Did A Bucc Fly Through Brough's Hangar
 

Heard about the time a Bucc was flown though Brough's hangar in the 60's/70's?.

Somebody called - 'Jacko Jackson'??

Is it true?

Thx For Any Replies.

A friend of mine (an ex-RAF Officer who worked on Buccs for much of his service life) told me a story about a Buccaneer pilot flying along the runway at Honington at very low altitude with his hands behind his head. They never built any dual-control Buccs so it wasn't a case of the back seater flying it. Apparently, if you trimmed it properly and set it up straight and level very close to a smooth flat surface, it was virtually impossible to fly a Bucc into the ground because of "wing in ground effect".

I remember stories of a Bucc flying between the hangers somewhere. Might have been the same guy, also at Honington. There was also a large photo in a magazine in the 70's showing a Bucc banked at 90 degrees flying between a row of trees at the end of a field (near Lossiemouth?) whilst practicing for Red Flag so they would sometimes fly extremely low. From what I was told, the Bucc was one of the best low level aircraft from an aerodynamic perspective. I don't remember any stories about a Bucc flying through a hanger though.

Perhaps some of the former Bucc aircrew will have some low-flying stories they could share?

Porrohman. I have been led to believe that 1 Buccaneer was dual stick. I think it may have been the one with the RAE, and is now at Thunder City, SA, it having the amazing good fortune of being videoed by me 3 years ago there. I t would NOT have been a squadron Bucc.

At Honington they used Hunters, decked out like Buccs, including the hook, for training.

Only trouble was that a Bucc could take the fast end wire, the Hunter could only take the stop end wire as one found out to it's expense one day :)

The 2-stick Buccaneer, XV344, was an ex-FAA aircraft extensively modified and operated by the RAE at Farnborough. Christened Nightbird due to its experimental use, a removable control column could be fitted in the rear cockpit - no rudder or throttles. The design and modification was carried out at Cranfield.

The rear stick was intended to allow a safety pilot to take control if it was considered a hazardous situation was developing. However, even by day the forward view from the rear cockpit was hardly ideal for such a responsibility. At low-level by night, without the full benefit of the EO displays fitted in the front cockpit and precious little visible when wearing NVGs, not much point really. Hence, the stick was fitted for an assessment by the tps at Brough and then left on the shelf thereafter,

Rather an expensive and prolonged exercise that was overtaken by the confidence and safety procedures developed during nigh low-flying using NVGs in alternative aircraft.

The aircraft was in a pretty appalling state when delivered direct from Ark Royal but after much RAE tender loving care it was a pleasure to fly. It now rests on a concrete plinth, hidden away in the middle of the QinetiQ site at Farnborough. I stroke it when I pass by.

lm

PF said......
"At Honington they used Hunters, decked out like Buccs, including the hook, for training.

Only trouble was that a Bucc could take the fast end wire, the Hunter could only take the stop end wire as one found out to it's expense one day "

Anyone have any pics of a Hunter avec hook? Or any links to YouTube?

Just curious.........

SAAF Brics
 

Had the unfortunate pleasure of watching A Saffer Bric do a wheels up at Swakopmund back in the mid 70s. One of lifes small memories.

All Hunter G.A.11s and T.8s had arrester hooks.

Lightningmate - please say Hi to 344 for me next time you pass - first flew her in May 84 when she came out of the sheds (after a long rest!!)

A Honington Hunter T7 (with hook):

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...L568-26-83.jpg

Quick thread creep......

Was a Hunter ever modded to do deck landings - either land based or at sea?

Thanks for the pic PF.

1138,
I very much doubt it, when a Hunter took the fast end wire at Honington it more or less broke the back of the aircraft, on a carrier there isn't exactly a 'slow' wire that it could take.

From: Hawker Hunter development - the complete story from concept to service

An initial contract for 55 "Hunter Trainer Mark 7 (T.7)" machines was placed by the RAF, with the first production machine performing its initial flight on 11 October 1957, and the first deliveries to the RAF following shortly after. Only 45 of the 55 originally ordered were actually delivered to the RAF, with the other ten diverted to the Royal Navy FAA, as described below.

The RAF also received six additional T.7s as conversions from ex-RAF F.4s. Incidentally, conversion from an F.4 to a T.7 was apparently a straightforward process, requiring fit of a new forward fuselage but few or no changes from the wings on back. The modular construction of the Hunter not only eased assembly and maintenance but made modification relatively easy, a virtue that would help keep the Hunter in service for a long time.

Four of the T.7s were modified with the "OR946 Integrated Flight Instrumentation System (IFIS)", used on the English Electric Lightning and the Blackburn Buccaneer , and given the new designation of "T.7A". One more T.7 was brought up to the same standard later and may have been given the designation "T.7B", at least unofficially. In any case, these modified T.7s were originally used as trials machines but later were pressed into service to train Buccaneer aircrew.

As the T.7 was going into production, the Royal Navy's FAA decided they were in need of a new trainer to support higher-performance fighters then going into service, such as the de Havilland Sea Vixen and the Supermarine Scimitar. The FAA decided to acquire a variant of the T.7, the "Hunter T.8", to replace Hawker Sea Fury and de Havilland Vampire trainers. Ten of the 55 machines ordered by the RAF were diverted to the FAA, as mentioned above.

The T.8 was very similar to the T.7, but lacked the radio compass and DME (radio distance measuring equipment) gear of the T.7, and was fitted with an arresting hook. The T.8 wasn't stressed to land on a carrier and the arresting hook was meant for practice landings on ground strips fitted up to simulate a carrier deck. To add to confusion, some of the FAA T.8s didn't have the arresting hook while some of the RAF T.7s did, so it is not an entirely reliable distinguishing feature between the two variants.

Refering back to AlphaIndia's original question - I don't recall there being any double-ended through-hangars at Brough. Perhaps it was Holme on Spalding Moor.

Given the hangar layout at HOSM that'd take some fancy flying, even for a Bucc.

They were a series of very low fly pasts on the closure of HOSM. Could it have been between the hangars?

I do admit to having flown between the hangars and the ATC tower at Honington, rather below the level of the tower roof.

But that wasn't in a Bucc.....







....it was in a Vulcan. XL319 on 17 Jun 1978, to be precise. And boy, were we ever in the deep and smelly afterwards!

Between the hangars and the tower?

That's awfully close to my sim:=

(Sadly, before my time though:{)

Quote
...it was in a Vulcan. XL319 on 17 Jun 1978, to be precise. And boy, were we ever in the deep and smelly afterwards!

Reply
And you just missed the 'WO's office - By a Hairpiece.Lol:D:cool:

Before my time also, I didn't work in the Honington tower until 79 ..... thank phuck :)

BEagle, the gentleman who flew down the runway with his hands behind his head was, I think, the same chap who flew between the hangers. It was his last flight/one of his last flights before leaving the RAF and I think he ended up in the same smelly stuff that you landed in. I'll bet it was worth it though :ok: :D Did anyone photograph your little adventure?

b.t.w. I was just looking at an aerial photo of Honington on Live Search Maps . It appears to have been censored as some of the dispersals look like they've been whited out; Compare this image; Web browser and Live Maps are incompatible with this one; Honington - Google Maps . Maybe it's a common thing but it's the first time I've noticed censoring of aerial photos on the web.