Blackburn Buccaneer developments

isayyo2 said:
SSgtC said:
The same person I got the article from has also now posted a picture of a Buc on the deck of the Lady Lex. Enjoy.

FB-IMG-1621527522501.jpg
Click to expand...
I know a certain story that could greatly benefit from this development :cool:
Click to expand...
Well, it'll definitely be mentioned. Lol. Once I actually get the time to work on it again. Lol
 
SSgtC said:
The same person I got the article from has also now posted a picture of a Buc on the deck of the Lady Lex. Enjoy.

FB-IMG-1621527522501.jpg
Click to expand...
I came across this post and this photo struck me as it is not one I have seen before. My father was "back seat" on these trails during his time with C Squadron at Boscombe Down. Are there any more where this came from (as opposed to the usual ones that can readily be found online)?
 
FoxOne said:
SSgtC said:
The same person I got the article from has also now posted a picture of a Buc on the deck of the Lady Lex. Enjoy.

FB-IMG-1621527522501.jpg
Click to expand...
I came across this post and this photo struck me as it is not one I have seen before. My father was "back seat" on these trails during his time with C Squadron at Boscombe Down. Are there any more where this came from (as opposed to the usual ones that can readily be found online)?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of. This was posted by someone on a USS Lexington Facebook group
 
FoxOne said:
SSgtC said:
The same person I got the article from has also now posted a picture of a Buc on the deck of the Lady Lex. Enjoy.

FB-IMG-1621527522501.jpg
Click to expand...
I came across this post and this photo struck me as it is not one I have seen before. My father was "back seat" on these trails during his time with C Squadron at Boscombe Down. Are there any more where this came from (as opposed to the usual ones that can readily be found online)?
Click to expand...
I think tere was a video in the Buccaneer associention
my memory was correct
There is the link. you can donwload. I do it.
 
(This is from half-a-century ago, so be forgiving). FRG had offered F-104Gs as MRCA avionics test beds, rejected by Panavia as 2 sorties would be needed to produce the same data haul as a single Bucc flight. The work was led by EASAMS, so that must now be explained.

The Air Vehicle defined 5/70 was to be (the very first?) digital data bus-led type. The 4 Nations then in MRCA (Neths shortly left) judged their airframe firms (BAC/FIAT/Fokker/MBB) had no clue on any of that and that specialist (to be) Systems Houses must lead. The BAC/Weybridge TSR.2 Systems team had broken away to form EASAMS (names inc. Howard Surtees, Frank Bond...) so were disparaged, as opportunists and as detractors, by BAC/Preston, who resented the Buyer, NAMMA's imposition of Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Avionica GmbH (EASAMS+FRG/Italy clones ESG and SIA, all owned by black box vendors). BAC caused Panavia GmbH (the SPV Prime for MRCA) to pursuade NAMMA to remove the Avionica layer, Panavia as true Prime, EASAMS as sub-contractor, ESG+SIA as sub-subs. Thus began the titanic conflict between GEC and BAC that would lead, i.a, to Nimrod AEW3, to GEC challenging UK's worst-managed Co, and ultimately, the destruction of GEC/Defence, rise of BAES as Integrator disinterested in mere touch labour.

Panavia assigned No.4 MRCA prototype to FIAT as the first with Mission avionics. EASAMS' approach to System flight test was (IIRC) :
* laboratory breadboard (electrically representative);
* fit/form/function representative Units to be flown in the 2 Buccs;
* flight models in PO4.
BAC sub-contracted Marshalls to design the Bucc installation of EASAMS System, to be flown by BAC, "advised" by EASAMS. All while FIAT pressed on with designing the PO4 installation.

You may not be surprised that none-of-the-above recurred on (to be) Typhoon.

You may also not be surprised that at no point during Bucc operation was any meaningful thought given to turning the Marshalls lash-up into a weapon. There would have been no mileage there for BAC/Preston until BAe. was formed in 1977, by when MRCA was safe.
 
Last edited:
... it piss me to no end that the "pointy, supersonic at low level" trend screwed both Buccaneer and Vautour long term development

Things like "Vautour as ECM jammer / tanker / trainer for Mirage IVA, but not as THE bomber itself" (it had more range !!!!) or "Buccaneers as avionic testbeds for AFVG / Jaguar / TSR-2 / F-111K / Tornado" (IT HAD MORE RANGE YOU DUMMY !!!) - that's frustrating if not infuriating.

At least on US side A-6 and A-7 thrived, so maybe there was karma in the end ?

The A-7E and Buccaneer S.2 were vibrant proofs of what could a "subsonic-with-a-Spey-turbofan " ground pounder could achieve. Shame the Vautours never got massive upgrades and turbofans. A pity the A-6 never got turbofans in place of antiquated J52s.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
... it piss me to no end that the "pointy, supersonic at low level" trend screwed both Buccaneer and Vautour long term development

Things like "Vautour as ECM jammer / tanker / trainer for Mirage IVA, but not as THE bomber itself" (it had more range !!!!) or "Buccaneers as avionic testbeds for AFVG / Jaguar / TSR-2 / F-111K / Tornado" (IT HAD MORE RANGE !!!) - that's frustrating if not infuriating.

At least on US side A-6 and A-7 thrived, so maybe there was karma in the end ?

The A-7E and Buccaneer S.2 were vibrant proofs of what could a "subsonic-with-a-Spey-turbofan " ground pounder could achieve. Shame the Vautours never got massive upgrades and turbofans. A pity the A-6 never got turbofans in place of antiquated J52s.
Click to expand...
The TSR.2 thought polis will be coming around to see you directly.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Archibald said:
... it piss me to no end that the "pointy, supersonic at low level" trend screwed both Buccaneer and Vautour long term development

Things like "Vautour as ECM jammer / tanker / trainer for Mirage IVA, but not as THE bomber itself" (it had more range !!!!) or "Buccaneers as avionic testbeds for AFVG / Jaguar / TSR-2 / F-111K / Tornado" (IT HAD MORE RANGE !!!) - that's frustrating if not infuriating.

At least on US side A-6 and A-7 thrived, so maybe there was karma in the end ?

The A-7E and Buccaneer S.2 were vibrant proofs of what could a "subsonic-with-a-Spey-turbofan " ground pounder could achieve. Shame the Vautours never got massive upgrades and turbofans. A pity the A-6 never got turbofans in place of antiquated J52s.
Click to expand...
The TSR.2 thought polis will be coming around to see you directly.

Chris
Click to expand...
Well they would but they also got cancelled….
 
kaiserd said:
CJGibson said:
Archibald said:
... it piss me to no end that the "pointy, supersonic at low level" trend screwed both Buccaneer and Vautour long term development

Things like "Vautour as ECM jammer / tanker / trainer for Mirage IVA, but not as THE bomber itself" (it had more range !!!!) or "Buccaneers as avionic testbeds for AFVG / Jaguar / TSR-2 / F-111K / Tornado" (IT HAD MORE RANGE !!!) - that's frustrating if not infuriating.

At least on US side A-6 and A-7 thrived, so maybe there was karma in the end ?

The A-7E and Buccaneer S.2 were vibrant proofs of what could a "subsonic-with-a-Spey-turbofan " ground pounder could achieve. Shame the Vautours never got massive upgrades and turbofans. A pity the A-6 never got turbofans in place of antiquated J52s.
Click to expand...
The TSR.2 thought polis will be coming around to see you directly.

Chris
Click to expand...
Well they would but they also got cancelled….
Click to expand...
The thought polis got cancelled? Woo and indeed hoot.
 

Attachments

  • 20.jpg
    20.jpg
    45.1 KB · Views: 178
Hey guys, I'm looking to see if you guys know the manufacturer designations for the following buccaneer variants

- Buccaneer S.2B
- Buccaneer S.2
- Buccaneer S.1
 
Odican said:
Hey guys, I'm looking to see if you guys know the manufacturer designations for the following buccaneer variants

- Buccaneer S.2B
- Buccaneer S.2
- Buccaneer S.1
Click to expand...

It's hard to find them exactly.
 

Attachments

  • 27.png
    27.png
    211.3 KB · Views: 86
Archibald said:
A pity the A-6 never got turbofans in place of antiquated J52s.
Click to expand...

The J52 was first flown (in its short-life cruise missile engine form) in 1957 - the same year the A-6 was submitted to the USN for its TS149 type specification.

The manned-aircraft-rated YJ52-6 ( developmental version, not production) was fitted in the first A-6 (YA2F-1), and flown on April 14 1960.
The first A-4E (A4D-5) flew with a J52-6 on July 12 1961.

So you see that the A-6 and the J52 are exactly the same age.

The A-6A/B/C were delivered with the J52-6 (8,500 lb thrust), and the A-6E were delivered with the J52-8 (9,300 lb thrust).

The only issue I have with the J52 in the A-6 was that while the J52-408 (11,200 lb thrust) entered service with the A-4M in 1968, the A-6E (delivered from 1971 on) had to make do with the weaker J52-8 variants.

The EA-6B (except the first 22) had the -408 (starting in 1971), and I always thought the A-6E should have been fitted with the -408s as well.


The late 1980s A-6F was to get non-afterburning F404s in place of the J52s, but was cancelled.

The proposed A-6G (basically an A-6F without the F404s) was to upgrade to the J52-408, but none were built.
 
Very good question that has tweaked my curiosity.

Can't say I've seen any B.10n manufacturer's designations for the operational Buccaneers (S.1, S.2, S.2A, S2B, S.2C, S.2D or S.50) aside from B.103. I have seen B.103A and B.108 as proposed for OR.339 and B.109 for Canada and the paper projects mentioned above, but nothing that splits up the operational versions.

I'll have a look.

Chris
 
I haven't come across anything either for the production versions.
 
CJGibson said:
Very good question that has tweaked my curiosity.

Can't say I've seen any B.10n manufacturer's designations for the operational Buccaneers (S.1, S.2, S.2A, S2B, S.2C, S.2D or S.50) aside from B.103. I have seen B.103A and B.108 as proposed for OR.339 and B.109 for Canada and the paper projects mentioned above, but nothing that splits up the operational versions.

I'll have a look.

Chris
Click to expand...
Found that the S.2 is the B.111 from the RB. 168 engines as the S.2 was the first to receive such engines. B.103A as far as I'm aware was a modification of the S.1 for the RAF so I'm guessing the original S.1 was B.103

Still no luck for the B.111
 
Odican said:
Found that the S.2 is the B.111 from the RB. 168 engines as the S.2 was the first to receive such engines. B.103A as far as I'm aware was a modification of the S.1 for the RAF so I'm guessing the original S.1 was B.103

Still no luck for the B.111
Click to expand...
Boot says that B.111 was a B.103 variant with reheated Speys to meet OR.333 for a supersonic bomber. Doesn't sound like the operational S.2B to meet ASR.391 to me.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Boot says that B.111 was a B.103 variant with reheated Speys to meet OR.333 for a supersonic bomber. Doesn't sound like the operational S.2B to meet ASR.391 to me.

Chris
Click to expand...
Sorry Chris, I just read my error, I meant to put "Still no luck for the S.2B" instead of B.111.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom