A6 Intruder vs Bucc

[Navaleye]

I had a long lecture from a retired A6 driver last night about how good the A6 was and how it was the best carrier strike plane ever built etc etc. I'm on holiday so don't have any reference material to hand but I always thought the S2 beat it in just about every respect - can anyone give me some ammunition so I can shut him up?

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Objective Data

Weapon load (max) :
Bucc S.2 : 16,000lb
A-6E : 18,000lb

Thrust/Weight at MTOW:
Bucc S.2 : 22,200lbf @ 62,000lb : 0.36
A-6E : 18,300lbf @ 60,400lb : 0.30

Wing Loading @ MTOW:
Bucc S.2 : 62,000lb @ 515ft^2 : 120 lb/ft^2
A-6E : 60,400lb @ 529ft^2 : 114 lb/ft^2

Range (hard to get valid comparisons)
Bucc S.2 : 2,300nm "typical"
A-6E : 2,380nm "ferry"

Subjective Opinions

The A-6E is an ugly little thing; to be honest, on a blind test you'd have guessed it was the Blackburn design, not the Buccaneer.

From the numbers above both have similar flight performance. It looks like the Buccaneer has a slight edge in most categories (wing area based stuff is dodgy, because of the BLC - the Bucc probably has an advantage in 'real' wing loading)

In terms of avionics fit, the later Intruders likely outclass the Buccaneers. If you compare them in their service heydays, though, that's less of an issue.

[MerryDown]

Cannot say Ive seen an A-6 , but I wont forget watching "Mallet Blow" ? some years ago in Northumberland (Otterburn). The bulk of europes finest turned up, including a good few F-111 from Upper Heyford, Jags, Harriers, F-16 , A-10 la la la.
The F-111s missed everytime, One 3 ship flight of Buccs ran in ,no frills and put their 12 pounders right on the money. Nobody else over the 2 days I was there did this with such accuracy !.

Long Live the Buccanner..................


MerryDown

[John Eacott]

I always remember the A6 as the noisiest aircraft ever on the flight deck: horrendous howl the thing made. This is one of the photos taken when some of them cross decked from Independence, showing Bucc's and a couple of A6's in Fly One (plus the obligatory F4's :D):

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/Ark%20Fly%201.jpg

[4Greens]

The Buccaneer may have been capable of a higher IAS at sea level due greater airframe strength.

[ORAC]

Figures for performance are just about identical, but the Bucc does it with a much smaller deck footprint, which was probably a critical factor with the size of our carriers. The wonders of BLC.

A6/S2:
Length: 54ft 9in/ 51ft 10in (folded)
Wingspan: 53ft 0in/ 44ft 0in
Width (wings folded): 25ft 4in/ 19ft 11in
Wing area 528.9sq ft/ 514.7s ft
MTOW: 60,400lb/ 62,000ft

[safetypee]

I don’t know about the technical performance, but from a fighter guy who had to chase both, the crews who flew the Bucc won hands down.
Defending the Island in the Med from the hostile 6th fleet, an A6 at low level was a relatively easy target to find, particularly when it flew a pairs attack with an A7 in close formation; two kills for the price of one shot!

In the early days of defending the home fleet, the FAA flown Buccs were out to show the error of political decisions. A split pair of low level Buccs were difficult to locate even with good AEW, but the FAA crew's mistake was that they flew too low and the wake left on the sea would give their position away; thence there were some superb fights.
Thereafter, RAF flown Buccs either over water or over land were formidable opponents.

A minor down side to the FAA Bucc tanker, it was reported that it could not shut off the fuel flow to the receiver once engage, but on the other hand it had an airbrake for enforcement of the ‘fuel complete’ call.
--------------------
Airspeed and Upwardness

[Ivan Rogov]

Didn't realise how much bigger the A-6 was.
The A-6 is still in service sort of as the EA-6B, is it true that they are a bit slow when operating in packages? Was the A-6 much faster than the EA-6B and how did that compare with the Bucc? Were there ever any moves to update the Bucc cockpit (looked a bit agricultural to me := )

Remember seeing two Buccs attack a fighter base in the early 80's. They came very low through a small valley, popped up over the hill with the base on top and dissapeared agian in a matter of seconds. A couple of minutes later I heard the air raid siren go off, good work fellas :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

The big difference between the A6 and Bucc, for a long time, was that one flew in combat. Stephen Coontz Flight of the Intruder was a cracking story. The side-by-side versus tandem seats was also a debatable feature bit like the F111/TSR2 and F15/GR1/4.

Then again it was how they were flown.

Don't know if the A6 had flown at Red Flag by the time the Buccs flew there but the yanks were speachless until the fighter jocks got to look for the dust trails.

The issue of speed with the EA6B is, I suspect, a red-herring. Its mission is jamming and not NOE. It has to be seen and locked up to distract the enemy fro the real threat.

[Logistics Loader]

I was an Air Cadet at RAF Waddington Camp circa late 70's...

Story related by Vulcan crew ..

During Ex Giant Voice there were 2 Buccs under the shadow of a Vulcan,, all went low level with the Buccs breaking for a low run in...

American fighter controller could not keep up with his camera and was heard "look at those mother fekers go"

The Buccs dropped into a gully, only thing visible was the high tail plane..American jocks didnt go that low...no spine !!!

[Navaleye]

Thanks for the gen folks. I still have a home video of HMS Hermes Buccs beating up Farnborough '66 if anyone wants to see it. BEagle can tell you what is was like from on high.

[BEagle]

It was, for a 15 year old CCF cadet, absolutely epic! Didn't see much from the coal-hole of the Vixen I was sitting in though - but the view through the small window was good enough!

It took about a week to get the smile of my face.... :D

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Navaleye,

"home video" from 1966? Truly a man before your time!

Lovely thread by the way - 2 of my favourite aircraft.

[Navaleye]

A subtle fusion of old and new technology. The "film"itself was shot in "Super 8" 8mm (anyone still got one?). I had it converted to video and then to DVD.

[engineer(retard)]

Rogov

"Were there ever any moves to update the Bucc cockpit ?"

Many moves bu little money actually spent though. They did eventually get a bit of a digital computer to hang on the radar. Bit like putting a bionic tail on a donkey, impressive spec but did not make it much better at the job.

Regards

Retard

[The Claw]

At the time the US Navy used the A-6 in Vietnam (1965) it was reportedly equipped with the most sophisticated radar and avionics.

The Buccaneer entered combat in 1978 and in SAAF service it was used in combat until 1988. During this time it faced MiG-23's and a very sophisticated radar/SAM network. No Buccaneers were lost in combat.

I once asked the OC of 24 Sqn if they would replace the Buccaneer with the Tornado, if it wasn't for sanctions. His reply was that they would prefer more Buccaneers with updated avionics!

[trap one]

Main Spar cracks/failure led to demise of RAF Bucc, but does anybody know/flew the GR1 trials Bucc that had the GR1 radar. Always thought that that combination would have been a great "S3" adding the Boz and Skyshadow (working) on the outer wing pylons that the S1 had. Add a should pylon for an AIM9 and they'd still be front line aircraft.

Used to watch the LM Buccs attacking Buchan and Weyborne at Ultra L/L, only way to intercept them was to put the F4, F5 or Hunter in the radar overhead and snap them onto a 180x5 once the Bucc crossed the radar horizon. If you didn't do it straight away the bombs were away before the fighter got in behind. Most times it had to be a Gun shot (yes the Hunter had to go for Guns) as the Radar Missile would suffer fusing issues and the AIM9 wouldn't always get a lock.

[engineer(retard)]

Rumour has it that the Bucc/ Tonka radar version was better than the real thing because of the lack of a pitot probe in the radome structure. But rumours are like that.

[pr00ne]

trap one,

The end of the Cold war and surplus GR1 Tonkas led to the demise of the Bucc. The spar cracks/failures sure led to the demise of 216 Sqn as a Bucc outfit but the rest of the fleet recovered and was put back into service. This was some 12 years prior to the Bucc being retired.

[engineer(retard)]

Pr00ne

Wasn't the envelope reduced for those returned into service to keep them going until the GR1B was ready?

regards

retard

[Iron City]

Don't think it is a matter of versus, designed as I understand it for two different missions or at least came at the same mission from differrent points of view.

Don't know about the Bucc (but always liked the look of it) but the last incarnation of the A-6 (A-6E w/ TRAM) is the vehicle of choice when they absolutely possitively have to be killed overnight in any weather. The fire control radar (APQ-148 by Norden) was a super system and the team of a pilot and B/N could accurately bomb with either iron or guided weapons from the deck up to whatever altitude you wanted any time, any weather, anywhere. Left USN service because of wing spar cracks and other airframe fatigue factors (you only get so many launches/traps out of an airframe) and systems needingreplacement ... they just became uneconomical to support.

Should you want numbers the NATOPS manual is at home, but the numbers quoted earlier in the thread look about right. A-6 was never particularly fast but could get you there and back and take a lot of s*it from ground fire of various kinds. Was also a bit of a handful to get aboard the boat sometimes but you are talking a pretty big airplane.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

A6 also had a number of roles it could fulfil, among them air-to-air refuelling. I believe it was capable of carrying it's empty weight in fuel in internal and centreline tanks.

[Pontius Navigator]

I recall 2 Buc trips. One was a Hi-Lo-Hi attack on Gibraltar from, I think, Ark in the Swapps. Possibly a Mark 1 even when they were trying to persuade their airships to buy it.

The other was an unrefuelled flight from Goose to UK. Can't remember the destination airfield but the Bucc at Goose taxied to the runway, shut down and topped up the tanks. Then, I seem to remember, had a problem starting an engine and used most of the top up fuel before they launched.

I think they made it but apparently the clouds were full of Bucc AAR just in case.

Anyone care to confirm either story?

[Navaleye]

The Ark attack was true. IIRC two a/c were launched from the Irish Sea, "hit" Gib and returned safely to mother.

[Lower Hangar]

We had an exchange USN Lt ex A6 BN ( Jake Richards -I think) on 736 and later 809 and he opined to me that the Bucc at low level high speed was less tiring in terms of buffet /vibration etc than the A6. A nice subjective comment to add to all the objective data.

[tu chan go]

Engineer (retard)

In 1986/7, there was a programme to update the avionics in the Bucc. After several versions, we ended up with "the austere cut-back package".

This consisted of - an Inertial Nav platform (the same as the Jaguar - FIN 1064, I think), new radios and not much else. There was no improvement to the radar as this was lost in one of the cost cutting exercises. They did, however, move the radio from one side of the rear cockpit to the other side at the same cost as the improved radar would have been. We could not have the radar upgrade as "the contract has been written and it would cost more to change it" This was a travesty as I saw the results of the radar upgrade when we visited Ferranti in Edinburgh.

The IN platform was simply to provide the Sea Eagle missile with an accurate updated position prior to launch. It was not a navigational aid as the only display was a read out of lat/long which then had to be plotted on a map. NO information was provided to the pilot!

[engineer(retard)]

tu chan go

Thanks for the info, I stopped working on Parrot in 87. As I left the austere package included the TMC replacement. I suspect that you saw the full upgrade package. The accuracy of the replacement TMC would have been negated by the reversion to the valve driven CRL and CRS after lock. We could never get a good linear set up on them so used to try and get best results between 4 and 7 nm based on aircrew advice.

I remembered the IN after I posted and recalled that it was to be the same as the Jag. I'm not sure how much the IN would have helped Sea Eagle without the TMC upgrade. Because the old TMC took the target range and bearing from the SM Co-Co (cogs and synchros) for Sea Eagle prior to the update.

[Pontius Navigator]

I have an idea that Blackburn used area rule on the Bucc and Convair (I think) effectively rebuilt the F102 (dragster) with the F106 (area rule) around the same era.

Was the Bucc either the first aircraft with area rule or the first in volume production?

Is area rule still in vogue in today's designs?

[exleckie]

Engineer(retard)

Ref the pitot probe on Tornado, during GW1, it gave off a massive radar signature ( to the point where radar operatives could identify it as a tornado), so trials were conducted to apply a radar absorbent coating to as far along the probe without being burnt by the heater.

One of Qineitiqs' Tornado fleet (the raspberry ripple one), I believe is the only Tonka with that coating sttill on the pitot tube.

So yes, you were right in a way.

Cheers mate.

[engineer(retard)]

Exleckie

I was probably being too brief in my explanation. I think that the performance differences were more to do with putting a lump of conductor in the near field of the radar and affecting the radiation pattern and overall performance, rather than the aircraft being lit up by another radar. I do not have any detail though.

Regards

Retard

[exleckie]

Yeh, no worries.

See what you mean but this has got me thinking!

Tonka as you probably know has two radars, Ground Mapping Radar and Terrain Following Radar. (unless it''s an F3, different kettle of frogs)_________This is common knowledge by the way, no secrets _______

I don't know of any circumstance where the pitot probe, associated piping, electrics and lightning strip have affected the scan Tx/Rx of both radars.

I have no idea why!

Gonna have to dig out my notes.

[ACW418]

Pontius,

I think you will find that both the Hunter and the Swift had area rule and I think both of them were in volume production before the Bucc. The two seat version of the Hunter showed the area rule off best IIRC.

ACW

[Safety_Helmut]

ex leckie

the retarded engineer is very polite, too polite in my opinion. You do not seem to undertsand the fundamentals of the discussion, why then do you post such ill informed dross on this discussion. It is not about a search radar many miles away picking up the probe, its about the Tonka radar being affected by the probe not 50 inches away.

I seem to have replied to a few of your posts recently, it's nothing personal. Lets stick to what we know about ?

Safety_Helmut

[Zoom]

I had heard about position of the pitot tube being a problem with the Tornado but never with, for example, the F-4E. I'll say no more in case I incur Helmut's wrath.

Re the area rule, I don't think the Swift and Hunter obeyed it particularly, and the T7 got there more by accident than good judgement by dint of the side-by-side seating. If my (rather poor) memory serves me well, it applies more at transonic and supersonic speeds than at the lesser speeds normally flown by the first generation jets. The F-102 was, to my knowledge, the first successful application of it, and that was after some considerable anguish and then modification. Most of the F-4s obeyed it to a fair degree, the exceptions being the bloated UK models. The Typhoon? Doesn't look like it comes within miles of it, but maybe it has the power not to need to.

[Lower Hangar]

Ref the Bucc S2 non stop trans atlantic flight I was at RNAS Lossie ( yes RNAS ) in mid 60's ( probably 65-66) when an S2 landed having completed non stop Goose Green to Lossie.. The Bucc S2 IFTU had just formed....unfortunately I was stuck on S1 at the time ( Gyron Junior, ATA's, Black & White TCV's etc etc.....what a nightmare) :* :*

[engineer(retard)]

SH

Thank you, I cannot ever recall being too polite. Think I'll print this page.

Ex-leckie

I have expreience of both types, as well. Unless you were involved in the development programme you are unlikely to have any information on radiation patterns in your course notes or where design compromises have been made. Radome design is done by Tefal heads.

This is a bit like the area rule question, I have the worlds supply of reference material within reach, but I do not want to open the books in case I do not understand my own notes. Premature dementia

Regards

Retard

[Navaleye]

completed non stop Goose Green to Lossie

Goose Green in our beloved Falkland Islands? :O That must have been an interesting trip. I'm sure you meant Goose Bay.

[airborne_artist]

Goose Green in our beloved Falkland Islands? That must have been an interesting trip. I'm sure you meant Goose Bay.

The take off alone would have been interesting :cool:

[Gainesy]

Then there is the story of the obs in the back of an S.1 who reported half way through the take off roll: "Crew all well, no scurvy as yet".

[forget]

Seems that the F-102 was the first with area ruling.

CONVAIR F-102 DELTA DAGGER/F-106 DELTA DART

……….the US Air Force wanted to speed development and service entry by building tooling from the outset, assuming there would only be minor changes between the aircraft and production models. This ‘Craigie Plan’, named for the two generals who devised it, fell apart when the YF-102, was flown by Dick Johnson for the first on 24 October 1953, resolutely refused to go supersonic in level flight. Various changes were tried, including a cambered wing surface, but these not help the basic problem until principles of Dr Richard Whitcomb's new ‘area rule’ were implemented. Broadly speaking, this rule states that the best drag coefficient is achieved when a plot of a body’s - in this case, an aircraft’s cross-section from nose to tail, produces a smooth curve. To compensate for the wing, the fuselage should be slimmer along the wing root. It being impossible to slim the fuselage much, a similar effect could be achieved by lengthening the nose and adding bulged surfaces on the rear fuselage. Working day and night, Convair’s engineers revised the design thoroughly, also repositioning the intakes, enlarging the fin and completely redesigning the canopy. The new ‘Hot Rod’ YF-102A flew on 20 December 1954 and had no trouble reaching Mach 1.2 the following day. Despite needing a further fin enlargement, the design remained much the same for the 873 F-102As that followed. The only variant was the TF-102A trainer, which had an unusual side-by-side canopy in a widened fuselage. As such, the ‘T-bird’ remained essentially subsonic, but retained its weapons capabilities.

From 'Fighter'. Jim Winchester.

[Schiller]

I don't believe the Hunter was area ruled. The Scimitar was, though.

[dmanton300]

Ref the Bucc S2 non stop trans atlantic flight I was at RNAS Lossie ( yes RNAS ) in mid 60's ( probably 65-66) when an S2 landed having completed non stop Goose Green to Lossie.. The Bucc S2 IFTU had just formed....unfortunately I was stuck on S1 at the time ( Gyron Junior, ATA's, Black & White TCV's etc etc.....what a nightmare)

Sounds like you were on S.1's at Lossie about the same time as my old man. But he was a bomb-head and so goes misty eyed at the very mention of the Bucc (it must be hereditary. . so do I!)

[Pontius Navigator]

OK, the Scimitar predated the Buccaneer. When was the Mk 1 Bucc designed?


The original Scimitar would have been an interesting aircraft to land. Wasn't it designed to land on a skid having jettisonned its boggies on take-off?

[Gainesy]

Bucc (or NA.39) design work started in November 1953 with the Blackburn design number B.103. Shortly before the design was to be put forward for consideration, preliminary information on the benefits of area ruling became available and the design was changed over a matter of days.

Above paraphrases about a page from his book by Roy Boot, who designed the beast.

NA.39 first flight was 30 April 1958 from RAE Bedford, A-6 was in April 1960.

Did you know the A-6 prototype (YA2F-1 as it then was) had vectoring (30deg down) nozzles? This had also been considered in the early design stage of the NA.39.

[Iron City]

Speaking of A-6 and Grumman and area rule a excellent example is the F11F Tiger. If you needed an illustration for a dictionary for area rule that would be it. Was flown by the Blue Angels for a number of years, never really went operational reputed to be so fast that it ran into it's own lowish velocity cannon shells. doubt that ws really the reason.

[The Rocket]

I don't believe the Hunter was area ruled. The Scimitar was, though.

T-Bird Hunter had Area Ruling applied when the side by side cockpit arrangement was designed.

Apparently (I have no personal knowledge) this made the T-Bird more efficient in the end than the single seater.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Wasn't the Intruder designed for primarily ground attack but the Buccaneer was intended mainly for anti shipping strike/attack?

[Lower Hangar]

Yes of course ...I really meant Goose Bay. I think its what is now termed as a 'senior moment'

I crossed decked once with the Windy Indy (hosted by VA-65) and when the A6's landed the Pilot gave the deck crew 2x Thumbs Up. 1st one meant the a/c was OK, 2nd one meant the Systems were OK. On querying the Maintenance Chief what systems were down on one A6 that just landed he said the UHF was U/S but its OK it has another 2 !!!

[BEagle]

The T-bird Hunter went through many different design stages to find a profile which wouldn't cause buffeting and drag at high transonic speeds. Double bubble side-by-side didn't work; eventually a metal cockpit shape (except windscreen) and hump fairing designed with area rule were tried and proved to be excellent. That led to the well-known T7/T8 shape..

At high speed, the T-bird was really good and would go supersonic in a dive without any drama. I never flew a single seat Hunter with the little 100-series engine (F Mk 4 or GA Mk 11), so can't do a direct comparison between the T-birds and single seat versions I flew.

With the 200-series engine, the 6s and 9s had a lot more grunt than the T7/T8 so were better in doggers; the real deal would have been a big-engined T-bird. There was one in UK service, the Hunter 12, but I believe that Boscombe totalled it?

I once heard that there were plans for a 200-series engined T-bird to assist in training for the TSR2, but don't know the truth of that.

[alf5071h]

The Hunter T7/8 did not have area rule, the bulge was entirely due to the side by side seating similar to the Lightning T4/5. Area rule is applied to even-out the cross-section along the length of the aircraft, providing a smooth change in profile, thus the Bucc was a fine example.

However, a Hunter F1 (WT571) was modified in 1955 with a bulge aft of the wing to investigate the advantages of area rule. It was reported that there was a small increase in speed performance.

[BEagle]

It was decided that the T-bird would be unchanged aft of the front transport joint, which limited design possibilities. First flights of the original P1101 design XJ615 in 1955 revealed unacceptable buffeting above M0.84.

The buffeting was eliminated by 'Cliff' Bore's area-ruled hood fairing in 1956. He later became Head of Research at Kingston.

Transonic drag rise was delayed by virtue of the T-birds' area-ruled cockpit hood fairing and it had less drag at high IMN compared to the single seat aircraft.

[Iron City]

WE Branch: A-6 designed to meet a ground/surface attack requirement. Used radar and later other means to attaack anything on the surface (either solid or liquid) any time any weather. The idea was a specialist medium attack aircraft that could pack all the technology to do these things and be smaller (relatively) than heavy attack A-3D or A-5 series but more capable than light attack A-4D or F4D and other types given bomb racks and suddenly christened fighterbombers. with the 2 crew could use the early guided and sort of smart weapons then available. Not a prticularly fast aircraft (500 knots or so) but it would get you there and get you back. In a tanker variant (KA-6D) served the CV air wings with organic tanking capability when KA-3s not available though every TACAIR aircraft could carry at least a buddy store

It worked out pretty well and resulted in a very capable aircraft well regarded by crews, even with well known weaknesses. Was not as popular with the owneers of transient lines it visited because of the tendency to leak fuel at no provocation at all. Usual solution was lots of maintenance resealing the wing and the use of numerous sh*t cans under the wings.

[Widger]

John Eacott,

Just seen your photo post..almost came in me pants!

I remember 1987 in Ark Royal. Exercise Purple Warrior. Deck full of 800/801 and 1 Sqn, or was it 801, 1 and 3 ...can't remember, plus a few cabs. Exercise had moved to the harrassment phase. Two Buccs came down the deck at about 100' dropping fuel..loads of it. FD crew running around the deck, Wings going balistic. Soapy says to Captain...
"Now if they were F1-11s they could have lit it as well, THAT would be harrassment!"

Beautiful aircraft, like most British designs of that era..A6 is pure uglyness.

Very happy to rise this back up the rankings