What if

Hot Research Topics => Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic => Topic started by: Radish on July 31, 2002, 01:34:17 pm

Title: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Radish on July 31, 2002, 01:34:17 pm
:) Well, a new cockpit at least. The old Buc was steam powered, so a glass one would be a necessary upgrade. Lots to do in the Airfix kit!
Then raid some appropriate weapons from Hasegawa and add lots of pods/aerials. Some research on real Weazels necessary for that, but some artistic licence too. I did a Wicked Wizard Mick-Coyne 21 Fishface of the Irish Air Corps last year that started my "electric" aircraft collection. That had a few pods and an awesome armament load. But then, the engine/fuel was boosted by the Scots?irish?Celtic superdrug (used in dilute quantities by humans too) called Suppalot. :k Then a great colour scheme on the Buc of low-viz greys with spot repainting, etc.. OOOOOHHHH!!I'm getting quite excited about this :D
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Captain Canada on July 29, 2002, 06:04:30 pm
Sure, why not ? This is what if ! Would look cool in a whole slew of USN/ USAF colour schemes. Vietnam lizard, ala B-57 as well......


And that old Brick could crash right through a gondola and keep on flying, rather than just cut the wires !

And maybe Canada could have snagged a few off the US production line as well.....

Cheers,
       The Newfie
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Radish on August 01, 2002, 12:19:57 am
:D Love the Falklands idea. The Jolly Roger would be ideal too. As for Israeli.....well, it'd look super in the triple desert colours of the early 70s, but a later modified version with extra pods, bulges ( should have even more bulges than a MiG.....a sort of Bucc with bubonic plague?) carrying the F-16-type scheme with low-viz insignia?
Or how about a Brit airliner.....not too "up" on these, a Comet, York or Hastings or a BAC-111 or VC-10 (YES!!!) with lots of aerials/radomes in an AEW/electronic surveillance role? All grey like IDF C-47s. :l
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Waynos on July 29, 2002, 10:45:44 am
I have read that the US played a large part in the early stages of the development of the NA 39 and that Blackburn were led to believe that there would be a US order for the type with possible licence production a la Canberra. What if the USN bought the aircraft instead of the A-6? How long might it have lasted in service? Combat in Vietnam is almost a certainty but what of other versions? There would for instance never have been an EA-6 so presumably a Buccaneer variant would have been developed by....Lockheed?
What do you think, any mileage in this idea?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: nev on July 29, 2002, 11:07:01 pm
As I remember, there were technical discussions between Blackburn and Grumman, but they were technology sharing rather than buying each others aircraft - a USN buy of Buccs was never on the cards - but like Toad sez, this is what-if.  We have had discussions on the Bucc before if you do a search you should find it.  The Marineflieger wanted them, but got the widow maker in the intrests of "commonality"
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: JoeP on July 30, 2002, 11:05:24 am
I was thinking the USN would buy it in a reciprocal agreement with the UK buying F-4s, and lasting as long as the A-6 did in reality. Ooo, how about an electronic warfare Buccaneer from Desert Storm?! (His mind wanders toward the hobby store...)
 :j

Whoops, I'd better finish the projects I have on the hobby table right now, or there'll be trouble from "She Who Must Be Obeyed". Again.
 :0
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: nev on August 01, 2002, 11:57:10 am
Another Bucc idea that struck me today was this.
When the Tornado began to enter service, many bucc pilots stated that the only thing to replace the bucc was "another Bucc, with updated avionics".  Whilst the Tornado is a fine overland attacker, it has been admitted, by RAF top brass, that the Tornado is clearly inferior to the Bucc in the anti-shipping role - not least becos it can only carry 2 Sea Eagles to the Buccs 4.  Now the maritime strike Buccs were only replaced with the GR1Bs after the end of the cold war freed up 2 spare squadrons of Tornados.  Rather than retire 5 year old airframes, they replaced the aging, but still effective Buccs with them.
So What If...
The Tornados were placed into storage, their RB199s taken out to re-engine the Buccs who as part of the refit also got an all-new glass cockpit with fancy avionics and radar as well as an all new,strengthened wing (the Bucc fleet was grounded then substantially reduced following fatal crashes in the late 70s caused by wing spar cracks).  Bucc continues serving into 21st Century with distinction.  Biggest problem I can see  is that by the time they were retired, the airframe hours of the last Buccs were totally shot.  Tho the new wings and engines would help, not sure whether that would be enough to give them another 10-15 years service
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Radish on August 11, 2002, 11:10:10 am
:p Thinking about the Bucc's wings being old, perhaps there were some "discovered", unused and ready to rock! That'd solve the problem. With all the low-level stuff the jags fly, I reckon they must have constant wing-upgrades. I also have a belief that The Jag will be around for many years to come, its parts gradually replaced by "new generation" materials, so that by about 2157, the RAF Jags will still be around as point-defence interceptors, mach 7 potential and all extra strong/flexible/heat resistant plastic. A sort of very high-tech Airfix kit.
 :l A friend is making the Airfix "banana" 1/48th Bucc at the moment.  I wonder what it'd look like in Nicaraguan markings?
There's a lot of mileage in south american countries, and until the end of WW2, the europeans tended to hold sway with selling them equipment. Ecuador bought Jags, so why not Argentina with Buccs. That'd be an interesting scenario in 1982! Anyone fancy a Sea Eagle launched at Invincible or Hermes? What a disaster if the Argies had proper fixed wings flying from their carrier with us restricted to the Sea Harrier for strike! :k
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: nev on November 16, 2002, 07:51:32 am
Well the std anti-ship fit for RN then RAF Buccs was a mix of anti-ship and anti-radar versions of the martel.  80's was too early for ALARM, HARM might have been an option, Standard ARM required a specialist avionics fit and was getting long in the tooth, shrike was just as old but a much simpler weapon to bolt on and use.

It depends on how far you want to go.

Frugal treasury - a couple of shrikes or martel with a 2nd hand jamming pod

Generous treasury - HARMs with the bomb bay filled with all kinds of electronic goodies and nice new modern jamming pods
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Martin H on November 17, 2002, 09:55:19 am
well seeing as the RAF took to lobbing Shrikes off Vulcans over Port Stanley in 82. Its likly thats what any SEAD Brick would have carried as far as ordanace goes. And as for Black boxes....what ever HM treasury could be talked into parting with the readies for....in other words........Sod all.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Geoff_B on November 16, 2002, 04:15:34 am
Hi

Just received Scale Aircraft Modelling Dec edition which covers the RAF Buccaneers. In the text it mentions that the RAF in the 80' when the aircraft were being updated, wasnted to use 14 of the stored aircraft to be converted to defencs suppression Wild Weasel aircraft.(but like most things in UK defence got canned by the Treasury)
Anybody got ideas on sensor/weapons fit for this aircraft ?

Also in SAM, they are offering two resin upgrade sets for the Airfix 1/72 Buccanner - Nose and Tail, and Gulf weapons fit with pods bombs & pylons.

Cheers

Thorvic
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Matt Wiser on November 16, 2002, 09:55:46 pm
Here's what the fit could have been:

Convert the bomb bay to an avionics bay: APR-47 emitter locator as used on the F-4G, plus ECM. Weapons load would be HARM and either Maverick and CBUs. A radar upgrade or  change might be advisable, but the F-4G kept the APG-120, so that might not be needed. A load might be two HARM, plus a TER w/CBUs. If Jaguar or Tornado are available, four HARMs and give the Jaguar or Tornado the CBUs to kill the SAM site equipment after the HARM ventilates the radar and crew.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on February 04, 2005, 10:31:00 am
For those who want to do a 1/48 Buccaneer in Marineflieger markings, Victory Productions here in the US now has a set of two Komoran missiles and their launch rails available.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Bryan H. on February 04, 2005, 10:38:49 am
Alternate Buccaneers...  

Carrier-based: Indian, Dutch, Argentina, Brazil, Japan  :huh: , USN  :blink: , Italian, Canada  :) , Australia, Texas  :wub:

Land-based: Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Korea, Oman, Turkey, Spain

 :cheers: Bryan
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Radish on February 05, 2005, 03:32:21 am
Had a Quarter Scale Group Meeting last night. One of the guys is scratchbuilding the moulds for a 1/48th Victor that'll be done as a vacform. If everything works out, he'll mould a few off too. Could be interesting? He's a clever chappie too.

While surfing for the odd thing RAF, I discovered that the Victor B.1 actually bombed in action.....Borneo, two were involved. New to me. Not sure which type of Victor's being done by my mate (and it may all come to nothing), but the wings are well on the way apparantly.

As for Buccs? Remember the "Red Flag " ones, which the USAF couldn't tag?

Luftwaffe would be nice though.
Quite like the "brick", always have done.
Whereas the Hunter............waste of metal.
 :P  :P  :P  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 05, 2005, 11:07:21 am
Since the proposed Bucaneer mission for the Luftwaffe was to be nuclear strike and battlefield air-interdiction.  What would a Buccaneer look like with that German designed cluster munitions dispenser that ejected the bomblets horizontally attached in place of the weapons bay door?  Since the Buccaneer has the rotating weapons bay door, would it be possible to remove the rotating door and attach the dispenser pod with appropriate fairings, of course in the resulting void.  

Anyone got the pod and a Buccaneer in the appropriate scale to do a "CHECK-FIT?"
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Aircav on August 09, 2005, 07:03:33 am
Just found this site on the Buccaneer Geoff, hope its of some help
http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/0_Contents.html (http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/0_Contents.html)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Ian the Kiwi Herder on August 09, 2005, 11:28:36 am
Love the idea, Geoff.

Speed.... Well like the guys said Low level, the Bucc would be a better ride but the WW mission in Vietnam was a MEDIUM LEVEL trip. Trawl for the FAN SON radar between 10-15,000, get painted, acquire the site, shoot the missile(s), run away.

Remember the SEAD mission was a team effort. If the AGM-78's/AGM-45's missed then the site would be clobbered by the other members of the team with CBU's & Snakes etc.

Of course that does not mean that you couldn't build your own Hunter-Killer Bucc-Weasel team..... or should that be Wild Brick ?

I H-G
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: anthonyp on August 09, 2005, 02:28:46 pm
Mine's going with an A-6 probe in place of the Bucc's original one (it's also getting a drogue from a KA-6D to become a KA-8C tanker).

As for a USAF version, you could go with either, I'd think, as the F-104 had a probe, and some earlier F-105's had probes as well (see link):

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/f1...f105reftest.jpg (http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/f105/pics/f105reftest.jpg)

I'd go with what you want, Geoff.  If it were me, I'd give it a refuelling port and it on the spine behind the cockpit, ala the F-16.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: lancer on August 10, 2005, 03:52:20 am
How about this for a night intruder load. Especially if it's USAF over Vietnam. put the 4x20mm gun pack from the canberra on the weapons bay, have the conformal tanks on the inboard pylons for additiona fuel if necessary and have MER loaded up with an assortment of different weapons, i.e a mix of mk82's and cluster bombs or napalm tanks or what ever combo you need for a particular mission. OR, have RAF Phantom style triple matra pods on the outer pylons, it'd probably cause a bit of a mess on the Hoi Chi Min trail 'd have thought. Gotta admit a Bucc in that SEA cammo does sound appealing.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Geoff_B on August 10, 2005, 05:03:18 am
Geoff

I think somebody discovered that at least a pair of Buccs were evaluated by the USAF for use in Vietnam. Plus it was compared against the Intruder by the USN at the end of the 50's.

A good book on the Bucc is "From Spitfire to Eurofighter" by Roy Boot one of the brough development staff that covers various propossed Buccaneer developments. The Bulged bomb door idea was propossed in the 60's and various mods propossed for a true RAF machine rather than the Naval Spec.

Cheers

Geoff B B)

 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: NARSES2 on June 19, 2006, 05:00:55 am
A picked up a Matchbox Buccaneer from Thorvic at the SIG meet on Saturday and I don't know if anyone else has noticed the box end illustration before. The fusalage has been elongated forward of the wing/engine inlet. Makes the front end look almost TF104' ish ? Looks very sleek anyway. So I'm thinking of a Buccaneer with a fusalge plug inserted just behind the canopy for extra fuel etc ?

Anyone else got any thoughts ?

Chris
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: B777LR on June 19, 2006, 06:30:09 am
AMRAAMs, New radar, glass cockpit (computer screens), Harpoons, afterburners, sidewinders, Slight larger wings (like the super hornet), new air intake (like on the super hornet), and of course lots of pictures!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Howard of Effingham on June 19, 2006, 06:45:49 am
hthh, chris.

i think that reference to british secret projects book - bombers will give you some
ideas as from a QUICK look i see plenty of buccaneer related stuff.

why there's even a canadian option!  :ar:  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Rat on June 19, 2006, 03:04:19 pm
Quote
And a CDN option, eh ? Hmmm.........
Ah, but this is Canada, we couldn't call it a Buccaneer though, a bit perjorative. How about 'non-traditionally self-supporting nautically based entrepreneur'?  :P 

As we all know, near the end of its service life the crews said that the only aircraft that could replace a Buccaneer would be a new Buccaneer with updated avionics, so I say WHIFF THAT SUCKER!  ;)

Fuselage extension sounds good.  :cheers: 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on June 20, 2006, 09:44:00 am
There's always the P.150 thin-winged supersonic Bucc.

(http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/p150.jpg)

Cheers, Jon
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on June 20, 2006, 09:23:25 pm
More Buccing goodness.

The P.145 was a proposal for an improved Bucc with a 100% increase in load and 40% increase in radius of action...the major aspects of the design were a new four-bogie landing gear, and a new fuel/weapons pallet.

The aircraft was also to be fitted with the twin-rocket system as used on the South African S.Mk.50, which would have given a 33% reduction in take-off run.

The P.150 I already mentioned was a major redesign with a thin-wing, re-heated Speys, the undercart and bomb pallet of the P.145 and an all-new Nav-Attack System.

The MoD was not interested.  :rolleyes:

(https://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-sRzxG7p/0/2bbd6df8/O/P145-01.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-654JQ67/0/2d4f25de/O/P145-02.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-fkqtf4M/0/93348f63/O/P150-01.jpg)

Cheers, Jon
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: B777LR on June 20, 2006, 10:41:27 pm
Wingtip AMRAAMS needed! :P  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 10, 2006, 06:35:38 pm
Taking a look at the 1980s, what if the MOD had decided that for some tasks, the only thing to replace a Buccaneer was a better one; however, being still somewhat parsimonious, they refused to pay for any major airframe redesigns beyond incorporation of improved materials where the improvement could be demonstrated by operational use of the material on other aircraft.  By the same token, all systems upgrades were required to be already in proven use on other RAF or FAA aircraft.

From this came the Buccaneer SR.3:
Powerplants: 2x RR Medway (refanned, with increased by-pass ratio, versions of a dry RB.199) that match or exceed the performance of the MK.2's Speys with better fuel economy
Noticeable external changes: Single-piece blown windshield as pioneered on several American aircraft; external housings for incorporated vision and designation hardware taken directly from that used in operational pods; since the new engines could, under certain conditions, draw more air that the existing inlets would allow, blow-in doors were added around the outer 2/3's of each inlet; a sophisticated recconaisance weapons bay pod/door was developed as well as a less sophisticated sensor-equipped door that allowed for immediate BDA
Systmes Changes:  Basically, most of the systems and displays from the Tornado GR.1 were the baseline here, with upgrades where proven and applicable, some displays from the F-15E were incorporated as well as a MIL-STD-1553 databus that made upgrades much easier

The new aircraft was cleared for all weapons in the RAF inventory, save radar-guided AAMs (and a later radar upgrade covered that), as well as most from allied air forces stores

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Rat on September 10, 2006, 07:56:19 pm
Quote
Taking a look at the 1980s, what if the MOD had decided that for some tasks, the only thing to replace a Buccaneer was a better one;...
Exactly what the crews were saying during her final days. And I like your suggestions!  ;)  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Shasper on September 10, 2006, 07:58:15 pm
Integral tankage would extend range, as well as the use of composits in various areas.

a nice FBW type system would be good too.

Shas B)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: AeroplaneDriver on September 10, 2006, 08:16:05 pm
My thoughts??

Well, since I won a (or hopefully 2!) Airfix 1/48 Bricks on ebay yesterday, I think this is a well-timed thread!

Wasn't it the RAF Bucc crews who used to say the only thing that could replace the Buccaneer was a new Buccaneer?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 10, 2006, 08:46:39 pm
The integral tanks make sense but I'm not so sure about a FBW system, this is being done "on the cheap" (par for the course) and equipment changes are pretty much constrained to what's out there and in production.  If a Tornado's control system and actuators can be adapted, then it might happen but there'll be comparatively little new development here.  The Medway might build on some private testbeds built by RR and the effort in going from the Spey to the Tay.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: RLBH on September 11, 2006, 12:30:40 am
Quote
The integral tanks make sense but I'm not so sure about a FBW system, this is being done "on the cheap" (par for the course) and equipment changes are pretty much constrained to what's out there and in production.  If a Tornado's control system and actuators can be adapted, then it might happen but there'll be comparatively little new development here.
So no FBW, then. The Tornado was done just before FBW became widespread, so is hauled about the sky by the pilot directly.

As for Buccaneers:

 :wub:  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:

Probably the only aircraft that could fly into a brick wall, and out the other side...

 :wacko:  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Shasper on September 11, 2006, 07:17:22 am
I was actualy thinking about something along the lines of the F-14's DFC system, instead of a full-up FBW.

Shas B)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 11, 2006, 09:12:40 am
Quote
I was actualy thinking about something along the lines of the F-14's DFC system, instead of a full-up FBW.
 
Okay, I could see that; perhaps based on either the DFC of either the F-14 or F-15.  Definitely, using existing, off-the-shelf, technology and components would be the way to go for a minimum cost/risk update.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Bryan H. on September 11, 2006, 07:00:22 pm
You could also incorporate some new ECM gear into the upgrade; something like the UK version of the NZ A-4 "Kahu" or Argentine A-4AR ECM gear.  Maybe, something more sophisticated.  

Also, those "slipper" tanks on the wings look like they'd be great for modification.  Perhaps, one of them could be modified with cameras for recon (leaving the bomb bay & wing pylons available) so that your Bucc could fly armed recon missions.

Of course, if the UK restarted Buccaneer production with an eye to keeping improvements simple, I'd probably be a good export prospect.  The KISS principle still has it's adherents & fans, especially outside of the US!  Lets see...  Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, South Africa (a post-apartheid re-order), Norway, Germany, Greece, Canada...

 :cheers: Bryan
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Daryl J. on September 11, 2006, 10:03:23 pm
Did the Buccaneer have the ability to carry laser-guided munitions?  Given it's earth's surface skimming ability, would LGB capacity been an improvement anyway?

BTW, our club's president is missing part of his fingertips due to someone in the cockpit of a Buccaneer closing the gear at the wrong time during maintenance.  He *loves* the Bucc!  What an amazing machine.


Daryl J.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Maverick on September 11, 2006, 11:26:47 pm
IIRC, during Gulf One Buccs Pave Spiked for Tornado b4 TIALD came online, there was some talk of them carrying LGBs but i don't know if it came to fruition.

Either way, go the Brick!!!

Maverick..
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Geoff_B on September 12, 2006, 12:26:43 am
Quote
Did the Buccaneer have the ability to carry laser-guided munitions?  Given it's earth's surface skimming ability, would LGB capacity been an improvement anyway?

BTW, our club's president is missing part of his fingertips due to someone in the cockpit of a Buccaneer closing the gear at the wrong time during maintenance.  He *loves* the Bucc!  What an amazing machine.


Daryl J.
Yeap they were the specialists in LGB ops, one squadron carried the Sea Eagles to damage the ships and the other squadron had the LGB's to lob down the funnel and break the ships keel.

By the Gulf War they were selected as designators for the Tornado's as they were more experienced in the user off tangent targeting and the Tornados had not yet used their new Tiald pods, with them only having the fixed fwd laser designator. Later in the War they allowed to take bombs with them and used them very effectively
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Tornado on September 12, 2006, 01:03:55 am
There was the HS P.1197 as mentioned in BSP. Re-engined with RB.168s and new avionics. I believe thinner wings would be fitted and they would be new build. They would be a battlefield support aircraft working in conjuction with a smaller single-engined aircraft. LGB would have been added.

There was a quote of an American saying that if the RAF used the Bucc in the 1970s it would earn the pity of its friends as the USAF discarded like the Bucc a decade ago. And yet the TSR saga proved low and subsonic was good enough, there was too much empahsis on supersonic zoom in the 1960s.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Archibald on September 12, 2006, 01:19:20 am
Quote
Quote
Did the Buccaneer have the ability to carry laser-guided munitions?  Given it's earth's surface skimming ability, would LGB capacity been an improvement anyway?

BTW, our club's president is missing part of his fingertips due to someone in the cockpit of a Buccaneer closing the gear at the wrong time during maintenance.  He *loves* the Bucc!  What an amazing machine.


Daryl J.
Yeap they were the specialists in LGB ops, one squadron carried the Sea Eagles to damage the ships and the other squadron had the LGB's to lob down the funnel and break the ships keel.

By the Gulf War they were selected as designators for the Tornado's as they were more experienced in the user off tangent targeting and the Tornados had not yet used their new Tiald pods, with them only having the fixed fwd laser designator. Later in the War they allowed to take bombs with them and used them very effectively
Article on the subject in "Le Fana de l'aviation" May-August 1998.
 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: XV107 on September 12, 2006, 03:15:31 pm
Initially, 237 OCU's aircraft would have been used to provide designation to RAFG's Tornado squadrons had the balloon gone up prior to the GR1 getting a pod of its own (the Tornado had no self-designation capability without a pod; that to which Thorvic refers to is a laser ranger and marked-target seeker).

To begin with,  Buccs in Op Granby carried an underwing load of one tank, one AIM-9L, an ECM pod and a Pave Spike. The Sidewinder was left off after a while and replaced by an LGB, and for some sorties, the slipper tank was removed and a second LGB carried - this gave a loadout of  

starboard outer - ALQ-119
starboard inner - Slipper tank or CPU-123 (not the correct designation, but shorthand familiar to many to distinguish between UK and US Paveway II)
port inner - Pave Spike
port outer - AIM-9L or CPU 123

The Buccs flew 216 sorties and released 48 LGBs. The Tornado force did some self-designation with the two TIALD pods that were available at that point (taken from the testing programme), but the Bucc did the overwhelming majority of designator sorties.

IIRC, at least one Iraqi aircraft fell victim to a Buccaneer (an An-12), although this was firmly on the ground and there wasn't any debate on whether or not it was an air-air kill (whereas there was debate over whether the MiG-29 hit by a JP233 had rotated and was thus the RAF's first aerial victory since 1948 [ignoring the possible 'hushed-up' kills elsewhere]).

As for an upgrade to the S2 airframe, this might well have involved zero-lifing key components and some rebuilding drawing upon the knowledge gained after the Red Flag crash and the grounding of the fleet in the early 80s. A new radar, a less steam-driven approach to the cockpit instrumentation and some form of RWR/ECM capability would have been likely. I'm not sure that putting Medways into the aircraft would have been pursued, though.

As for taskings: the new Buccs would probably have continued in the maritime attack role, with secondary strike capability (as per the Tornado GR1B). Once Sea Eagle was retired, you might well see the new Buccs participating in Operation Desert Fox (as 12 Sqn did with its GR1s) using the GBU-24, and maybe over Kosovo - perhaps with ALARM? Follow that with the Lessons of Kosovo report, and you might see the upgraded Buccs receiving Mavericks or even JDAM as an interim measure before the Enhanced Paveway entered service...
 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: ChuckAnderson on September 14, 2006, 09:38:37 pm
Hi Everyone!

As the subject under discussion concerns the Blackburn Buccaneer, I thought that you might also find it interesting to see a three-view line drawing of one of the aircraft that competed with the Buccaneer, before the Buccaneer was ultimately chosen over all the other types.

This one competing aircraft was the Hawker P.1108, a two-seat naval strike aircraft that was to have been propelled by four (4) small Rolls-Royce turbojets, (which the source didn't identify.)

I don't have any tech data handy for this aircraft, but perhaps someone else can dig up this info.

My source is:
Hawker Aircraft Since 1920
p. 645
Author: Francis K. Mason
Original Publishers: Putnam Aeronautical Books (1991, Great Britain)
Current Publishers: Naval Institute Press (1991, Annapolis, MD, USA)
Copyright: Francis K. Mason 1961, 1971 and 1991


Chuck
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: nev on September 14, 2006, 10:53:51 pm
Potential export orders?

The Marineflieger evaluated it, along with the F-4, and I believe it was their first choice, but they had the F-104 forced on them.

Thanks to Leigh, we know the USMC used them.

(http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum/uploads/post-22-1140396104.jpg)

Anyone other potentials?  Israel?  India?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Archibald on September 14, 2006, 11:03:14 pm
Most interesting competitor was clearly the Armstrong Withworth (AW-168 if I remember well). Not only lovely, but also very promising. It was barely the winner of the competition, but the Buc had clearly more growth potential...
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: MAD on September 15, 2006, 12:52:56 am
What would a modified Blackburn Buccaneer have been like in the role of a carrier-based Anti Submarine Warfare / Maritime Strike.
With say its weapon bay modified to carry say 2 x Mk-46 dual-purpose torpedoes, while the rear portion of the weapon bay held sonar bouys.
The rear fuselage / airbrake arrangement modified to incorporate a MAD sting.
The wing hardpoints will be used for Sea Eagle ASM's, depth charges, rockets or drop tanks

What do you think?

M.A.D  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GeorgeC on September 15, 2006, 01:58:51 am
I remember some discussion in 80s about using fast jets as asw platforms, based on passive towed arrays being able to detect (noisy) subs in the sonar convergence zones that exist about 30 and 60 miles away.  The theory was that a fast mover could get out to a fleeting contact before it was lost.  However, there is a big difference between detection - there's a submarine over there - and localisation - knowing the position accuarately enough to get a fire solution on the sub.  Fast jets lack the persistance and sonarbouy payload to stooge about over the oceans for hours getting a firm fix, and the space to fit the processors to churn the raw data from the bouys.   A nice slow helicopter, able to prosecute a contact for hours, or a nice big matitime patrol aircraft were a better solution.  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Geoff_B on September 15, 2006, 04:21:19 am
Quote
I remember some discussion in 80s about using fast jets as asw platforms, based on passive towed arrays being able to detect (noisy) subs in the sonar convergence zones that exist about 30 and 60 miles away.  The theory was that a fast mover could get out to a fleeting contact before it was lost.  However, there is a big difference between detection - there's a submarine over there - and localisation - knowing the position accuarately enough to get a fire solution on the sub.  Fast jets lack the persistance and sonarbouy payload to stooge about over the oceans for hours getting a firm fix, and the space to fit the processors to churn the raw data from the bouys.   A nice slow helicopter, able to prosecute a contact for hours, or a nice big matitime patrol aircraft were a better solution.
The Sea Harrier and Two Seat Harrier were considered for this role as they could do the quick sprint to the drop zone, stop and hover and release the appropraite ASW weapon then scoot back to the carrier to refuel and re-arm. One of the Harrier SIG newsletters had images of the SHAR with either a depth charge or lightwieght torpedo on its centreline.

Then of course weren't SHAR's equiped to carry and drop the Naval WE177(C ?) nuclear bomb which i think was intended for drastic ASW.

G
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on September 15, 2006, 04:26:18 am
Ooohh, haven't seen that USMC Bucc before, gorgeous!

Simon.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Archibald on September 15, 2006, 04:49:35 am
Quote
Two Seat Harrier

The hunt for Red October  ^_^ (just love this book).  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: anthonyp on September 15, 2006, 05:42:47 am
Quote
Thanks to Leigh, we know the USMC used them.
USN also used them, as tankers  B)

(http://hyperion.mystarship.com/models/usnbucc/post-2-1127916193.jpg)
(http://hyperion.mystarship.com/models/usnbucc/post-2-1127916224.jpg)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: lancer on September 15, 2006, 06:03:38 am
The Luftwaffe also took them as well, they used them for SEAD missions.  I think I'm gonna have to build a Marinefliger example as well...I like the idea of an Indian version as well.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: nev on September 15, 2006, 06:11:28 am
*waiting impatiently for a new-tool Bucc from Revell or Trumpeter*
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 15, 2006, 09:27:40 am
Quote
I'm not as well read on engines as airframes, but AFAIK, the Spey is/was a scaled down Medway.  The Tay had nowt to do with either and predated them by about ten years, being as it was an outgrowth of the centrifugal Nene but with reheat.  

As for P.1108, Hawkers were never particularly interested in NA39 - actually, despite the success of the Sea Fury and the Sea Hawk they were never particularly interested in designing naval aircraft -  and the P.1108 was really just for appearances.
The "Medway" I'm talking about here is a whiffy dry, incread by-pass ratio, derivative of the RB.199.  The Tay I'm referring was a refanned, with higher by-pass ratio, version of the Spey that was installed on some of the late-production Romanian BAC 111's.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 15, 2006, 09:32:11 am
Quote
What would have a modified Blackburn Buccaneer have been like in the role of a carrier-based Anti Submarine Warfare / Maritime Strike.
With say its weapon bay modified to carry say 2 x Mk-46 dual-purpose torpedoes, while the rear portion of the weapon bay held sonar bouys.
The rear fuselage / airbrake arrangement modified to incorporate a MAD sting.
The wing hardpoints will be used for Sea Eagle ASM's, depth charges, rockets or drop tanks

What do you think?

M.A.D
Hmm, weapons bay configured as described but with a towed MAD sensor winch at the back end, slipper tanks or drop tanks on the inboard hardpoints, towed MAD sensor pods on the outboard harpoints.  Three sensors lets you triangulate a lot faster; though you may need a datalink to a larger aircraft or a ship for processing power.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Lawman on September 15, 2006, 11:01:26 am
How about a joint US/UK agreement, buying a heavily modified Buccaneer instead of the A-7, but with more powerful engines and a better wing. As part of the agreement, the US buys the British Buccaneer design, and the UK gets two or three smaller Forrestal class CVAs? Big bilateral agreement, with the US getting the Buccaneers, and selling the UK some carriers (hulls built in the US, then finished in the UK), RN and RAF get Super Buccaneers and Phantoms!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Zen on September 15, 2006, 11:58:54 am
Ah my kind of topic!
Gods flying brick.

elmayerle you seem on the right track, a FBW machine might have flown under these circumstances rather than the ACT Jaguar, though weather it would go any further is hard to say. Potentialy such technology would increase speed, agility, ride at low level and reduce take off runs.

An alternative change would be engines able to push it beyond mach1 in level at 45,000ft like the 'fighter' version offered along with the N/A.39 machine.

Removal of the wingfold would increase fuel capacity somewhat, while lowering structural weight and simplifying it.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: AeroplaneDriver on September 15, 2006, 12:46:00 pm
Quote
Quote
I'm not as well read on engines as airframes, but AFAIK, the Spey is/was a scaled down Medway.  The Tay had nowt to do with either and predated them by about ten years, being as it was an outgrowth of the centrifugal Nene but with reheat. 

As for P.1108, Hawkers were never particularly interested in NA39 - actually, despite the success of the Sea Fury and the Sea Hawk they were never particularly interested in designing naval aircraft -  and the P.1108 was really just for appearances.
The "Medway" I'm talking about here is a whiffy dry, incread by-pass ratio, derivative of the RB.199.  The Tay I'm referring was a refanned, with higher by-pass ratio, version of the Spey that was installed on some of the late-production Romanian BAC 111's.
The newer Tay is also used in the Fokker F70/F100 and Gulfstream GIV.  Though it was developed from the Spey the LP compressor was adapted from the RB211 IIRC.  I think the bypass ratio is around triple the Spey's.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GeorgeC on September 15, 2006, 01:34:26 pm
Quote
The Sea Harrier and Two Seat Harrier were considered for this role as they could do the quick sprint to the drop zone, stop and hover and release the appropraite ASW weapon then scoot back to the carrier to refuel and re-arm.  

Then of course weren't SHAR's equiped to carry and drop the Naval WE177(C ?) nuclear bomb which i think was intended for drastic ASW.

G
Yep it was the SHAR I was particulalry thinking of.   :)  The wikipedia article on WE.177

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE_177 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE_177)

suggests that it was the A variant that was employed by the RN, but a lot of this is still a bit unclear.  Purely speculating, I would guess an hydrostaticly-operated nuclear depth bomb could be in a high-speed ballistic airframe and, with a time/velocity arming system, be lobbed at a surface traget from a strike (or FRS...) aircraft. That way, you only had to load your CV/CVS with one type of 'nasty' and the different fusing systems.

Regards

GeorgeC    
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 15, 2006, 05:06:00 pm
Quote
Quote
Quote
I'm not as well read on engines as airframes, but AFAIK, the Spey is/was a scaled down Medway.  The Tay had nowt to do with either and predated them by about ten years, being as it was an outgrowth of the centrifugal Nene but with reheat. 
The "Medway" I'm talking about here is a whiffy dry, incread by-pass ratio, derivative of the RB.199.  The Tay I'm referring was a refanned, with higher by-pass ratio, version of the Spey that was installed on some of the late-production Romanian BAC 111's.
The newer Tay is also used in the Fokker F70/F100 and Gulfstream GIV.  Though it was developed from the Spey the LP compressor was adapted from the RB211 IIRC.  I think the bypass ratio is around triple the Spey's.
As I said, if you stayed subsomic you could significantly increase the by-pass ratio of this "Medway" relative to a dry RB.199 and would likely get a boost in range over the Spey-powered Bucc S.2.  If further changes to the compressor sections of the Rb.199 were required to optomize for this role, it's fairly easy to do with a three-spool engine.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on September 16, 2006, 04:12:11 am
What company would have built it under license here in the US?  Or would it have been a sweetheart deal as part of the payment for a Forrestal hull to be finished in the UK?  

Either way, it would have been a very effective aircraft for use as a medium attack/nuclear strike mission aircraft with USN/USMC markings.  

Thanks again Leigh for the beautiful WHIF.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 16, 2006, 08:22:13 am
US license builder?  My first thought would be Republic since they know rugged aircraft and they'd be close enough to Grumman to be able to get help if needed.  Other possibilities are McDonnell as part of a reciprocal relationship where Blackburn got rights to the Phantom II (in RL, they were the major UK support and mod company for the UK's F-3s according to Roy Boot's book).  One other possibility, since they had a working relationship with HSA, would be Northrop.

Opinions as to most likely choice?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Shasper on September 16, 2006, 11:18:09 am
I still have a Bucc thats going into USN service in the early '80s, but I cant remember if Grumman or someone else got the liceanse right off (note to self, find & type hardcopy of backstory 1st draft nexttime TRB from deployment)


Shas B)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rallymodeller on September 16, 2006, 02:18:02 pm
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...
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 17, 2006, 01:17:15 am
Quote
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...
Following that line of reasoning, I could see Martin as the most probable cndidate.  Given Northrop's preferences for simple, robust design, I can se the Bucc appealing to them, too, but they wouldn't have the naval ops experience and background.  Personally, I like it a the A2M-1 "Buccaneer".
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Archibald on September 17, 2006, 01:51:24 am
Think about something... I heard that the Martin XB-51 had a rotary launcher in its bomb bay... that resurected some years later on... the Buccaneer! Interesting conexion...  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 17, 2006, 02:10:50 am
Quote
Think about something... I heard that the Martin XB-51 had a rotary launcher in its bomb bay... that resurected some years later on... the Buccaneer! Interesting conexion...
It was ressurected before that, on the B-57 version of the Canberra.  All the Martin-built aircraft had it.  It's starting to look more and more like a Martin tie-up with HSA-Borough would be a high probablity.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Hobbes on September 26, 2006, 05:15:17 am
Quote

So no FBW, then. The Tornado was done just before FBW became widespread, so is hauled about the sky by the pilot directly.
 
As far as I know, that's incorrect: the Tornado and F-16 were the first military production aircraft to be fitted with FBW.  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: RLBH on September 26, 2006, 08:06:00 am
Quote
Quote

So no FBW, then. The Tornado was done just before FBW became widespread, so is hauled about the sky by the pilot directly.
 
As far as I know, that's incorrect: the Tornado and F-16 were the first military production aircraft to be fitted with FBW.
Quite right...

No idea where I got that notion from.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on September 26, 2006, 04:40:50 pm
Quote
Quote

So no FBW, then. The Tornado was done just before FBW became widespread, so is hauled about the sky by the pilot directly.
 
As far as I know, that's incorrect: the Tornado and F-16 were the first military production aircraft to be fitted with FBW.
Okay, then, we add FBW to the potential improvements in the Bucc S.3.  I'll have to start working up a three-view of this configuration.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Shasper on September 26, 2006, 08:33:51 pm
Could I suggest a more profiled radome, in kind to the Tornade F.3?


Shas B)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Gekko_1 on November 28, 2007, 05:06:43 pm
Fellow Wiffers,

after looking through Ian Ruscoe’s CMR 72nd scale Buccaneer article in the October 2007 issue of Model Airplane International, it got me thinking about my Airfix 48th scale kit for which I have nearly every aftermarket accessory available.

What really struck me about Ian’s article was the desert camouflage scheme! :wub:  I really liked the scheme and I know it would weather-up nicely in real life......BUT......the one thing that drives me nuts about that scheme is the fact that the aft end was never painted the desert colours!

So at first I thought, oh bugger it, I’ll build mine in that scheme too, but paint the aft end in desert colours as well! Then I thought, what a minute, why not do it as a “What if?” and include some bomb markings and some original nose art! :party:

Then, I got to thinking about the bomb load......

Question: Could the Buccaneer physically carry two 2000lb bombs either side of its belly if a modified attachment point area was created?

 :cheers:

Richard.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on November 28, 2007, 08:13:57 pm
(http://www.braynededesigns.com/BLACKBURN/P145-02.jpg)

Redesigned pallet proposed by Blackburn for P.145 Bucc development.

Jon
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Thorvic on November 29, 2007, 12:18:25 am
Richard

It was just that Red Flag exercise where the bucc was 3/4's painted, just go whiff and say on the next years exercise they went to full desert wrap (actually they were grounded due to wing spar corrosion which forced them to cancel).

The other thing you could do is have them deployed to Oman to help protect the Gulf during the Iran/Iraq war. then they would probably be in the same scheme as omani jags.

Cheers

Geoff

(BTW Colins Frieghtdog sheet on the Vulcan has a Vulcan with its undersides in the desert scheme  :D ).
 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: SimonR on November 29, 2007, 02:36:09 am
You know the Bucc would look really great with four engines. And it wouldn't be that hard just buy another Airfix kit and cut the engines off the fuselage and attach to the wing roots of the first one.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: lancer on November 30, 2007, 03:11:42 am
Quote
You know the Bucc would look really great with four engines. And it wouldn't be that hard just buy another Airfix kit and cut the engines off the fuselage and attach to the wing roots of the first one.
With the way the matchbox kit builds up, that would be a better source for your extra set of engines.  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: nev on November 30, 2007, 03:39:24 am
Bucc whiffs, lesse.....

RN, Falklands War 1982

Indian Navy

Indian AF (in that funky grey camo their Jaguars wear)

Marineflieger (they wanted the Bucc (or F-4) but were told from on high they were getting the F-104).

Royal Australian Navy (Ozzie carriers into the 1980s y'see ;) )

Royal Australian AF (in place of the F-111)

Israeli (funky desert camo)

Saudi (funky RAF desert camo, or NMF)



Dammit Revell/Trumpeter, where is our new tool 72nd Bucc?  :angry:  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on November 30, 2007, 04:04:40 am
Yeah, definately, but I hope they bring out an S.1 as well as the more usual S.2.   As far as I know the only kit that resembles the S.1 in 1/72 is the old Airfix NA.39, although you can still get hold of it.  CMR have one due but I just can't afford that £65 price tag.

Anyone know of any other S.1 kits, maybe an old Frog or Matchbox?  What's the NA.39 like, how close is it to the S.1?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: elmayerle on November 30, 2007, 08:49:14 pm
Quote
Anyone know of any other S.1 kits, maybe an old Frog or Matchbox?  What's the NA.39 like, how close is it to the S.1?

As for whifs, how about USAF instead of the F-111 after it developed so many development problems.  Perhaps built by McDD?  I can't see Grumman being keen to build a competitor to further A-6 sales.  On the other hand, I wonder what a Bucc with the full-up A-6 avionics fit could do?
As I remember, the nose of the Airfix NA.39 is a prototype shape and not the production S.1 shape.  I don't know of any other kits of it, but there are conversion kits available to back-work a S.2 to a S.1 with the original inlets; mind you, you need the original non-bulged weapons bay door, too.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Daryl J. on December 01, 2007, 10:02:10 am
Slightly O/T:  How's the Airfix 1/72 Buccaneer to build?  

TIA,
Daryl J.

PS: 4 engines would look great.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: SimonR on December 01, 2007, 11:31:57 am
Quote

PS: 4 engines would look great.
Yep, 4 engines is the money shot...

(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b172/Simon__R/bucc4.jpg)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: kitnut617 on December 01, 2007, 12:25:56 pm
Quote
One could always do the B.112 CAP Fleet Fighter proposal as illustrated in British Secret Projects- Hypersonics and Missiles, Buccaneer with AI radar and Red Top armanent...

 :cheers:

O.K.
I was just going to say that too  :lol:

but I like the way the missiles are carried, two off the fuselage (think Lightning) air intakes and two under the outer wing panels
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Gekko_1 on December 01, 2007, 09:31:03 pm
Anybody have any photos of what these triple ejector racks look like? Preferably with bombs both on and off, if possible?

 :cheers:

Richard.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: lancer on December 03, 2007, 05:19:41 am
Quote
Bucc whiffs, lesse.....

RN, Falklands War 1982

Indian Navy

Indian AF (in that funky grey camo their Jaguars wear)

Marineflieger (they wanted the Bucc (or F-4) but were told from on high they were getting the F-104).

Royal Australian Navy (Ozzie carriers into the 1980s y'see ;) )

Royal Australian AF (in place of the F-111)

Israeli (funky desert camo)

Saudi (funky RAF desert camo, or NMF)



Dammit Revell/Trumpeter, where is our new tool 72nd Bucc?  :angry:
Don't forget the Japanese used the Bucc as well for the maritime strike role... :D  :D  
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on March 19, 2008, 07:36:25 am
You know the Bucc would look really great with four engines. And it wouldn't be that hard just buy another Airfix kit and cut the engines off the fuselage and attach to the wing roots of the first one.

Your four engine Buccaneer idea is impressive, I would hope that you have also considered lengthening the fuselage to accomodate more fuel for those extra engines.  Might have to make the wings a bit longer in span as well to give you space for a dedicated pair of those extra large slipper tanks that look so naughty. 

Has anyone contemplated what the Buccaneer would look like with a one piece windscreen and an upgraded cockpit with multiple MFD screens for the pilot and navigator?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: AeroplaneDriver on March 19, 2008, 07:35:42 pm
Nice to see this old favorite resurrected.  I've got a week off starting Friday, and plan on building something, seeing this thread made me dig the Airfix S2B out of the stash.

Now then...USN SEAD?  Vietnam with Shrikes or Gulf War with HARMs..?  USAF Vietnam WW with Standards..?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on March 20, 2008, 03:45:44 am
How about USAF in early Vietnam, SIOP style camo with either black or grey undersides?  Or USMC, in green with grey undersides?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Aircav on April 09, 2008, 10:30:11 am
Hi
Does anyone know if someone makes a 1/48 bomb bay recon pod as fitted to the Buccaneer and if not does anyone have any drawings for it.
Steve
ps Does that Bucc have odd tanks fitted or is my eyes  :blink:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Shasper on April 10, 2008, 09:31:47 am
If you were to build an early 'Nam Bucc, chances are it would either be overall silver dope (F-100, -105), NMF or overall gray (note sure which shade, but there were quite a few Thuds that were this way, plus the early F-4Cs). IIRC the SEA camo didnt come into play untill '67ish or so.

I've still got plans to build my airfix Bucc as an early '80s USN CAG bird. . . When I get to it is another question.


Shas 8)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on April 14, 2008, 11:32:11 am
For pics of the bomb load on Buccs you could try from here.

http://nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm
 :thumbsup:


(http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/deliverymethods.ppt)
(http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-buccaneerS2.ppt)
(http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/006-Buccaneer-loading.png)
(http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/007-Buccaneer-loading.png)
(http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/022-Buccaneer-long-toss-bombing.png)
(http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/031-Buccaneer-release.png)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on April 15, 2008, 12:16:53 pm
OOPs. Apologies chaps I b------d that one up, with duff links that didn't load.

Try it this way instead.

http://www.nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-buccaneerS2.ppt (Bucc delivery methods)
http://www.nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-buccaneerS2.ppt (Bucc rotating bomb bay)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7097101.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/133000/bb/133417_16x9_bb.asx

:thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on April 15, 2008, 04:58:10 pm
Quote
With the help of Brian Burnell - a researcher into the history of the British nuclear weapons programme who once designed bomb casings for atom bombs
Welcome aboard Brian.  I thought that name was familiar :)

Your own web page is interesting, looking forward to seeing all of the blank spaces filled in with information on the UK nuclear weapons. 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on April 16, 2008, 05:25:53 am
The safety of the nation entrsuted to a bicycle lock, I love it!  :lol: :lol: :lol:  It's worked though, hasn't it??? :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: TsrJoe on April 16, 2008, 07:39:49 am
Brilliant images Brian, love your site too, a mine of useful modelling reference material on UK. nukes (the colour profiles are especially useful)

some others of possible interest ...

http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/bactsr2weaponsampsystems.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/specialweaponsimagefile.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1610

cheers, Joe
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on April 16, 2008, 06:43:45 pm
Don't be suckered by journo's b******t Jeffry, that quote was theirs not mine. Just the usual hyperbole.

Funny thing tho' - when we'd finished filming at Kemble we clambered aboard a BBC staff car (yep, a staff car) for the journey north to Cosford for more filming. Just as the car left I put a hand in my trouser pocket and realised I still had the keys to Kemble's nuclear bomb in my trouser pocket. The producer went into shock.

Glad you liked the site. Much more on the way, in no particular order. Meanwhile I'll be happy to answer specific queries if I can via the site's email link.

:thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on June 05, 2008, 05:29:46 am
Some more WE.177 pics now up at http://nuclear-weapons.info (http://nuclear-weapons.info) in the WE.177 gallery.
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: SPINNERS on June 05, 2008, 06:23:52 am
http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/bactsr2weaponsampsystems.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1136

Are those cutaway bomb doors on that Buccaneer S.1 and did the aircraft in service have this feature?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: kitnut617 on June 05, 2008, 06:34:34 am
Some more WE.177 pics now up at http://nuclear-weapons.info (http://nuclear-weapons.info) in the WE.177 gallery.
 :thumbsup:

Crap!  I wouldn't want to be anyone on a helicopter when they dropped one of those  :o :o
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on June 05, 2008, 06:02:56 pm
Quote
Are those cutaway bomb doors on that Buccaneer S.1 and did the aircraft in service have this feature?

What you see is the rotary bomb door rotated 180o to release the weapon. Soon after it would rotate closed. The internal face of the door was formed to the bomb shapes so that the bomb nested snugly and immediately before release it the top half of the bomb appeared to be recessed into the fuselage. So there appears to be a huge gap with bomb gone. The Bucc was unique in that it was configured to carry two WE.177 bombs of either the Type A or B or C. The Vulcan carried only one WE.177B bomb. Something to do with bomb door clearances I'm told. More likely money, and reluctance to cough up.

The Wessex helio and the Lynx and Sea King were able to exit the area and withstand the overpressure when the weapon detonated. The Wasp was problematical. To lift the weapon it had to be slung diagonally underneath with the doors and second crewmember removed to save weight. Its ability to withstand the overpressure was decidedly marginal.
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Zen on June 06, 2008, 04:05:41 am
The helicopter bombs where to my knowledge nuclear depth charges.

Of course the Wasp had a tendency to rise suddenly once the weapon was dropped!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on June 07, 2008, 05:08:42 pm
Quote
Are those cutaway bomb doors on that Buccaneer S.1 and did the aircraft in service have this feature?

Try this for a WE.177 schematic in a Buccaneer bomb bay. Works best with Mozilla Firefox browser altho' Internet Explorer 6 or 7 is OK.
http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-buccaneerS2.ppt (http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-buccaneerS2.ppt)

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: retro_seventies on June 08, 2008, 05:45:16 am
Free Powerpoint viewer...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048dc840-14e1-467d-8dca-19d2a8fd7485&displaylang=en
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 22, 2008, 05:41:14 pm
In the Airfix 1/48th scale Buccaneer double boxed kit there are two sizes of slipper tank.  Would it have been possible to fit the Buccaneer with both sets of tanks?  One combination could be the large tank inboard with the smaller tank outboard.  Another option is to put the larger tank outboard and the smaller tank inboard.  Fitted as such with all of that extra fuel I imagine the range would have been interesting.  With the takeoff weight as an issue, perhaps launch with empty tanks and fill up from a tanker as an option.   

Further off site discussion indicates that this idea is without a doubt a WHIF but it sure does solve a problem with what to do with the extra slipper tanks.  Another suggestion has been to scale-o-rama the tanks with a 1/72nd scale Avro Vulcan which also sounds attractive but that is another topic. 

Anyway the idea was to put the large and normal slipper tanks on the Buccaneer wing and call it a strategic configuration since it would be carrying enough fuel for an almost around the world cruise.  That way the bomb bay can be reserved for weapons :)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 16, 2009, 04:33:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on March 16, 2009, 07:45:29 pm
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:

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/Buccaneerbay0001.jpg)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on March 17, 2009, 01:03:15 am
Here's one - not sure if it helps though:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/bucc.jpg?t=1237276950)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 17, 2009, 01:31:09 am
Thanks guys, BOTH pics help a lot.  :lol: ;D

Now to try and make one of course...............
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on March 17, 2009, 02:22:25 am
Some more that might be useful:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/CAC23/db5699a9.jpg?t=1237281690)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/CAC23/e3bce451.jpg?t=1237281711)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/CAC23/a36aef5c.jpg?t=1237281728)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 17, 2009, 04:02:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on March 17, 2009, 05:35:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on March 17, 2009, 06:22:21 pm
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 (http://http:www.nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-buccaneerS2.ppt)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Daryl J. on March 17, 2009, 06:47:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on August 06, 2009, 05:15:14 pm
wasn't one of the plans to give the Buccaneer a Navigation/Weapons system based on the Jaguars Nav attack system
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on August 07, 2009, 03:08:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on August 07, 2009, 03:32:58 pm
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
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on August 07, 2009, 03:57:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: MAD on August 07, 2009, 05:41:12 pm
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

Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on August 08, 2009, 02:23:24 pm
Thought the Nimrods had to have larger engine bays and intakes.

and...

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on August 08, 2009, 08:30:44 pm
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?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on August 08, 2009, 09:20:11 pm
The Nimrod MRA.4 not only has bigger engine bays, but a complete new wing with fundamentally different spar structure to accomodate the BR.715's bigger intakes and exhausts. Having said that, that's because the engines sit between the wing spars, whereas on the Bucc they sit in front of the front spar: most of the Bucc's "pod" is just jetpipe and undercarriage. So in theory, it would be relatively straight forward to replace the Bucc's engines, as indeed the change from Gyron Juniors to Speys showed, but the problem with much more mass-flow would be in finding space for a bigger jetpipe. The jetpipe does run through the spars, and is already flattened in the middle to make spare for the undercarriage.

The Buccaneer was partly supported by the US MWDP (Mutual Weapons Development Program) which funded promising developments by US allies in the name of helping them to defend themselves. The Bucc was the last aircraft to receive such aid because, unsurprisingly, the idea of the US government funding competing foreign products went down like a lead ballon with the US defence industry, and their lobbying finally got the program cancelled. Brough's integral skin-milling machines (US made) were one item funded via this route.

Re the Brits at Red Flag, a tape allegedly exists of a conversation between an Aggressor F-5E and his controller, just after he's realised that the Brit aircraft he's after (can't recall if they were Buccs or Jags) are flying down a canyon. The controller tells him to go after them, there's a pause, the the pilot replies "you go after them: this is a fighter plane, not a f***ing rattlesnake!"  ;D
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on August 09, 2009, 12:34:52 am
Thats like the alledged tape of them over Lebanon in the 1980's Nav to pilot Straight past the power station at the roundabout turn left! I think that deployment was Op Pulsator
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on August 09, 2009, 03:17:03 am
Couple of mistakes in my last post:

1. The Bucc's jetpipe isn't flattened to get past the u/c bay, rather it has a subtle bend in it.

2. It was stretch-presses that were bought from the US with MWDP money. They wanted to buy skin millers but the delivery times were unacceptable, so Blackburn ended up designing and building their own instead.

Here's a thought: the bomb door fuel tank held 425 gals, which is quite a lot of volume. I wonder if it would be possible to fit two ADEN cannons plus ammo in there instead of fuel?. That would add a gun option at no cost in pylon or bomb-bay space that was also removeable when not needed. The only question marks would be vibration and recoil issues, given that the door is only attached the airframe at a couple of points.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Aircav on August 09, 2009, 03:44:59 am
She'd look cool with four ADEN's as on the Canberra  ;D
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Geoff on August 09, 2009, 04:01:51 am
Would it be better to fit the Adens to the roof of the bomb bay and have a fairing over them the shape of the fuel tank so as not to change the aerodynamics, and use the rear of the bay left for a fuel tank as for the F-105's? Problem is you loose the use of the bomb bay and only have the wing pylons for ordinance. Might work for a fighter version thought.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on August 10, 2009, 07:04:07 am
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.

This photo of an open bomb bay door is small but clearly illustrates the inside face of the bomb door seconds after a Red Beard weapon was released. Note the fairings clipped onto the inside face that give an impression of a semi-recessed weapons bay. And of course seconds later the recessed bits will rotate 180°.

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/buccaneer_red_beard_tcmb_1425.jpg (http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/buccaneer_red_beard_tcmb_1425.jpg)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Brian on August 10, 2009, 07:11:32 am
Deepest apologies for the duff link. I'll give my hands a hard slapping later. Correction here should work.

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/buccaneer_red_beard_tcm6-1425.jpg (http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/buccaneer_red_beard_tcm6-1425.jpg)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Aircav on August 10, 2009, 08:07:28 am
This any good?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on August 10, 2009, 09:38:16 am
Unusual source for detail pics, but there are full instructions on Hannants for the Czechmaster S.2A & S.2B.  There's a page that shows the bomb bay detail, seems to match up with Steve's pic.
http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=CMR1156&PIC_NO=4 (http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=CMR1156&PIC_NO=4)
http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=CMR1143&PIC_NO=2 (http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=CMR1143&PIC_NO=2)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on March 05, 2010, 01:05:56 pm
Lift jet assisted ESTOL Bucc anyone?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/BuccV.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: MAD on March 07, 2010, 06:14:55 am
Lift jet assisted ESTOL Bucc anyone?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/BuccV.jpg)

Regards,

Greg

Hey Greg
With your obsession of lift jets, I was wondering if you have Russian in you? ;D

M.A.D
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on March 09, 2010, 11:18:40 pm
Lift jet assisted ESTOL Bucc anyone?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/BuccV.jpg)

Regards,

Greg

Hey Greg
With your obsession of lift jets, I was wondering if you have Russian in you? ;D

M.A.D

Prussian yes, Russian No.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on March 15, 2010, 03:00:00 pm
Buccaneer was meant to get an avionics upgrade which was meant to get many elements of the Jaguar Nav/Attack systems but when the Tonka ame into service it was canned.  However when Gulf war 1 came along the RAF realised it had no aircraft who could designate for LGB's so the old Buccs had to go to war!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 15, 2010, 08:26:07 pm
......so the old Buccs had to go to war!

And my daughter went with them, for s short while anyway. Came back with lots of tales of silly temperatures, lots of sand and Bucc pilots tee'd off because they weren't allowed to fly under any camels...........  -_-
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on April 23, 2010, 03:10:09 pm
Has anyone actually done (either model or profile) an Israeli Bucc?

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: anthonyp on April 23, 2010, 07:12:33 pm
Has anyone actually done (either model or profile) an Israeli Bucc?

Regards,

Greg

But of course  ;D

(http://hyperion.mystarship.com/models/Categorized/Middle%20East/Israel/Israeli%20Buccaneer/israeli-buccaneer-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on April 25, 2010, 04:01:39 pm
Ok, my mistake - I should have asked:  Has anyone, other than Anthony (the modelling wizard who seems to have done everything - sometimes multiple times) actually done (either model or profile) an Israeli Bucc? ;D

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on August 23, 2010, 02:47:10 pm
Two interesting images of the Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer that I thought were worth sharing. 

The first image shows a Buccaneer in flight sporting a radome from a Tornado. 

The second image shows an early mark of the Buccaneer on display with a variety of weapons laid out in front of it.  While most of the weapons are well known and associated with the Buccaneer I found the inclusion of 60pd Rocket Projectiles quite interesting.  I do not recall ever seeing mention of the Buccaneer ever using this weapon in any of the references I have read.  Seeing the rocket projectiles displayed as they are in front of the Buccaneer has certainly opened up new possibilities for arming the Buccaneer with something different. 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on August 24, 2010, 03:02:10 am
The second photo is a Royal Navy Brick - the three row rocket pods and the dirty great bomb in the centre tend to give it away, if not the EDSG/White scheme the aircraft is wearing. 

Are those Bullpups?  Bit early for Martels.

Not sure when it was taken but would guess 1965.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on August 24, 2010, 03:02:40 am
Is the central bomb meant to be a nuke of some kind?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on August 24, 2010, 03:04:53 am
I'm pretty sure it's a Red Beard. 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on August 24, 2010, 03:24:38 am
I'm pretty sure it's a Red Beard. 

So who were they trying to sell that to?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: JayBee on August 24, 2010, 03:31:32 am
Photo 2 is not an early Bucc, it is an S2, the intake shape says it all. The S1 had circular intakes while the S2 had deeper oval ones.

and, yes they are Bullpups.

JimB
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Aircav on August 24, 2010, 04:26:13 am
Hers another of the Bucc with the Tornado nose
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on August 24, 2010, 04:27:21 am
Knew it was an S2 but meant that 1965(ish!) would be too early for Martels.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on August 24, 2010, 07:15:43 am
Wonder how it handled with the Tornado nose? Bucc directional stability was always a bit sub-optimal at low speeds because the fin was shorter than ideal in order to get hangar ceiling clearance in RN carriers, and that nose, pretty as it is, looks to add a fair bit of side area forwards.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 25, 2010, 10:46:44 pm
That reminds me, who's recently released a 1/72 resin Bucc recce pack that goes in place of the bomb bay doors? I saw an advert for one some months ago, and trawled the vendors at the Avon Show, but they all looked at me blankly.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Thorvic on August 25, 2010, 11:56:15 pm
Odds & Ordanance i think Kit, they do the recon pack, and Aviation workshop do the Red Beard and possibly the recon pallet. Herritage Aviation do it in 1/48th but not sure if it was scaled down to 72nd ?

http://www.oddsandordnance.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=161038 (http://www.oddsandordnance.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=161038)

http://www.theaviationworkshop.co.uk/cs148-hs-buccaneer-reconnaissance-pack-p-454.html (http://www.theaviationworkshop.co.uk/cs148-hs-buccaneer-reconnaissance-pack-p-454.html)

Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 27, 2010, 04:09:47 am
Yesssssssssss!  :lol:

Thanks very much Thorvic, just the job. Seems they also do a tanker pack for the 1/72 TSR2 as well, veeeeery interesting. And not just for use on TSR2s either!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 08, 2010, 09:09:29 am
This 48th scale Airfix Buccaneer S.Mk.50 built by Malcolm Reid (http://www.arcair.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10361-Buccaneer-Reid/00.shtm) has been uploaded to the gallery at the Aircraft Resource Center (http://www.arcair.com/). 
(http://www.arcair.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10361-Buccaneer-Reid/01.jpg) (http://www.arcair.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10361-Buccaneer-Reid/00.shtm)
(image source: Malcolm Reid/Aircraft Resource Center (http://www.arcair.com/))

I like his opening paragraph which describes the Airfix Buccaneer kit very well.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Hobbes on August 27, 2011, 08:19:08 am
I'm considering possible uses for my Airfix Bucc, and my eye fell on the Freightdog Canberra Interceptor set. So I started reading up on Buccaneer interceptor proposals. These are the RW projects:

B.109 (1959, Mach 1.65 unsolicited bid for a Canadian Interceptor)
B.111/112/117/113/116 (c.1960, reheated Spey, Mach 1.5, RAF/RN/RN/RAAF/German Naval AF)
B.129 (1962, Mach 2.0 RN fighter)
P.140 (1964, RN fighter)
P.145 (1964 RN strike)
P.150 (mach 1.8 1968, and the last "supersonic Buccaneer" project).

(found here (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6686/t/Blckburn-P-140-fighter-Buccaneer.html#.TljoBL8s3-k))

As far as I can find in the BSP volumes, no combination of Red Dean and Bucc was ever proposed (some of the above projects specified Red Top).

My current thoughts are Bucc with 2x Red Dean, 2x radar Red Top and 2x IR Red Top, and a bigger nose to house the AI radar.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 27, 2011, 10:04:40 am
Are you going to fit bigger wings?

The Bucc had a very high wing loading specifically to give it a low gust response at the very low altitudes it was designed to fly at. As an interceptor it would have had a large minimum turn radius, so it'd be limited to a BVR role. rather like a Tornado F3. A dog-fighter it certainly wouldn't be with the standard wings.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: McColm on August 27, 2011, 10:17:34 am
Didn't they try a supersonic Bucc after the TSR.2 was cancelled? Longer wings.
In the early days of the Tonka doing its maritime role, the crew complained of a bumpy ride and bits fell off. The 'Batty Toss' was used (named after a certain Squadron Leader) to get the pay load as close to the target as possible.
And another thing the Bucc crew only carried a chinagraph pencil and a slide rule, so you'd need to retrain these guys for the modern world.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Hobbes on August 27, 2011, 11:15:59 am
Hm, bigger wings I'd have to think about. I've got a Tornado in the stash, but those wings are even smaller; lengthening the existing wing may be a better option.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: McColm on August 27, 2011, 11:43:35 pm
Use another Bucc, to lengthen the wings? :banghead:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on August 27, 2011, 11:46:10 pm
This 48th scale Airfix Buccaneer S.Mk.50 built by Malcolm Reid (http://www.arcair.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10361-Buccaneer-Reid/00.shtm) has been uploaded to the gallery at the Aircraft Resource Center (http://www.arcair.com/). 
(http://www.arcair.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10361-Buccaneer-Reid/01.jpg) (http://www.arcair.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10361-Buccaneer-Reid/00.shtm)
(image source: Malcolm Reid/Aircraft Resource Center (http://www.arcair.com/))

I like his opening paragraph which describes the Airfix Buccaneer kit very well.

Upon looking at this one again, I suddenly see an Argentine Buccaneer...
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on August 28, 2011, 02:14:18 am
I suspect that the mission for the interceptor Buccs would have been much the same as that originally envisaged for the Sea Harrier: chasing off Bear-Ds before they could get a mass missile attack organised or failing that, downing the incoming Badgers/Blinders. Neither mission would require great agility and a smaller wing would actually help the afterburning engines get the speed up but producing less drag.

Anyway:

Phantom wing loading at 50,000lb = 94lb/sq.ft
Buccaneer wing loading at 50,000lb = 97lb/sq.ft.
Starfighter wing loading at 25,000lb = 127lb/sq.ft

So if you can call a Starfighter a fighter........
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 28, 2011, 02:17:42 am
So if you can call a Starfighter a fighter........

Best ask the Luftwaffe about that.........  :-\
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: McColm on August 28, 2011, 06:03:10 am
If you get caught out in the rain, don't shelter under the wing of an F-104. You're just going to get wet as staying out in the rain.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 28, 2011, 07:10:51 am
If you get caught out in the rain, don't shelter under the wing of an F-104. You're just going to get wet as staying out in the rain.

I'm not that short.............  ;D

I sheltered out of the rain under the wing of a Vulcan at St. Athan once, along with about 100 other aviation nutters. We STILL got wet as the rain came straight through all the umpteen opened up hatches and inspection panels, goodness knows how they dried out the inside of the wing after that downpour.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: McColm on August 28, 2011, 07:18:01 am
Stand behind a C-130 to dry off the heat from those engines does the job in next to no time!!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rallymodeller on August 28, 2011, 10:56:29 am
Best bet is under an F-15 (experience from a London (ON) air show). Then when the sun is out again you can play volleyball on top of the wing. 
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Hobbes on August 28, 2011, 12:00:12 pm
I suspect that the mission for the interceptor Buccs would have been much the same as that originally envisaged for the Sea Harrier: chasing off Bear-Ds before they could get a mass missile attack organised or failing that, downing the incoming Badgers/Blinders. Neither mission would require great agility and a smaller wing would actually help the afterburning engines get the speed up but producing less drag.

Anyway:

Phantom wing loading at 50,000lb = 94lb/sq.ft
Buccaneer wing loading at 50,000lb = 97lb/sq.ft.
Starfighter wing loading at 25,000lb = 127lb/sq.ft

So if you can call a Starfighter a fighter........


Interesting, that would mean I can get away with limited mods.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Green Dragon on August 28, 2011, 12:37:44 pm
Been planning a forward swept wing, twin fin Bucc with ex Phantom Spey exhausts for many years. Saw a pic of something similar in a mag around 20-30 years ago but keep talking myself out of hacking up a Buccaneer!

Paul Harrison
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: pyro-manic on August 28, 2011, 01:22:33 pm
Perhaps add some big LERXs to get the wing area up, and maybe increase the chord as well?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Scooterman on August 28, 2011, 02:40:27 pm
Upon looking at this one again, I suddenly see an Argentine Buccaneer...

That could have been interesting during the Falklands..........
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on August 29, 2011, 01:08:07 am
Upon looking at this one again, I suddenly see an Argentine Buccaneer...

That could have been interesting during the Falklands..........

Indeed!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on August 29, 2011, 03:45:01 am
I suspect that one limitation of the Buccaneer as a fighter (as opposed to an interceptor) would be the empennage. A T-tail is always a bad idea for high AoA maneuverability (Starfighter, Voodoo) because it gets blanked by the turbulent wake of the front fuselage as the nose comes up and you lose pitch authority at just the moment you need it most. A further problem specific to the Bucanneer might be directional stability due to it's small fin. The Bucc's fin is one of it's least satisfactory features, it's height being set by RN carrier hangar clearance. In the strike role it's tolerable, mainly biting in the landing approach, but in a fighter it could lead to the nose snaking about in a high-G turn.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on October 20, 2011, 01:58:02 pm
Buccs were fitted with Sea Eagle, Martel AR and Martel TV. could they have carried Harpoon, Alarm and Maverick?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Hobbes on October 21, 2011, 12:10:11 am
You'd have to install new electronics to control those weapons. Maverick is fairly simple (the pilot manually guides the Maverick's TV sensor onto a target), the others need more in the way of communications with the Bucc's navigation and attack systems.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on October 21, 2011, 01:28:27 am
You'd have to install new electronics to control those weapons. Maverick is fairly simple (the pilot manually guides the Maverick's TV sensor onto a target), the others need more in the way of communications with the Bucc's navigation and attack systems.

The guidance method may appear simple but its actually quite complex for Maverick - most TV based systems are.  You could, however adapt the TV Martel's system to accept signals from Maverick and transmit commands to it.   Most of its contained in the datalink pod anyway, whereas most US aircraft have their Maverick guidance system internally.  Alarm and Harpoon are in many ways much simpler, being basically fire and forget systems (if fired "blind").  If fired "live" - receiving radar signals/returns then all that would be required would be for the pilot to have an audio link into the radar circuit and be able to hear the strength of the return from the Missile's seeker.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on October 21, 2011, 03:43:13 am
You might (not saying definitely) find that you need a digital radar and databus to get the best out of Harpoon. Likewise, although ALARM can be fired from just about anything in self-defence mode, to use all it's modes you need a decent, digital RHAWR and again, a databus.

The good news is that the Bucc is big and packed with bulky 1950s/1960s electronics, so replacing them with digital ones and finding more space should be relatively easy, as such exercises go. A Bucc with a 1980s digital combat system and sensors would be a pretty awesome bit of kit (1980s being probably the last timeframe you could see an update being done in, unless production was extended).
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: pyro-manic on October 21, 2011, 04:52:53 pm
How about Tornado systems? Buccs were used to test some of the Tornado avionics, so you could take it a stage further and say that Tornado gets cancelled for some other reason (nasty accident with a prototype?) and the already paid-for tech is squeezed into zero-timed Buccaneer "S.3"s instead?

http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages1_files/Radar_Index.html
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on October 21, 2011, 08:45:29 pm
Theoretically possible.  Afterall the RAAF zero houred and digital avionic'ed its F-111s (Cs and Gs) before they were retired.  However, events, operating costs and of course politics intervened to prevent them living out the life extension to its full potential.   IIRC, it also happened with the CF-5s, which underwent a massive upgrade only to be immediately retired and we have the example of the Nimrods as well. There'd be a danger of that happening with the Buccaneers as well, I fear, if upgraded.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on October 21, 2011, 11:43:18 pm
Theoretically possible.  Afterall the RAAF zero houred and digital avionic'ed its F-111s (Cs and Gs) before they were retired. 

The RAAF only gave the digital avionics upgrade to the C models, not the Gs.  Neither were 'zero houred'.

Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: McColm on October 22, 2011, 12:05:58 am
In theory you'd only need one Bucc to use it's radar whilst flying in a four-ship formation. The lead Bucc would pop-up and take a sweep. Then pop-down again before continuing the attack. A ASW patrol aircraft could have been used to vector the Buccs to the intended target without the need of their radar.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on October 22, 2011, 02:06:30 am
Theoretically possible.  Afterall the RAAF zero houred and digital avionic'ed its F-111s (Cs and Gs) before they were retired. 

The RAAF only gave the digital avionics upgrade to the C models, not the Gs.  Neither were 'zero houred'.



Obviously my understanding of the upgrade was flawed then, Greg.  I've always understood that the airframes were zero-houred and that the Gs received the avionics upgrade as well.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on October 22, 2011, 06:43:50 am
Theoretically possible.  Afterall the RAAF zero houred and digital avionic'ed its F-111s (Cs and Gs) before they were retired.  However, events, operating costs and of course politics intervened to prevent them living out the life extension to its full potential.   IIRC, it also happened with the CF-5s, which underwent a massive upgrade only to be immediately retired and we have the example of the Nimrods as well. There'd be a danger of that happening with the Buccaneers as well, I fear, if upgraded.

Or the Jaguars for that matter: they spent most of the 1990s giving them all the updates they'd been begging for since the late 1970s, then promptly dumped them in defence cuts.... :banghead:

The Nimrod MRA.4 is not really the same sort of thing, since it wasn't so much a "rebuild" as an entirely new aircraft that just happend to use a 2nd hand fuselage tube and a few other bits...
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on October 23, 2011, 11:41:18 pm
Did read one article proposing putting the Jaguar navigation and weapon system computer into the Buccaneer. I agree that both thease aircraft were sidelined de to lack of funds in the defence budget but don't forget the RAF were desperate to get Tornado and hadn't wanted this hand me down from the navy.
 Despite it being the better aircraft!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: alertken on October 24, 2011, 06:00:07 am
Enhanced Buccaneers. HSAL pitched various S.2*/**schemes, starting with TSR.2 kit, through the whole saga of AFVG/UKVG, and early MRCA.

The MRCA avionics hack exercise was not pertinent: the bids to the NATO MRCA Management Agency were from MBB for 2 F-104Fs and from (BAC's nominee) Marshall's, who had a long track record of doing design-intensive, production sparse oddballs. (Rusty memory:) avionics kit moves from laboratory breadboard, into production standard by way of A, B, and C models. Memory is that the hack carried B, electronically but not dimensionally representative of the end-product. So NAMMA's 1971 selection of 2 Buccs. was driven by the bomb bay capacity to be cluttered up with bits of kit, wired in any old how: it was the presentation in the cockpit that was real, not the installation in the aircraft. The exercise would have been of minimal benefit to any real enhanced Bucc, which is why HSAL took absolutely no interest in it.

HSAL also wound in its neck on Bucc enhancements after 1971. They had a nice run of new-build RAF Buccs and were, ah, invited by Ministers not to add to the turbulence of US assaults on MRCA. From 1977 HSAL was subsumed into Nationalised BAe.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on October 24, 2011, 01:17:18 pm
some other weapons i'd be interested in seeing on Buccaneer, Shrike, Standard, Alarm, HARM,Harpoon, Kormoran, Maverick, Walleye, GBU8 & 15, Mk 80 series dumb bombs. TIALD, Linescan recce pods
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Maverick on October 24, 2011, 01:33:01 pm
I'm actually surprised Shrike, ALARM & TIALD weren't cleared for the Bucc as they were in service with the RAF.

As for the others, I suspect you'd need a different user to justify the integration of the weapon into the systems.

Regards,

Mav
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Martin H on October 24, 2011, 01:45:10 pm
I'm actually surprised Shrike, ALARM & TIALD weren't cleared for the Bucc as they were in service with the RAF.

As for the others, I suspect you'd need a different user to justify the integration of the weapon into the systems.

Regards,

Mav
The Buccaneer was on its way out, they only went to the gulf because their "Airships" wanted the brick to go out in a blaze of glory. Even if it was only painting targets for the tonkas. So no need for it to be refitted for ALARM or TIALD. Plus TIALD was still officially under trials. The two pods hurriedly shipped out where pre production units.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Maverick on October 24, 2011, 03:58:02 pm
Granby was obviously the Brick's swansong, but Shrike was in service well before that...

Regards,

Mav
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: pyro-manic on October 25, 2011, 11:11:31 am
IIRC the Shrike was not in regular service with the RAF. It was only used for the Black Buck missions on the Vulcans, due to worries about Martels icing up during the long flight.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on October 26, 2011, 02:28:03 am
Mind you, the idea of a Wild Weasel Bucc with 2 - 4 Shrikes sounds appealing!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Maverick on October 26, 2011, 03:11:08 am
Shrike wasn't a regular RAF weapon with the ARM variant of MARTEL being the preferred weapon, but given the time frame, it still surprises me that the RAF didn't consider adopting the weapon, given it was quite smaller and more easily carried (177kg vs 550kg). 

One could see a Buccaneer toting multiple Shrikes (as Greg suggested) in addition to fuel in the bomb-bay and having a considerably longer endurance.  700ish kgs vs over 2000kg for 4 weapons would have to infer better performance I should think.  I suspect some of it had to do with the RAF not fielding SEAD specific squadrons at the time.

Regards,

Mav
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on October 26, 2011, 04:11:57 am
Indeed: RAF doctrine was to dodge the radar rather than fight them head-to-head. Anti-ship was a different matter, and another reason why Martel was so big (range and warhead).

Alternatively to filling the bomb bay with fuel, you could fill it with a serious ESM/ECM system, probably somewhere between an F-4G and an EA-6B. the Bucc had plenty of range even on internal fuel, so if you wanted to do SEAD in RAF Germany, it would be ideal.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on October 26, 2011, 04:16:28 am
it still surprises me that the RAF didn't consider adopting the weapon, given it was quite smaller and more easily carried (177kg vs 550kg). 

They did IIRC, Martel was never particularly liked by the RAF.  I vaguely remember hearing that the RAF had a small very unoffical stock after Black Buck but I might be wrong.  They couldn't justify an official order since large stocks of Martel were still in existence.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Maverick on October 26, 2011, 04:58:54 am
I suppose enhancing the Bucc's SEAD capability would be dependent on the back-seater being able to operate the equipment effectively.  The F-105G and F-4G both had that capability obviously, but would the Brick's systems allow the necessary RWR feeds, etc to be put into the rear cockpit?

One drawback of Shrike was, of course, it's inability to track a radar that switched off.  Could MARTEL do this?  I can't find anything specific about it's radar capability.

Regards,

Mav
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Hobbes on October 26, 2011, 06:04:37 am
Doubtful, that was ALARM's unique selling point.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Maverick on October 26, 2011, 06:13:30 am
ALARM isn't the only modern ARM to track a radar turned off mid flight though.  Even the AGM-78 Standard ARM had that capability by 1969 and of course it was standard with the AGM-88 HARM.

Regards,

Mav
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on October 26, 2011, 07:09:15 am
One drawback of Shrike was, of course, it's inability to track a radar that switched off.  Could MARTEL do this?  I can't find anything specific about it's radar capability.

No, Martel was no better than Shrike at that trick.   Alarm was the first which was able to do it, that I'm aware of.  All the ARMs before that were pretty "dumb" in that regard.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on October 26, 2011, 08:04:12 am
I thought HARM could memorise the radar location too?

There's no doubt that a SEAD Bucc would need a completely new rear cockpit (and maybe some mods for the pilot too) and would probably become a specialised aircraft in the process.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on October 26, 2011, 08:11:40 am
I thought HARM could memorise the radar location too?

Ask the neighbours of Serbia!
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: simmie on October 26, 2011, 03:30:50 pm
I believe that ALARM's party piece is if the radar shuts down and scoots to a new location.  The missile turns straight up, ditches the motor stage and pops a parachute.  The seeker head is slightly off balance so that is spins around scanning for the radar coming back on.  When it does it ditches the chute, lights a second motor and goes a hunt'in!!

Of coarse I could have this all wrong.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on October 26, 2011, 04:02:41 pm
ALARM can also do that straight away, i.e. it goes straight up off the rail and then "loiters" under the chute, or it can fly direct to the radar without using the chute at all.

The fundamental difference in concept is that HARM is designed to be used by a dedicated SEAD aircraft who's only objective is to destroy the radar, while ALARM is a secondary weapon, designed to be carried by non-specialist aircraft in order to suppress radars for a limited period while they get on with their objective of bombing something else. Of course, ALARM isn't neccessarily used like that in practice, but that was the theory.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on October 27, 2011, 01:50:10 am
there is also fundemntal differences in how Alarm attacks as well but I'm not going to discuss them here.

A dedicated SEAD version would have been interesting the Bomb bay did give the space to put many black boxes. That space would also have made a great camera bay for dedicated recce versions.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 27, 2011, 02:03:50 am
That space would also have made a great camera bay for dedicated recce versions.

There was a pukka recce pod made to fit the Bucc's bomb bay. It was quite a hefty thing as it was but it always surprised me that they didn't make a dedicated bomb-bay door that was itself the recce pod.

(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/4685/buccaneerbay0002.jpg)

This piccie of the real pod was passed on to me by someone on here, but I've forgotten who I'm sad to say. Thanks to them, whoever they are.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: GTX on October 28, 2011, 01:15:21 pm

This piccie of the real pod was passed on to me by someone on here, but I've forgotten who I'm sad to say. Thanks to them, whoever they are.

Dat would be me I believe...you always welcome.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 28, 2011, 02:25:38 pm
Dat would be me I believe...you always welcome.

Many thanks indeed, that piccie must have travelled 24000 miles now.  ;D
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: raafif on December 18, 2011, 06:35:31 pm
back on page 3, Nev posted a photo of a USMC Buccaneer & on page 4 anthonyP posted 2 pics of USN ones.  The links are now dead so can someone repost them or PM them to me (considering the Airfix kit) ??

Did someone do a drawing of a 4-engine Bucc ?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Howard of Effingham on July 19, 2012, 02:14:05 am
just one thing there....

if the FAA buccaneers had lasted long enough to have been used in the falklands war,
what paint scheme could they have worn?

trevor
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on July 19, 2012, 02:46:45 am
Probably what they were wearing in the 70s - Extra Dark Sea Grey overall.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on July 19, 2012, 06:15:28 am
As Lee says, with minimal markings and what was left toned down, i.e. black numbers instead of white or blue.  If you can get decals for an Falklands 809 NAS Shar, some retained toned down squadron markings, they also operated Buccs as well of course.  You could use smaller roundels maybe, with larger ones partially painted out.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on July 19, 2012, 06:37:43 am
I'd also go with the bulged door for additional fuel for extra loiter time.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: McColm on July 24, 2012, 11:24:24 am
Would the camera bay from a Canberra PR.9 fit the Buccaneer?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on July 24, 2012, 11:38:43 am
No. The latter is larger, certainly wider.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 24, 2012, 03:27:35 pm
Individual cameras that the PR9 carried may possibly fit, but not the whole shabang, as The Wooksta says.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on January 14, 2013, 10:18:48 am
Alternate engines.

 Could Buccaneer have been fitted with the General Electric J79 engines like the American Phantoms?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: pyro-manic on January 14, 2013, 11:08:29 am
Possible, as the J79 was a bit smaller than the Spey, but why would you want to? The Spey had more thrust, better fuel consumption, and as a turbofan was better suited to low-level than the J79 turbojet.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on January 14, 2013, 11:54:41 am
Possbily but no.  The Treasury wouldn't want to spend the money.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on January 14, 2013, 02:24:02 pm
Also, the Spey was short and fat, whereas the J-79 was long and thin. The Bucc's engines sit at the front of the "pod" ahead of the wing structure: the majority of the "pod" contains nothing more than a jet pipe wrapped around  the undercarriage bay.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 14, 2013, 03:25:56 pm
That would be taking a perfectly good British aeroplane and spoiling it by fitting totally inappropriate American engines......
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on January 15, 2013, 03:15:37 am
Then I'll really set the cat among the pigeons and mention the Atar 9.... :wacko:

Light blue touch paper, then step away quickly.... ;)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Rheged on January 15, 2013, 05:36:54 am
Light blue touch paper, then step away quickly.... ;)

Didn't the South African Buccs have the Bristol Siddeley 605 rocket  as an extra fitting?      A genuine case of "Light the blue touch paper......"

Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Dizzyfugu on January 15, 2013, 07:56:56 am
Yup - as a start aid for high and hot climate conditions.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on January 15, 2013, 08:59:54 am
Wasn't the same rocket suggested for the various Bucc fighters?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: XV107 on January 15, 2013, 04:12:57 pm
I'm actually surprised Shrike, ALARM & TIALD weren't cleared for the Bucc as they were in service with the RAF.

As for the others, I suspect you'd need a different user to justify the integration of the weapon into the systems.

Regards,

Mav
The Buccaneer was on its way out, they only went to the gulf because their "Airships" wanted the brick to go out in a blaze of glory. Even if it was only painting targets for the tonkas. So no need for it to be refitted for ALARM or TIALD. Plus TIALD was still officially under trials. The two pods hurriedly shipped out where pre production units.

Their Airships didn't want the Buccs to go, and the decision to send them was because - to quote Paul Jackson - the TGR1 took to medium level dumb bombing like a duck to accountancy and the RAF felt that there was an urgent need to use PGM to make the Tornado force's contribution meaningful. There were concerns that if the Tornados couldn't bomb accurately and therefore ended up not playing a particularly significant part in the war, this might in turn lead to the government deciding (remember this is at the time of Options for Change) that they could cut the Tornado force even further than the three squadron reduction that actually hit the force at the end of the war (with 15, 16 and 20 disbanding).

With only two TIALD pods, the Buccs with Pave Spike had to be used to facilitate the use of PWII - IIRC, the Air Staff were a bit concerned that the Bucc might show the Tornado up (being able to self-designate), but there was no alternative.

ALARM was also not fully cleared for service at the time (Granby was a useful means of providing intensive testing...), although IIRC, there were some mutterings about it possibly being useful for the Bucc and worth looking at - but with only three years left in RAF service, that idea - if the word 'idea' isn't too strong - was never going to come to fruition.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 16, 2013, 12:08:29 am
As it was the two TIALD pods had to be hand assembled before they were shipped out east, and IIRC the Buccs went out there before the TIALDs anyway.

My daughter (you know, the RAF's Best................... etc etc  ;D) went out with the Buccs for a few days too, something to do with air traffic at Dahran or wherever they were based.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on January 16, 2013, 01:40:29 am
As it was the two TIALD pods had to be hand assembled before they were shipped out east, and IIRC the Buccs went out there before the TIALDs anyway.

My daughter (you know, the RAF's Best................... etc etc  ;D) went out with the Buccs for a few days too, something to do with air traffic at Dahran or wherever they were based.

Must've been rather busy airspace...  ;D
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on January 16, 2013, 04:49:23 am
Also, TIALD, ALARM etc, being more modern systems, need a digital databus on the carrier aircraft, whereas the Bucc was hard-wired for the Vietnam-era Pave Spike. Integrating the digital stuff onto the analogue Bucc might have been much harder than it looks at first glance.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on January 16, 2013, 10:49:58 am
Integrating the digital stuff onto the analogue Bucc might have been much harder than it looks at first glance.

Understatement of the decade.  ;D

Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on February 16, 2014, 04:07:07 am
I wonder if Buccaneer had been exported more what other weapons would have been integrated or would we like to have seen integrated.
Exocet, Kormoran and Harpoon spring instantly to mind.
But what about Shrike, Standard, Walleye, Maverick, GBU8 or GBU15
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: hamsandwich on February 16, 2014, 07:03:02 am
I have a Royal Navy Bucc with a pair of AGM 12C Bullpups and an RAF version with a pair of AGM 62 Walleyes.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on February 16, 2014, 11:20:59 am
Integrating the digital stuff onto the analogue Bucc might have been much harder than it looks at first glance.

Understatement of the decade.  ;D



Well they managed to fit them with digital Sea Eagles, so it obviously wasn't totally impossible, just highly non-trivial.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: rickshaw on February 16, 2014, 04:35:28 pm
Analogue to digital and digital to analogue isn't necessary.  What is done instead is a parallel databus is installed, with a small control panel in the cockpit which interfaces with the weapons through a controlling computer.  Again, non-trivial but at the same time, fairly technically simple.  The main problem would be threading the cables and once you've done that, adding extra weapons is just a matter of plugging them in.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on February 16, 2014, 05:41:21 pm
And the Bucc has the dual advantages of a back-seater and a big airframe. The latter is likely to be less awkward to install new stuff in and the back-seater's cockpit can be re-jigged to incorporate new displays and controls more easily that the pilot's which has to fit them in around basic flight instruments.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on February 20, 2014, 12:20:01 am
Came across an interesting tit-bit reading the September 7, 1964 AW&ST Special Report on British Aerospace Industry:

" ... Ferranti Airpass 3 for Blackburn Buccaneer ... the only connector in the Ferranti systems is a large one,
of its own design, which connects the fire control package to aircraft power, and to cockpit indicators and controls.
The Airpass systems are designed as an integrated single package, capable of fitting the cramped quarters of a
needle-nosed interceptor ... Because of the integral packaging, the use of wire-wrap, and elimination of internal
connectors for individual sub-assemblies ... the 220 lb weight of the Airpass systems is less than the weight of
just the connectors and interconnecting cables on some competing British and American systems."

 :dalek:

Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: albeback on February 20, 2014, 01:09:18 am
That would be taking a perfectly good British aeroplane and spoiling it by fitting totally inappropriate American engines......

Or, taking a perfectly good US aeroplane and fitting totally inappropriate BRITISH engines??  :lol:

Allan
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 20, 2014, 03:27:54 am
That would be taking a perfectly good British aeroplane and spoiling it by fitting totally inappropriate American engines......

Or, taking a perfectly good US aeroplane and fitting totally inappropriate BRITISH engines??  :lol:

Allan

While that me be appropriate to some Phantoms it certainly doesn't apply to the Bucc.....
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: DarrenP on March 03, 2014, 07:57:14 am
one update that was talked about in some of the books was fitting a variant of the FIN 1064 INAS. I wonder what other systems would have found their way into the Buccaneer S2E.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: AS.12 on November 20, 2017, 01:03:38 pm
The 2012 WHIF of a  Bucc in Swedish colours (http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,34441.msg545404.html#msg545404) has always stuck in my head, so imagine my surprise when I read this tonight on a page about the SAAB 32 Lansen:

 
Quote
In the event that Viggen should have been cancelled one option would have been the A 32D version which would have been new airframes, reinforced compared to J 32B and fitted with RM 6C engines to give it higher performance (but not speed) and the same weapons as AJ 37. Deliveries of it could have started in 1972.

Phantom II was seen as too expensive, for the same cost as 120 license produced Buccaneers one could have 222 A 32D Lansens and in the event it was found that Viggen would give better value for money.

Yes, the Flygvapnet did consider the Bucc!

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/32lansen.htm
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Gondor on November 20, 2017, 03:30:40 pm
The 2012 WHIF of a  Bucc in Swedish colours (http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,34441.msg545404.html#msg545404) has always stuck in my head, so imagine my surprise when I read this tonight on a page about the SAAB 32 Lansen:

 
Quote
In the event that Viggen should have been cancelled one option would have been the A 32D version which would have been new airframes, reinforced compared to J 32B and fitted with RM 6C engines to give it higher performance (but not speed) and the same weapons as AJ 37. Deliveries of it could have started in 1972.

Phantom II was seen as too expensive, for the same cost as 120 license produced Buccaneers one could have 222 A 32D Lansens and in the event it was found that Viggen would give better value for money.

Yes, the Flygvapnet did consider the Bucc!

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/32lansen.htm

Only problem is the pictures don;t show as they are photobucket  :banghead:

Gondor
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Weaver on October 21, 2019, 02:50:51 am
The new Combat Machines bookazine on the Buccaneer claims that the SAAF RATO rockets were fitted in blisters under the jetpipes, and that the picture of an SAAF Bucc taking off with RATOs in the rear fuselage during UK tests is using an experimental set up. I disagree: I can't find a single pic or source for the rockets being underneath the jetpipes in service, and every source I have or can find states, or shows, them in the rear fuselage. I think Combat Machines screwed up: there certainly WAS a scheme to put them under the jetpipes which even got as far as a mockup, and that seems to be what's misled them.

This is the pic and caption from Combat Machines (re-arranged slightly to save space):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48934074403_0fd15c41b3_o.jpg)


This pic of a mockup installation is from the Ian Allen Combat Aircraft 7 book on the Bucc by Maurice Allward. I've also included the take-off pic and caption because it confirms that Rickshaw's pic is an in-service SAAF Bucc, not a test aircraft (again, slightly re-arranged):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48934075073_dbedcd4091_o.jpg)


Rickshaw's pic, posted on the My Library Grew Again 2019 thread. This is obviously a colour version of the one in the Ian Allen book:

(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/3a/db/90/3adb90b27f40d0b8415f181477eb42ad--south-african-air-force-blackburn-buccaneer.jpg)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 21, 2019, 04:19:03 am
My late friend Rob Hill worked on the test rig for the Bucc's rockets at Brough, and from memory of chatting with him, he always talked about '...double barrelled rocket motor.....' which would indicate they used the under fuselage mounting.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on October 21, 2019, 01:31:45 pm
Bristol Siddeley ad for the BS.605, showing it in the fuselage position.  A different code to the pic above.  Could be more than one development aircraft, but seems to evidence that this is the production version.

http://www.aviationancestry.co.uk/?home/&searchQuery=BristolSiddeley&startYear=1909&endYear=1980&&searchOrder=ASC&pageNum=14
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 22, 2019, 01:04:14 am
Fascinating set of adverts there, we just don't see them like that any more.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: zenrat on October 22, 2019, 02:40:41 am
Thanks Mossie, you just gave me the name for my Out of Retirement GB aircraft build.
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Mossie on October 24, 2019, 01:33:05 am
Surely not BS???  ;)
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: zenrat on October 24, 2019, 02:55:25 am
Surely not BS???  ;)

Gnome (surely the most unlikely name for an aircraft engine since the Allison Tinkerbell).
BS I can generate in more than adequate amounts on my own.   ;D
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: comrade harps on December 22, 2019, 04:08:23 am
I keep reading that the bomb bay can still rotate  open with the bulged bomb bay door fuel tank attached. Is that correct?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on December 22, 2019, 04:18:53 am
Yes.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 22, 2019, 02:35:04 pm
The bomb bay door fuel tank isn't just attached, it IS the bomb bay door.

They're two different designs of door, one with fuel and one without.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: comrade harps on December 23, 2019, 03:07:07 am
Thanks for the clarification  :thumbsup:

So, I could build a Brick with the bulged bomb bay door and put the (internal) bombload in the text. Cool.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 23, 2019, 08:09:34 am
You certainly could, we'd all just have to imagine the bombs were there.  ;D

Of course if you were REALLY masochistic you could model the door half open and then you could REALLY have the bombs on view.  :wacko:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Gondor on December 23, 2019, 08:19:11 am
You could slso have the bomb bay doors open and show the bombs and say that the door is bulged

Gondor
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Rheged on December 23, 2019, 08:49:32 am
I have been told that the bomb bay of a single Buccaneer was ideal for bringing several large flagons of KEO FIVE  KINGS  Cypriot brandy back from deployments to Akrotiri.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: Nick on February 01, 2020, 01:05:49 am
And you could fly the flag on the bomb bay door, as they did when showing force over Lebanon in 1983.  Apparently seeing the British flag is more intimidating when it's on the underside of a strike bomber just 50ft above your head at high speed!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: kitbasher on February 01, 2020, 01:15:11 am
That would be taking a perfectly good British aeroplane and spoiling it by fitting totally inappropriate American engines......

Or, taking a perfectly good US aeroplane and fitting totally inappropriate BRITISH engines??  :lol:

Allan

While that me be appropriate to some Phantoms it certainly doesn't apply to the Bucc.....

IIRC Speys were chosen for UK Phantoms in part because of thrust/acceleration advantages over the original J79s.  Essential when getting them off the smaller RN carriers.  Yes they were slower at altitude but still potent.
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: The Wooksta! on April 12, 2020, 12:01:33 pm
Has anyone ever thought of doing the Buccaneer S1 in RAF colours?  Interim before getting TSR2?
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 12, 2020, 02:43:54 pm

Has anyone ever thought of doing the Buccaneer S1 in RAF colours?  Interim before getting TSR2


That would be VERY Whiffy, the RAF REALLY didn't want to know about the Bucc in the early days.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
Post by: McColm on April 18, 2020, 11:02:32 pm
You could slso have the bomb bay doors open and show the bombs and say that the door is bulged

Gondor
You could use the Freightdog open bomb bay conversions in 1/72 scale.