two weeks. Actually saw the WAVE sensor fairing and talked with the designers last week. As to the right name for a longer/permanent article, I am unsure, since the Canberra designation normally has not been applied to the D- and F- longwing variants, and the F model was actually a General Dynamics redesign/redesignation of several B, C- and D models, so maybe General Dynamics WB-57F is the right title, with the Martin and Canberra connections being part of the article. I will be talking to the current NASA project lead / project pilot to see what NASA actually refers to the planes by, then we can decide Barrytilton 04:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, General Dynamics rebuilt older B-57s as the RB-57F, and that ssome of these were later modified as WB-57F for NASA. We might seriously consider covering the RB-57Fs also, and that will provide more material for the new article. - BillCJ 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created a page at User:BillCJ/Sandbox 9 for the proposed General Dynamics RB-57F article. - BillCJ 02:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a little FYI, according to DOD 4120.15-L, Model Designation of Military Aircraft, Rockets, and Guided Missiles, all variants of the B-57 series, including the RB-57F and WB-57F received the Canberra moniker officially. Not sure if it was commonly used to refer to the aircraft. -- Thatguy96 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed seeing images from NASA's WB-57 aircraft as the astronauts returned to earth, August 1, 2020 in their Dragon capsule. It seems the WB-57 is still in service. See: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/multimedia/iotw-wb57.html#.Xyl7z55KguV These updates may be worth including in this or an adjacent article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Very questionable statement

I removed the following from the article:

"Remarkably, this was the first foreign aircraft purchased by the USAF since the British Airco DH.4 of World War I."

I'm not at all sure this is correct, and even if it was the first purchased using cash since the DH.4, the USAF acquired a number of aircraft under "reverse lend-lease" in WW2 - Spitfires, Mosquitos and Beaufighters (at least). - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

True - also the DH.4 wasn't the last as the Bristol Fighter and Handley Page O/100 designs were also purchased to be licence built in the US, although the war ended before they were needed and so production of them there was cancelled. And the USAF didn't exist in WWI so the statement isn't strictly speaking accurate anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

8th and 13th Bomb Squadrons

The following I found at a totally wrong page (see this diff), maybe it can be useful for this article:

Your article about the B57 should have included the facts that the 8th and 13th Bomb Squadrons were TDY from Clark AB PI. and were transferred from Bien Hoa to Danang VN, then later to Phang Rang. I don't have the specific dates, however I was in the 8th Bomb Squadron from July 1965 to Jan 1967. I was in the mid air collision on Apr 14 1966 out of Danang after a very big combat mission. There was a book written by an Australian (sp) Lady called the DOOM PUSSY. The DOOM had the conotation from the DANANG OFFICERS OPEN MESS. Capt. Vernon G. Wittkopp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabel38 (talk • contribs)

Vietnam and Recon Sections

Could we possibly change the Recon section to Strategic Reconnaissance? I'm thinking about updating the Vietnam section soon, and I would rather put the Patricia Lynn RB-57E in that section than the recon section. Also, I'm not entirely sure about the date of removal, as the Tropic Moon III B-57Gs were in operation until May 1972. Tropic Moon II aircraft would probably have been some of the last to leave in 1969, but by 1971 B-57s were back in theatre. -- Thatguy96 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

USAF Use Of Canberra Name?

Interesting minor question: did USAF aircrews call the B-57 a "Canberra"? I really doubt they called it a "Night Intruder". That sounds like a company name. Cheers / MrG 4.225.212.248 03:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The official US popular name is actually Canberra, just an FYI. -- Thatguy96 04:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a 1954 English Electric advertisement for the Canberra B8 where it's referred-to as the Night Intruder here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.30 (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I flew the B57 from 1977 until we took them to DM in July of 1979. The B57 was only called the Canberra by those who did not know the AC. The Cabberra was strictly a British AC. It had a crew of four and you entered from beneath. No ejection seats. The B57 was the American version and was called the Night Intruder. Crew of two, and had rocket ejection. I had the pleasure of actually flying in a Canberra at RAF whitten in 1977. Scared the hell out ofme! 141.164.124.82 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wright j65

Smoke in the cockpit, of a gas turbine powered aircraft, is rarely, if ever, due to burning oil. The oil systems in gas turbine engines rely on differential air pressure to contain oil vapours and prevent them enterring bleed air systems. When the seals fail oil vapour enters the air conditioning system, causing smoke or fumes in the cockpit/cabin. The vast majority of gas turbine engines burn a certain amount of oil as well as venting oil vapour overboard.Petebutt (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan has not used the B-57 bombers.

I have some questions for the operators as I seen the picture. The Canberra Taiwan once had were to meet the requirements of the United States, and used to fly into mainland China to take photos. They did not responsible for the bombing missions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.130.233.122 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Pave Gat

I have added some additional material to the Project Pave Gat section, and, reversed the statement that the project was a failure. Using the reference cited, I find that the authors drew exactly the opposite conclusion than that previously stated in the article here. The direct quotation from their Air Force Office of History work which I included clearly indicates that the program failed from lack of deployment rather than system problems. Mark Sublette (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WB-57 Maximum Altitude 60'000

According to this the WB-57 maximum altitude would be over 60'000. That's a big difference to previous model. Sounds incredible.

Anttir717 (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a new engine was added. 7,220 lbf each on the wiki page, and 15,500 on the NASA page. cyalknight@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.134.214.145 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

EB-57 Replacement?

This article states: "The ANG's EB-57s were replaced, in the 1980s, by the USAF's more advanced General Dynamics/Grumman EF-111A Raven operated by the active-duty USAF." What is the source for this? I seem to recall the T-33 being used as ad hoc ECCM training aircraft (with underwing electronics pods) after the retirement of the EB-57s for interceptor squadrons - for example, the 84th FITS at Castle. I attended William Tell 82, 84, and 86 and no EF-111s were in sight (or used at all during the competitions) - instead ADWC T-33s were used to simulate jamming aircraft. I also attended the 1994 meet and don't recall EF-111s being used either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.146.152.8 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Martin B-57 Canberra

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Martin B-57 Canberra's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ravenstein":

From Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base: Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings, Lineage & Honors Histories 1947-1977 (PDF). Office of Air Force History. pp. 225–6. ISBN 0912799129.
From Bien Hoa Air Base: Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings, Lineage & Honors Histories 1947-1977 (PDF). Office of Air Force History. pp. 9–11. ISBN 0912799129.
From Shaw Air Force Base: Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings Lineage and Honors Histories 1947–1977. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-12-9.
From 345th Bombardment Wing: Ravenstein, p. 182
From Phan Rang Air Base: Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings, Lineage & Honors Histories 1947-1977 (PDF). Office of Air Force History. p. 194. ISBN 0912799129.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

NASA WB-57 used to extend 2017 Solar Eclipse photography, etc., over USA

Further to the "end" of NASA use of WB-57s, NASA used two to extend 2017 Solar Eclipse photography, etc., over USA. Check it out .. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/chasing-the-total-solar-eclipse-from-nasa-s-wb-57f-jets is a source of data.49.195.149.151 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting statements regarding "bomb bay doors"

The article states that "the conventional "clamshell" bomb bay doors were replaced with a low-drag rotating door originally designed for the XB-51" in the B-57A. It then goes on to state that "a new rotary bomb door was adopted on the B-57B, which had originally been designed for the XB-51, replacing the hinged doors". It appears to be the SAME rotary bomb door, so was it introduced for the 57A or the 57B? They can't both be the first introduction of this feature. "Pij" (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, the B-57A was a more-or-less direct copy of the Canberra B.2, and so it is likely the Martin rotating bomb door was first incorporated in the B-57B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

"WB-57F" redirects here. It should redirect to this article. 73.230.178.114 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:So fix it. BilCat (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect changes

Hello. I'm 73.230.178.114 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC). I want to notify you that RB-57 and [RB-57B Canberra]] redirect to Martin RB-57D Canberra and WB-57F to Martin/General Dynamics RB-57F Canberra, but RB-57A Canberra still redirects here due to it being the early series with the bubble canopy and it being introduced at a different time.