Talk:Blackburn Buccaneer

Designer

It may be vandalism but 82.47.60.206 has put in "It was designed by ROY BOOT" whilst the info box has "Designed by B. P. Laight". One of these may be true. I came here to find out now I'm no better off. There does not appear to be an answer on "Thunder and lighthings" to this

Soarhead77 15:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

B. P. Laight is correct. That is taken from the reference work "Fly Navy". Emoscopes ^Talk 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a documentary about the Buccaneer on YouTube here; [1] that someone may find useful. According to this, Roy Boot was responsible for aircraft performance.

Nickname

The phrase "Blackburn Bulldozer" gets exactly one hit in Google - this page. Can anyone come up with support for that nickname? --cfmdobbie

I never heard "Banana Jet", instead it was Black banana - a logical derivation from Blackburn NANA. 24.69.25.223 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The genesis

I seem to recall that the GOR that led to the Bucc was a response to the Soviets introducing a new "classic" gun cruiser. The RN was faced with the option of developing their own class to counter it, or going "non-linear", and chose the latter approach. The Bucc would be able to attack this fleet with an excellent chance of success while being much less expensive to deploy than a surface ship with the same survivability.

Soooo... does anyone remember which class of ship it was? It seems like a very important historical point that should be mentioned!

Maury

The Sverdlov Adam1983 14:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article states: "Like the German "pocket battleships" during the Second World War, they [the Sverdlov class] presented a serious threat to the merchant fleets in the Atlantic, but they were in far greater numbers and over 25% faster." The speed of the Sverdlovs is given as 32.5 kn in Wikipedia. The slowest German "pocket battleship" (Deutschland class heavy cruiser) was the "Deutschland" at 28 kn, the fastest the "Graf Spee" at 29.5 kn. The improvement of the Sverdlovs was thus just 16%-10.2%, not "over 25%". Also the Deutschland class had 11" guns -- heavier than the 8" guns of WWII heavy cruisers -- while the Sverdlovs had only 6" main armament, typical of a WWII light cruiser.--Death Bredon (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with claimed speeds for those diesel-engined German cruisers. Their trials speed wasn't achievable without things breaking pretty quickly. The practical speed of the Sverdlovs may indeed have been substantially more than the German ships (although I'm not sure the RN knew about this during WWII) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wingweb.co.uk

I run a site titled Air Vectors that covers military aircraft and gets cited here and there on Wikipedia. I don't normally touch wikipedia articles other than to correct typos and the like, but I just found out about a site named "Wingweb.co.uk" which is also cited here and there on Wikipedia ... but whose aviation articles are largely or entirely downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also lifted many of my photos and artwork.

I have no fuss to make. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia community knowns that Wingweb.co.uk is a ripoff operation. Cheers / MrG 4.225.208.126 02:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Radar

The Buccaneer radar seems to have been codenamed "Blue Parrot"/Airpass II. Some mention of this should be made. Was this equipment used in any other aircraft?Drutt (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Parrot was the Rainbow Code for the radar and this set was unique to the Buccaneer; although I believe it was fitted in a solitary Canberra for trials purposes. Emoscopes ^Talk 07:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Parrot was fitted to Canberra T.22's for training observers. Petebutt (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Operational History

The Bucc was used as a laser designation aircraft in the 1st Gulf War, but was a real attack craft in the S. African Border War-- effective against MPLA and Cuban troops and particularly the T-34 tanks at Cassinga. --Gaptech (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Wing Operations

The article says "When the Fleet Air Arm's fixed-wing operations ended in 1978". That doesn't sound right, the FAA still flies fixed wing aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanBrock (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, adjusted text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent copy'n'paste additions from vectorsite.net

I notice someone has recently added a lot of content apparently copy'n'pasted from http://www.vectorsite.net/avbucc.html. Although this content is claimed to be public domain, and hence not a WP:COPYVIO, content from other websites still needs to be wikified and copyedited to conform to the WP:MOS and for consistency with the rest of the article. In addition, the original source needs to be cited, of course. Letdorf (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

position of design in article, and engine issue

The aircraft description and the issues that were addressed in the design seems misplaced after the service. I notice that the Gyron Junior was under development when the Buccaneer was conceived; it was only at prototype stage when the contract was awarded to Blackburn.

And a question about the lack of power of the Gyron Junior - was this related to the large amount of air that had to be supplied for the flap blowing, and/or that the Gyron Junior was designed for more for high altitude flight and speed - where jet engines are generally more efficient - than bumping along just a bit above the ocean blue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure the reason but the Orr-Ewing the Civil Lord of the Admiralty denied in a visit to the factory in 1961 that the engines are "insufficient" refering to reports that the aircraft would have to be re-engined to provide greater power. Also lots of denial that the early crashes had anything to do with the Gyron Junior MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

IIRC the Gyron (and presumably therefore the Gyron Junior) was originally designed for use up to Mach 3 but the aircraft designs to utilise them never materialised. 1955 Gyron article by Bill Gunston and a similar 1956 article on the Gyron Junior here; [2] and a 1957 one here; [3] and another here; [4] The Buccaneer's large airbrake was necessitated by the need to run the engines at high power during the approach in order to supply sufficient air for the BLC system.

I suspect that over time the RN just added weight over and above the weights what the Gyron Juniors had been intended for. At the time of the initial design the only turbofan available was probably the Conway.

A 1958 Flight article on the Blackburn NA.39 (Bucaneer), again by Bill Gunston, here; [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A 1961 Flight article showing a reheat Gyron Junior DGJ.10R here: [6]

Buccaneer fly-by between airfield buildings at around 10-15ft altitude (at 7:04) here: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.233 (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Buccaneer S.1 had ample power for normal uses however in the case of an engine failure on take-off or landing the remaining Gyron Junior was unable to supply sufficient bleed air and thrust at the same time, as the remaining engine was then required to proved the amount of bleed air normally supplied by two engines and this it could not do without a significant loss of thrust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

a citation question

I've added a mention of the long range operation by 809 NAS off Ark Royal to British Honduras in 1972 referencing it to Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White. Since, apart from content on how the USN aviators learned some of their trade/instruction setup from the FAA, most all of the book is about the subject, what should one give as page numbers? The blurb on the back would probably cover it but is the author's foreward sufficient? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

BLC clarification

From my days working on the Buccaneer I'm sure that it had BLC slots on the upper leading edges of the wing and tailplane (horizontal stabiliser is a US term). It could be clarified. If parked outside in the rain it would produce nice fountains of water on selecting the flaps down! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this page from Flight shows their location on the tailplane. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thunder City

I don't think TC's Buccs were sold, who added that in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan121212 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Outward canted engines?

I don't see it in any of the images here, which don't really show the bottom of the aircraft, but the image on this page shows the bottom clearly. To my eye there appears to be a distinct outward angle on the engine nozzles. Is this actually there? If so, why? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it is there. Possibly to keep the jetwash away from the airbrake in the tail boom? (Hohum ^@) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are two well-known features to the Buccaneer: blown surfaces all over the wings, and voluptuous area ruling. As a result, the wings were completely dry (they folded too) and all the fuel tankage was in the fuselage. So the rear fuselage was distinctly 'plump', but there was no space to spare inside it. Past experience with the Hawker Sea Hawk and its bifurcated 'trouser leg' tailpipes meant no hesitation about canting the tailpipes outwards to give more clearance around the tankage (the avionics bay starts immediately aft of the ends of the tailpipes).

The S.1 with the Gyron Junior engines and narrower tailpipes are perhaps more obviously canted, but when the Spey was fitted to the S.2, the tailpipes were increased in diameter (c.f. the Phantom problems!). This required them to be canted even further outwards and down, although it's less evident in photographs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW - the tailpipes are canted, not the engines. And remember where most of the thrust in a turbojet or turbofan is produced. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Greetings fellow Torontonian, from what I have read ...

Alignment of exhaust (as with intake) is with local flowfield at flight condition that matters, both vertically and horizontally (which means the complication of a compound angle, see later). So if there's a bulge at the rear the flow follows it and hence nozzle alignment. Similarly in the vertical it's aligned with the downwash. So a rear podded engine has its nacelle pointed downwards at, say 3 degrees. Old-type buried installations with long distance between inlet and exhaust needed downwards curving jetpipe as flowfield significantly different from front to rear. For the Buccaneer this is not visually obvious from the usual side views, but downward curvature is shown to be very pronounced on drawings showing the engine installation (Roy Boot's book p.146). He mentions the actual compound angle was chosen to ensure the left and right jetpipes were not handed.

Also, for level flight at constant Mach number exhaust has to be inclined down relative to inflow by an amount which gives the maximum net propulsive force when weight is balanced by lift....... apparently. If you are interested in the explanation I'll look it out.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The jet pipes where canted outwards to prevent jet efflux buffeting of the rear fuselage, tail surfaces, and extended air brake. Buffeting causes accelerated metal fatigue and cracking of the skinning in the affected area. This is same reason for the canted jet pipes on the Comet 4/Nimrod.