Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer

[Weaver]

Does anyone have a photo, or a link to one, of the open bomb-bay door on a Bucc please?

I've tried Google Images and Airliners.net with no success (there are 563 photos on airliners!) and the only even vague showing is one of the recce pack, and that's not really 'open' as such. 

In the 70s the FAA Buccs used to fly over display airfields low and fast with the door rotated open and 'Fly Navy' painted on the inside. I'd have thought there was at least ONE photo of this, but it seems not.

Not brilliant, but:

[GTX]

Here's one - not sure if it helps though:



Regards,

Greg

[PR19_Kit]

Thanks guys, BOTH pics help a lot. 

Now to try and make one of course...............

[GTX]

Some more that might be useful:





Regards,

Greg

[PR19_Kit]

Greg,

Might? They're just the business! Especially the third one with the cutaway drawing.

Interestingly the middle set shows the special inset door used to carry the Red Beard nuke, I've never seen any details of that before.

Thanks very much indeed.

[Weaver]

I nearly posted another photo "showing the bomb bay" until I realised it was the bay ceiling, with the door removed. I'll dig it out when I get home if you like.

[Brian]

There's another line drawing similar to the one of Red Beard in the Bucc bomb bay of a twin WE.177 loading in the Bucc S2 service manual at the National Archives. Unfortunately I've misplaced my copy. Must give meself a hard slapping. Meanwhile ... this will have to do. http:www.nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-buccaneerS2.ppt

[Daryl J.]

For those wanting Buccaneer information, a post to Hyperscale may be in order.   Tony Roberts, who lurks there frequently, was in the RAF and worked extensively with the aircraft.   One machine even kept parts of a finger or two one time.


HTH,
Daryl J. who heard the phrase "The only substitute for the Buccaneer is a Buccaneer'' first from Tony.

[DarrenP]

wasn't one of the plans to give the Buccaneer a Navigation/Weapons system based on the Jaguars Nav attack system

[Weaver]

Don't know if it was proposed, but it's sure as hell possible. The Foxhunter trials aircraft showed that a Bucc could take a Tornado-sized nose.

For a cheapish upgrade, I'd fit TFR in the extreme nose, LRMTS in a chin blister just behind it, and INS above that. Sidewinder rails on the wingtips would free up pylon space, and eliminating the wing fold would both make the wing stronger and allow integral tankage. The proposed interceptor Bucc carried two of it's Red Tops on forward fuselage pylons just ahead of the intakes, so I'd imagine that targeting and ECM pods could be carried in such positions too.

One of the problems with the Bucc was that it's directional stability was marginal at low speeds due to the fin size being limited by hangar height clearance in the old RN carriers. A seriously upgraded RAF machine wouldn't have this limitation, so with all this extra side area forwards (big nose and fuse pylons), a redesigned larger fin might be desirable. It could, of course, be designed to incorporate the latest RWR aerials front and back, and a revised control system for the tailplane to allow for control by the TFR system.

For a realistic budget, I'd leave engine mods alone: the Spey's good enough. If more range is an absolute requirement, then I'd consider fuselage plugs fore and aft, for both more fuel and reduced drag (better fineness ratio). Plenty of work was done on such stretches in the '50s and '60s. Likewise, I'd leave full FBW alone: for TFR to work you pretty much need a FBW tailplane, but I don't see the value of a full system on  a strike aircraft.

[GTX]

Mind you if you did want to play with the engines (and keep the Bucc' in service today), you could replace the Speys with Rolls-Royce BR710 turbofan engines ala the Nimrod MRA4.

Regards,

Greg

[DarrenP]

Thought the Nimrods had to have larger engine bays and intakes. A Radar like the Tornado and night vision kit would be an interesting update and new pods like TIALD, Litning or sniper. And an upgraded sea eagle or ASM.

[MAD]

Well, in the early/mid 60's both Republic and Grumman had roughly equivalent aircraft (the F-105 and Intruder respectively). Convair and Lockheed had their plates full with other projects (and really creative design staffs who would not take kindly to projects parachuted in from outside). Boeing had buttloads of transport and B-52 spares orders to fill. McDonnell-Douglas were busy with the Phantom and the upcoming F-X. North American were still developing possible sales avenues for the A-2, and with the Bucc a direct competitor, I don't know if they'd be interested. Martin was already headed for a possible merger with Lockheed. Northrop was busy selling F-5's under MAP contracts. That leaves Vought, whose main contracts were the F-8 and the new A-7.

Who among those would be likely? I say Martin or Northrop. Main reasons: Martin already had experience working with British manufacturers on the Canberra project, so that leaves them in an advantageous position as well as a new major contract staving off any merger attempts; and Northrop always had much more manufacturing capacity than they ever used although their experience filling Navy contracts was pretty limited.

So there's your field. Take your pick...

I would favor the likes of a company with carrier-based aircraft design and building experience!
Vought, Grumman, McDonnell and Douglas ....................
As much as it would seem a straight forward process for a company like Lockheed, Republic, Northrop, who had no carrier experience to build a design that had already been perfected for carrier ops, I could not see the US Navy relenting on experience over-watch of license production.
The other issue would be the USN's wiliness to be straight forward and put the standard RN variant straight into service!
The US military had and still has a issue of introducing a foreign platform/aircraft/weapons system without Americanizing it first - which more often than not equates to over runs in time of introduction into operational service, at a greater cost and complication.
Pity really - as I could see the Buccaneer as popular as the latter Harrier (AV-8A/B) in USN / USMC service.

P.S wasn't the Buccaneer's development greatly financed by the United States MAP program?
I remember reading somewhere that U.S aviation industry, and the U.S Navy officials made visits to Hawker-Siddeley to see how the program was progressing (some say in comparison to their own designs A-6 Intruder???)

I for one have always loved and respected the Buccaneer

M.A.D

[GTX]

Thought the Nimrods had to have larger engine bays and intakes.

and...

Regards,

Greg

[DarrenP]

well internally on a bucc you would only have so much space to fit the engine into.

The Buccaneer was the last British aircraft to have US aid I think Blackburns at Brough got some machinery and the telemetry for the trials aircraft was provided by the US Mil aid program.
I remember seeing the bombing results from a big NATO compition and the Buccaneer beat Jaguars,Tornados and F111's by a very wide margin. Always love the story about red flag and the aggressor sqns getting miffed cause they could never see the buccs ingress and egress until they learnt to look for the dust trails.
I wonder what difference a sqn of buccaneers would have made in the Falklands war?