Buccs in red flag.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buccs in red flag.
How did they do? There’s a pic going round of one in red flag paint. I love these aircraft. One passed so low over us back in the day that it warmed us up for a few minutes.
The following users liked this post:
I can remember a clip of a pair of them heading towards one of the yanks' OPs and the female on the sound track said they were so low they couldn't depress their tracking system low enough; meanwhile their wingtip vortices as they weaved about were so low they kicked up a dust trail.
There must have been longer sequences of their flights but were they ever shown on the media; at least I never saw them and it would have really p1$$ed the yanks off for them to be shown.
I don't know how to work Youtube but maybe there are some shots on there.
There must have been longer sequences of their flights but were they ever shown on the media; at least I never saw them and it would have really p1$$ed the yanks off for them to be shown.
I don't know how to work Youtube but maybe there are some shots on there.
Last edited by chevvron; 23rd Nov 2023 at 16:39.
The following users liked this post:
The film mentioned above from a tracking point, where the watchers were in awe of the approaching Buccaneers, is well known but has disappeared from trace - even the copy at Brough! Their performance at ultra-low level is well documented. In the days before effective look-down radar, the chasing fighters (mainly F-4's) couldn't keep up with them at low-level to get in a shot. Hence on the last day of their first deployment, they went round the range in Diamond 9 formation. There is some youtube video and it is well recorded in various Buccaneer books. There are previous posts on here about them, too, the most recent has lots of links:
Buccaneer Flying Qualities
Buccaneer Flying Qualities
Last edited by teeonefixer; 23rd Nov 2023 at 17:52. Reason: addition
The following 3 users liked this post by megan:
The first video is reminiscent of the GW1 work-up footage.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I seem to remember they made the news on the BBC Nationwide programme during Red Flag, but I don’t know if any of the footage would still exist.
I was at the Red Flag as the Laarbruch Ej Seat representative when we had the tragic catastrophic wing failure. Was took out to the crash site to assist the medics, quite an ordeal for a newly promoted cpl. A lot was said about the low level tactics and its possible effect on the airframe, some aircraft never flew again. Did this have an effect on buccaneer tactics in its last years in the RAF?
Following the Red Flag accident the investigation revealed that the fatigue test specimen, which was still going strong, was not programmed with loads representing actual usage. The force was grounded for a long time whilst all airframes were inspected and several never made it back into the air. The reduced force did eventually recommence flying and did not change its tactics which, at the time, were the only way of surviving air defences. When it was replaced by the Tornado low flying continued to be the preferred tactic until Gulf War 1 caused a bit of a rethink.
Of course the last few years of Buccaneer service were in the maritime role where low flying was even lower but less fatiguing.
Of course the last few years of Buccaneer service were in the maritime role where low flying was even lower but less fatiguing.
Last edited by Timelord; 24th Nov 2023 at 15:53.
I recall being told that the RAFG Buccaneers weren't fitted with AAR probes. Airflow disturbance caused by the probe mean that when the screen wash button was pressed, the fluid would cover the whole windscreen very nicely. But without a probe, there would just be a small strip washed. To get over the problem, RAFG crews would apply a few rudder doublets whost the squirt was underway - job done!
Except that this caused additional fatigue which puzzled the engineers until the cause was established!
As I say, that's what I was told and might well be nonsense!
Except that this caused additional fatigue which puzzled the engineers until the cause was established!
As I say, that's what I was told and might well be nonsense!
Not red Flag but I can attest to the Bucc’s low flying capabilities while cruising on ‘daddie’s yacht’ Hermes in the Med 74 ish. While sunbathing on the flight deck one afternoon, my eye was caught by a tiny pair of tip vapour trails, banking and heading in from the direction of Mt.Etna.
Seconds later, I was looking DOWN on the magnificent sight of an S2 ‘saying hello’ to our air defence systems – way too fast to see whether light blue or one of ours but it was one of those ‘FU*K ME’ episodes.
Admittedly, over flat sea but hell, top driving!
Seconds later, I was looking DOWN on the magnificent sight of an S2 ‘saying hello’ to our air defence systems – way too fast to see whether light blue or one of ours but it was one of those ‘FU*K ME’ episodes.
Admittedly, over flat sea but hell, top driving!
The following users liked this post:
The fleet wasn't "grounded" but flying was "paused" we were told while investigations were carried out, including flying a fully-instrumented aeroplane (XW986 from memory) out of HOSM. You are right, the Fatigue test loading wasn't up to date (weight increases, effect of extended wingtips etc.), hence a second Full Scale Fatigue Test on a low-flight hours ex-Farnborough airframe. The background is a case study on the MoD Structures course held at Shrivenham.
The Fin attachment bolts would become loose at a lower interval than we could predict, causing regular ream-out and bespoke bolts being manufactured. The additional loading caused by cycling the rudder pedals to clear the screen became clear when some Brough guys were in the bar at Lossie!
The Fin attachment bolts would become loose at a lower interval than we could predict, causing regular ream-out and bespoke bolts being manufactured. The additional loading caused by cycling the rudder pedals to clear the screen became clear when some Brough guys were in the bar at Lossie!
The following users liked this post:
Timelord: The fleet wasn't "grounded" but flying was "paused" we were told while investigations were carried out, including flying a fully-instrumented aeroplane (XW986 from memory) out of HOSM. You are right, the Fatigue test loading wasn't up to date (weight increases, effect of extended wingtips etc.), hence a second Full Scale Fatigue Test on a low-flight hours ex-Farnborough airframe. The background is a case study on the MoD Structures course held at Shrivenham.
BEagle: The Fin attachment bolts would become loose at a lower interval than we would predict, causing regular ream-out and bespoke bolts being manufactured. The additional loading caused by cycling the rudder pedals to clear the screen became clear when some Brough guys were in the bar at Lossie!
BEagle: The Fin attachment bolts would become loose at a lower interval than we would predict, causing regular ream-out and bespoke bolts being manufactured. The additional loading caused by cycling the rudder pedals to clear the screen became clear when some Brough guys were in the bar at Lossie!
The following users liked this post:
'986 was one of three 'special' S2s produced for MOD(PE) use in 1975 straight from the factory the others being '987 which went to Farnborough and 988 which operated from West Freugh, all three initially being painted a unique green an yellow. Being MOD(PE) they were all low hours airframes and all Bucc qualiifed pilots at Farnborough had to carry out regular C/T with '987 including RHAG engagements; I scored a 'first' with an actual engagement rather than just a practice one when Terry Adcock returned from a trip with nosewheel and hook down but main wheels up. When established in the circuit he re-cycled after a couple of fly-bys to get 4 greens and successfully engaged the approach cable with me as tower controller.
Last edited by chevvron; 25th Nov 2023 at 09:15.
Ground effect
See https://skybrary.aero/articles/ground-effect
However, even at 50ft agl, a Buccaneer is unlikely to be in ground effect as it has a wingspan of 44ft. The wake vortices at high speed and low level are more likely to upset anything over which the aircraft is flying.
However, even at 50ft agl, a Buccaneer is unlikely to be in ground effect as it has a wingspan of 44ft. The wake vortices at high speed and low level are more likely to upset anything over which the aircraft is flying.
The “ultra low level mode” was chosen, at the time, by all strike and attack platforms (even Vulcans)because of the threat not because of the qualities of any one aircraft type, although the Buccaneer was unusual in that it was designed for that regime (over water anyway) from the outset.
Last edited by Timelord; 25th Nov 2023 at 08:10.
The “ultra low level mode” was chosen, at the time, by all strike and attack platforms (even Vulcans)because of the threat not because of the qualities of any one aircraft type, although the Buccaneer was unusual in that it was designed for that regime (over water anyway) from the outset.
Back on topic, somewhere I have a nice photo of either XW987 or XW988 at low level over Portpatrick. Not Red Flag low level, although there were always low flying noise complaints from one or two living close to West Freugh (always from people that had moved into the area).
The following users liked this post:
FWIW we were never able to get the TFR to even hiccup, despite the best endeavours of the ground trials team, squirting ludicrous amounts of J band power directly at the incoming aircraft. IIRC, the fear at the time was that jamming might cause the aircraft to climb to a "safe" height (for some reason 1,000ft sticks in my head) if the TFR failed. Doing that would have made it pretty vulnerable, even back then. I remember that the ride was far from smooth at low level, surprised me as a very inexperienced bod at the time.