Author Topic: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer  (Read 51625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Weaver

  • I'm either dumb or evil - you decide.....
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 17187
  • Has a life outside What-If that is also What If
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #225 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.
Neophyte: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Neo: Even false things?
MtY: Even false things are true.
Neo: How can that be?
MtY: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Principia Discordia

Twitter: @hws5mp
www.minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline rickshaw

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 9882
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #226 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.
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Online Weaver

  • I'm either dumb or evil - you decide.....
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 17187
  • Has a life outside What-If that is also What If
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #227 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.
Neophyte: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Neo: Even false things?
MtY: Even false things are true.
Neo: How can that be?
MtY: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Principia Discordia

Twitter: @hws5mp
www.minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7255
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #228 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:

"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline albeback

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #229 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
Loves JMNs but could never eat a whole one!!

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 30957
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #230 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.....
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline DarrenP

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #231 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.

Offline AS.12

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #232 on: November 20, 2017, 01:03:38 pm »
The 2012 WHIF of a Bucc in Swedish colours 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

Offline Gondor

  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6802
  • Builds Slower Than A Glacier Moves
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #233 on: November 20, 2017, 03:30:40 pm »
The 2012 WHIF of a Bucc in Swedish colours 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
My Ability to Imagine is only exceeded by my Imagined Abilities

Online Weaver

  • I'm either dumb or evil - you decide.....
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 17187
  • Has a life outside What-If that is also What If
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #234 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):




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):




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:

Neophyte: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Neo: Even false things?
MtY: Even false things are true.
Neo: How can that be?
MtY: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Principia Discordia

Twitter: @hws5mp
www.minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 30957
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #235 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.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Mossie

  • Twiglet doctor
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 13551
  • Don't laugh at his mule
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #236 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
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 30957
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #237 on: October 22, 2019, 01:04:14 am »
Fascinating set of adverts there, we just don't see them like that any more.  :thumbsup:
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline zenrat

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 16205
  • Currently on double secret probation.
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #238 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:
Fred

Another ill conceived, lazily thought out, crudely executed and badly painted piece of half arsed what-if modelling muppetry from zenrat industries.

Offline Mossie

  • Twiglet doctor
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 13551
  • Don't laugh at his mule
Re: Blackburn (BAE) Buccaneer
« Reply #239 on: October 24, 2019, 01:33:05 am »
Surely not BS???  ;)
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.