Buccanneer vs. Hunter

[Melchett01]

They say never start with an apology, but I feel I need to seek absolution - any Padres in the house? In a moment of boredom, I found myself watching 'that Will Young video' in between the channel hopping.

Having taken myself outside for a stern talking to, I did actually start to wonder... assuming that they were attempting to portray a quasi-dog fight scenario Bucc vs Hunter, in reality what would have been the outcome if you had put one of each up against the other? I realise there are probably some of the old and bold spilling their coco thinking, don't be stupid would never have happened, whilst others will probably have gone into a semi-comatose dream like state with what's left of their minds slipping back to the happier days when we had an airforce (although not necessarily dreaming of time spent on the Bucc OCU :\ )

Either way, humour me - I'm a mere whipper snapper who joined up after we got rid of all our decent ac. So what would have won assuming both ac were in similar fits? I always used to hear that the only thing to defeat a Bucc was another well flown Bucc. Is that true or would the young Mr Young have been decorating Table Top mountain with a new shade of red? Pulling up a sand bag and waiting for some interesting stories ....... oh Beags where are you? You must have flown at least one of these - even if it was an earlier version :E

Oh and apologies if this seems to overlap with PN's earlier Hunter thread - I only spotted it after posting - Mod if you think it is too similar and should be merged please go ahead

[BEagle]

It would have to be a very unlucky Buccaneer that would have been caught by a Hunter at low level where the Buccaneer was supreme - it was hard enough to catch them in a Phantom. Since RAF Hunters only had guns, it would take a lot of luck and bravery to get a convincing gun kill against a turf-hugging Bucc down in the weeds doing well over 540 KIAS.
An ex-892 sqn CO who I knew in the 1960s showed me lots of Hunter GGS camera shots of Vixens and other Hunters he'd caught - but never any Buccaneers.
However, ask one of the guys who flew either type operationally. I only did the 'pre-Vulcan short Buccaneer course' (i.e. got chopped from the Bucc OCU) and only flew Hunters during training, so am not really qualified to answer your questions, I'm afraid.

[4Greens]

We used to leave Hunters well behind, at low level, flying Scimitars let alone Buccaneers. At high level a Hunter could out turn you but we could run away faster.

[flown-it]

we gave the crabs our 'tooms, taught 8 how to do AEW, parked the trusty gannet and Oh, what to do with the bucc? They don't want it. At least I thought that was the story so I'm surprised to hear you light blues give it such a good rep. I'm several decades removed from all things mil so forgive me but I'd love to hear what you guys really thought of it.

[Navaleye]

taught 8 how to do AEW

Leave 8 Sqn alone. They had "8 sucks" on the crew room wall until ordered to remove it. Anyone remember Cpl Graham Sabin?

[Onan the Clumsy]

I can't speak for the Buccaneer, but the Hunter did have some amazing stats. According to this web site (http://freespace.virgin.net/hillman.hunter/) it's a single engine design with a crew of up to four. It saw service between 1966 and 1979 at which point it was sold off to Iran. Later versions included the transport version (introduced in 1970) and an upgraded electrical system in 8 fuses in 1973. ECM was also introduced in the form of a heated rear window. 1970 and 1972 saw cockpit instrumentation upgrades (NOTE: this would be a great subject for the 'What Cockpit?' thread on AH&N).

Tight budgets in 1975 resulted in a planned rearward facing radar to be replaced with a tailgate wash/wipe system, on the transport version, though it should be noted that this was still considered quite revolutionary at the time. Later in 1975, the Topaz was created as a Naval variant. This was later scrapped as the structure could not withstand the strain of repeated catapult rides.

Early versions were said to achieve top speeds in the range of 75 knots (at sea level) with later versions topping out at just under 90 kias, again at sea level, possibly on a nice trip to Morcambe.

Fuel consumption figures come in at around 20 pounds per hour at max chat, which given the reasonably simple single tank system gave it a range of about 200 miles, and restricted its role to local defense. Oddly, In Drive Refueling was never tried with this model, though turn round times and servicing availability were quite sprightly, as noted during trials at the Charnock Richards improvised front line facility on the M6.

Whilst the Hunter certainly couldn't outrun a Buccaneer, it could certainly use its 17 foot turning radius to out turn it, and let's be honest, that's one of the most important features in the combat environment.

Personally, I think it would have given the Buccaneer a run for its money.

Here's a pic of one in what looks like late WWII Photo Recon colour scheme, specially designed to blend in with early morning and late evening skies.

http://freespace.virgin.net/hillman.hunter/images/purple.jpg

[charliegolf]

Just removing the gaff hook from my lip having seen the crew of 4 bit and thinking, 'Wha.....'

Nice one!.

CG

[Dr Illitout]

4Greens. "We could run away faster"?????
Thats not the kind of talk I expect from a "Steely eyed jet jock"!!!!!!!!.

Rgds Dr I

[The SSK]

Bollox, that's a Humber Sceptre or, on the Continent, a Sunbeam Sceptre.
Mine was gold not pink.

[doubledolphins]

Talking to an old Buc jock a few years back he was relating the tail (ok, swinging the lamp) of a trip during Confrontation in the 60,s. He and his looker were startled by a pair of Mustangs rapidly passing down one side. After recovering back on he was asked by his Chief to go and look at his tail, which had developed a few holes. Lucky shot? yes but they had not felt a thing!

[ORAC]

8 Sqn - "4 screws are better than 2 blow jobs"......

[jimgriff]

Shouldn't that be 8 screws better than 4 blow jobs?????

[GeeRam]

We used to leave Hunters well behind, at low level, flying Scimitars let alone Buccaneers. At high level a Hunter could out turn you but we could run away faster.


A ex-Scimitar driver........:eek:

Now there's an a/c I haven't seen many tales of written here.....

[TimL]

I can only offer a backseater's point of view here, but since no Bucc pilots apart from BEags have appeared, I'll give it a go. Much as we all loved the aeroplane, I don't think anyone who flew Buccs would claim that air combat was its strong suit. The OCU used to train us in what was called STRIPRO - strike progression - the aim being to get as much of the formation as possible to the target if you were bounced, even if it meant detaching one or two aircraft to detain the attacker. On the OCU, the Hunter T7 was often used as the bounce, but that was not a particularly realistic comparison of the two types.

The Bucc's main defensive tactic was high speed towards the target - we tried to avoid getting into a turning fight if at all possible (except for fun, of course!) At the time I was flying them (mid-70s) we had no defensive armament, although we all reckoned that a 1000 lb retard released when the bogey was at about a half a mile in your 6 o'clock would make his eyes water!

Tim

[LOMCEVAK]

The Hunter would outturn a Buccaneer, both sustained and instantaneous, at all altitudes and speeds by a significant margin. It would always win a turning fight.

Maximum sustained level flight speed at sea level would depend on the Mark of Hunter (the 100 series Avon engines in the T7 had 7500 lbs of thrust, the 200 series in the F6/FGA9 had 10250 lbs) and the external stores on the Bucc. However, a Bucc and a Hunter F6/FGA9 had a similar max speed so neither had a real advantage here. However, the Bucc had a lot more fuel and could go a very long way at max speed whereas the Hunter could not.

Finally, the Bucc had a high wing loading, good autostabs and an excellent ride in gusts at the very low heights at which it could be flown. The Hunter could be flown just as low as the Bucc on a smooth day, but with a relatively low wing loading, the high speed ride in turbulence was VERY uncomfortable.

Hope this answers the question.

[rlsbutler]

Singapore 62-64 ... good old days !

The first Buccs to come to Tengah were Mk 1 with Gyron Junior engines. One evening in the officers mess (under the downwind leg, whichever circuit was in use) we all turned out into the night to investigate one of these engines at full chat directly above us. Apparently this model needed to trade 800ft, of the 1000ft provided, to recover from an engine loss at circuit speed. This model was quickly replaced.

Around this time, the same carrier (Hermes ? Ark ?) had a squadron of Scimitars embarked. These were monsters, having two Avons each more powerful than the one in our resident Hunters Mk 9. There was one naval Hunter T7 at Tengah to do instrument rating renewals, which apparently happened once a year; cossetted Canberra pilots like me knew we were liable to develop bad habits - what sort of bad habits did a machine like that give rise to ? I for one still believe (what may the urban myth) that this squadron failed to get home any of the pilots it embarked with.

Getting to the point of the thread, in my time in the Far East the Buccs Mk 2 were virtually untouchable. The 20 Sqn (Hunter) guys, usually full of BS, had nothing to show that they could find them let alone intercept them. We did a lot of exercises with the USAF out of the Philippines - they held the Buccs in awe, even if their interceptors (F-102 ?) seemed to be ineffective at low level where we all operated. A lot of exercise tasking was over the sea, where naturally Buccs were in their element so to speak. I had one experience, loitering over the West coast of Malaya, of picking up an incoming Bucc not because I could see him but because of the wake (like a short contrail) it was leaving on the water. I would have been a very nervous Hunter pilot if I had been expected to do a high quarter on that target !

[4Greens]

4Greens. "We could run away faster"?????
Thats not the kind of talk I expect from a "Steely eyed jet jock"!!!!!!!!.
Rgds Dr I

That's why I'm still around!

[flown-it]

Victorious had 801 Sqdn Bucc mk1s at that time. Think it was the first embarked bucc squadron. Gyron Juniors were indeed short of puff. Poor old Vic..South China Sea, no wind and gotta launch the Buccs with a coupla 25lb practice bombs. As the song goes... A seat in the Goofers was worth Fifty Quid!!!

[Blacksheep]

Nice car Onan, but not a Hunter. Developed from the Hillman Hunter, with which it shared the chassis, the Humber Sceptre's 1725 c.c Rootes engine was kitted with a higher compression ratio, enlarged inlet and exhaust valves, high lift cams and twin Stromberg carburettors, pushing the power output up to a massive 107 brake horsepower. Properly tuned and in single seater trim, with no luggage or spare in the boot (trunk for our transatlantic cousins) she was good for 98 m.p.h (on unlimited continental roads, naturally) and could pull 0 to 60 in 9.4 seconds. My own Humber Sceptre was green - much better concealed when hammering along at low level among the country lanes of Oxfordshire. The pink ones were meant for desert operations I believe?

Oh the joys of fine tuning a pair of twin Strombergs on a Sunday afternoon and scattering startled MGB's off the road during the post maintenance test runs. Them were the days, they were. :ok:

[GeeRam]

the Humber Sceptre's 1725 c.c Rootes engine was kitted with a higher compression ratio, enlarged inlet and exhaust valves, high lift cams and twin Stromberg carburettors, pushing the power output up to a massive 107 brake horsepower.

107 hp........:eek: :eek:

In the same way Hawker's Hunter had a 25,000 lb thrust Avon.....in ones dreams only.....:rolleyes: :D

Humber Sceptre had all of 79hp......even the top of the range 'performance' Hunter GLS with it's twin Weber Holbay engine, only had 93hp......;)