Sea Vixen Fuel Management
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yossarianabu
The Sea Vixen fuel system was, indeed, a nightmare. We often shut down one engine on LLCAP and I spent more time (as a Looker) managing the fuel system than I spent looking for bad guys on the radar. It was even worse if you drew the short straw and ended up flying the Vixen tanker from the deck. Unlike many Lookers, I survived and moved on to F4's but I'm still waiting for my DFC!!
This Sea Vixen thread brings happy memories from 45 years ago when I and my Tiger Moth (pic below) were very privileged to be guests of the Royal Naval Aircraft Yard, Sydenham. The skipper, Captain Monk, had instructed on TMs during the war and it was a treat to fly with him. We flew from the Naval officers' golf course alongside the tower and nobody seemed to mind the tailskid furrows along the turf -- or they were too polite to mention them.
The Yard had its own Vixen which carried the Red Hand of Ulster on its fins and (all this is from memory) was flown solo on occasion. Then came an edict that Sea Vixens required a permanent Looker because the pilot could not access all controls. I think this included some aspect of fuel management. While pilots were on hand at the Yard, Lookers came and went, so it was agreed that a civilian Looker could be trained to fill in when necessary.
The lucky (?) man was my friend Ivan, a radar techie who was familiar with the beast's electronic innards. So the Yard's Sea Vixen, always polished to perfection, was adorned with the names of the Lt/Cdr (Air) Tom Tuke on one side, and Mr Ivan Mawhinney on the other. I tried Ivan's Coal-Hole and did not fancy it one bit, although the Looker's seat in the nose of the PR9 Canberra proved even worse.
Incidentally, Sea Vixen nose 125 at IWM Duxford was flown there from Sydenham, the remaining machines being broken up. After takeoff 125's gear would not retract so it was decided to leave it down rather than risk the obvious problem. Just thought I would mention this in case anyone fancies giving 125 an airing someday
The Yard had its own Vixen which carried the Red Hand of Ulster on its fins and (all this is from memory) was flown solo on occasion. Then came an edict that Sea Vixens required a permanent Looker because the pilot could not access all controls. I think this included some aspect of fuel management. While pilots were on hand at the Yard, Lookers came and went, so it was agreed that a civilian Looker could be trained to fill in when necessary.
The lucky (?) man was my friend Ivan, a radar techie who was familiar with the beast's electronic innards. So the Yard's Sea Vixen, always polished to perfection, was adorned with the names of the Lt/Cdr (Air) Tom Tuke on one side, and Mr Ivan Mawhinney on the other. I tried Ivan's Coal-Hole and did not fancy it one bit, although the Looker's seat in the nose of the PR9 Canberra proved even worse.
Incidentally, Sea Vixen nose 125 at IWM Duxford was flown there from Sydenham, the remaining machines being broken up. After takeoff 125's gear would not retract so it was decided to leave it down rather than risk the obvious problem. Just thought I would mention this in case anyone fancies giving 125 an airing someday
Steamchicken,
The intention was to use the Sea Vixens retired from FAA service as realistic targets to evaluate the effectiveness of various anti aircraft missiles. The drone control pack fitted in place of the observers seat. There were a number of electrical actuators distributed around the aircraft to operate the flight and engine controls, together with an independent system to destroy the aircraft if control was lost when flown as a drone.
To allow the drone control system to be developed, the aircraft could be flown with a safety pilot who could monitor its performance and take over control and land it if the drone system failed. In principle it was a similar system to that recently retired on the USAF F4 Phantoms.
Walbut
The intention was to use the Sea Vixens retired from FAA service as realistic targets to evaluate the effectiveness of various anti aircraft missiles. The drone control pack fitted in place of the observers seat. There were a number of electrical actuators distributed around the aircraft to operate the flight and engine controls, together with an independent system to destroy the aircraft if control was lost when flown as a drone.
To allow the drone control system to be developed, the aircraft could be flown with a safety pilot who could monitor its performance and take over control and land it if the drone system failed. In principle it was a similar system to that recently retired on the USAF F4 Phantoms.
Walbut
Steamchicken,
The intention was to use the Sea Vixens retired from FAA service as realistic targets to evaluate the effectiveness of various anti aircraft missiles. The drone control pack fitted in place of the observers seat. There were a number of electrical actuators distributed around the aircraft to operate the flight and engine controls, together with an independent system to destroy the aircraft if control was lost when flown as a drone.
To allow the drone control system to be developed, the aircraft could be flown with a safety pilot who could monitor its performance and take over control and land it if the drone system failed. In principle it was a similar system to that recently retired on the USAF F4 Phantoms.
Walbut
The intention was to use the Sea Vixens retired from FAA service as realistic targets to evaluate the effectiveness of various anti aircraft missiles. The drone control pack fitted in place of the observers seat. There were a number of electrical actuators distributed around the aircraft to operate the flight and engine controls, together with an independent system to destroy the aircraft if control was lost when flown as a drone.
To allow the drone control system to be developed, the aircraft could be flown with a safety pilot who could monitor its performance and take over control and land it if the drone system failed. In principle it was a similar system to that recently retired on the USAF F4 Phantoms.
Walbut
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been reminded that I once had a Sea Vixen parked outside my office while they worked out how to convert it for pilotless flight. My previously mentioned good friend told me that he thought that the fuel system was far too complicated to be operated remotely. However, as far as I know, they did successfully use the Vixen to replace the Meteors so they must have been able to do it.
Last edited by Bonkey; 18th May 2018 at 10:50.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it is, XP924 was the back-up / second development aircraft. XN657 was the main airframe used for trials and had the code "TR1" for Tarrant Rushton 1 on the nosecone. It's call sign was "Rushton 1" when communicating with the development team once airborne.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mechta,
I believe you are right in thinking that the Sea Vixen drones never flew without a pilot on board. I worked on the project at Brough in the 1970's, as we were at that time the Sea Vixen design authority as part of Hawker Siddeley Aviation. I assume that was because were were also design authority for Buccaneer and Phantom, so must know something about carrier borne aircraft. The drone control pack that sat in the cockpit in the observers station was known locally as 'the iron man' I made several trips down to Tarrant Rushton airfield to liaise with Flight Refuelling who were doing the majority of the design work. I can remember watching one of the aircraft weave its way down the runway under the control of the ground operator.
There was considerable debate about the safety of the system fitted and what was the preferred method of destroying the aircraft if control was lost. There were a number of explosively driven actuators that put in full aileron, elevator and rudder control deflections, independently of the main drone actuators. I seem to remember the plan to minimise the potential cone of impact was for the aircraft to be pitched up into a spin rather than pitched down into a spiral dive.
I don't know why the project never came to fruition but I believe there was some concern about the extent of corrosion in the airframes and there was a possibility of the aircraft breaking up under the loading of the planned evade manoeuvre that the aircraft was to perform when approached by the missile being used against it.
Like a lot of MoD sponsored projects at the time it just seemed to drift along with no clear end in sight and then faded away with no feedback why. Then again maybe I was in such a lowly position in the organisation in those days the management never told me such things.
Walbut
I believe you are right in thinking that the Sea Vixen drones never flew without a pilot on board. I worked on the project at Brough in the 1970's, as we were at that time the Sea Vixen design authority as part of Hawker Siddeley Aviation. I assume that was because were were also design authority for Buccaneer and Phantom, so must know something about carrier borne aircraft. The drone control pack that sat in the cockpit in the observers station was known locally as 'the iron man' I made several trips down to Tarrant Rushton airfield to liaise with Flight Refuelling who were doing the majority of the design work. I can remember watching one of the aircraft weave its way down the runway under the control of the ground operator.
There was considerable debate about the safety of the system fitted and what was the preferred method of destroying the aircraft if control was lost. There were a number of explosively driven actuators that put in full aileron, elevator and rudder control deflections, independently of the main drone actuators. I seem to remember the plan to minimise the potential cone of impact was for the aircraft to be pitched up into a spin rather than pitched down into a spiral dive.
I don't know why the project never came to fruition but I believe there was some concern about the extent of corrosion in the airframes and there was a possibility of the aircraft breaking up under the loading of the planned evade manoeuvre that the aircraft was to perform when approached by the missile being used against it.
Like a lot of MoD sponsored projects at the time it just seemed to drift along with no clear end in sight and then faded away with no feedback why. Then again maybe I was in such a lowly position in the organisation in those days the management never told me such things.
Walbut
The project ran for about 10 years from 1974 until cancellation and the main reason I believe for cancellation was that AAM seeker technology (and emerging computer simulation) had progressed so much that it obsoleted the need for full-scale target drones. During the development we did get to the stage of flying the aircraft out of Hurn Airport (BOH) from take-off to touchdown fully remotely, albeit with a safety pilot on board. Not sure that sort of work would be permitted from BOH now!
FR also used two of the airframes allocated for drone conversion for other purposes - XJ524 was used as a high-speed target tug for the navy with the low-level height keeper target towed behind to simulate a low-level incoming missile such as Exocet. That aircraft was pretty busy after mid-1982!! A second frame (XJ580) was used for the flight trials of the new Mk32 underwing refuelling pod then being developed for the upcoming VC10 tanker fleet. This frame was alternately based at BOH and Boscombe Down and flown by an FR pilot and a civilian in the coal hole and trial refuelled a number of aircraft from Boscombe including the Phantom, Buccaneer, Lightning etc. Happy days working there,
Bonkey, I did indeed work for Flight Refuelling Electronics. Although we had nothing to do with the Sea Vixen venture itself we did provide a service by vacuum heat treating various manufactured parts for them.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah ok, the Sea Vixen outside your office must have been that FAW1 version that was based at the Wimborne factory? If I recall correctly, it was about half-way up the Wimborne site between where the fitting shop ended and the FRE buildings started? You probably recall some of the folks I worked with at FRE for a while....Dave Plowman, Brian Nurthen, Alan Hearne, Jack Dillon-Lee. There were more....but is nearly 40 years ago now!
A friend of mine was a FJ Observer in the RN who trained on the SV but then moved on to the mighty F4 on 767 NAS.
Lovely chap, but he wasn't a fan of the SV - I'm sure he said he spent most of his time on SVs managing the fuel!
Very dangerous times - in his words, if you were going to meet your maker, it would be when deck landing at night! Can't even begin to imagine what that must have been like strapped into the 'coal hole' of a Sea Vixen...
Brave chaps.
Lovely chap, but he wasn't a fan of the SV - I'm sure he said he spent most of his time on SVs managing the fuel!
Very dangerous times - in his words, if you were going to meet your maker, it would be when deck landing at night! Can't even begin to imagine what that must have been like strapped into the 'coal hole' of a Sea Vixen...
Brave chaps.
