F111s & Buck
 

As demonstrated in GW1 - very well thank you!

Oh and by the way bastOn- your flip on LRJs nationality is way off.

The Nimrod.

One day, bumbling around the North Sea, as one did, we were called by a Rig Support helos for the weather and cloudbase as we were near his rig.

"About 200 foot ish"

How ish?

"Well 20-30 feet lessish"

I'll call it a day he said, the deck's at 240 feet.

Couldn't see what his problem was :ok:

I was at Holbeach '88 to '90.
4 x Tonkas from TWCU arrive to do some toss bombing on the far ship target (can't quite remember the number, 8 I think).

Anyway, out of 16 bombs (4X4) 14 "DH"s, ie within the 50 foot circle round the target. Of those 14, 12 hit the ship and 2 just missed so the real thing would have done lots of damage. The 2 outside the circle? Well, one would have taken the bow out and t'other would have had the stern off.

Impressed, I certainly was.

I can imagine a Bucc with Tonka avionics and a well trained crew would have been magnificent.

Doc C

Wasn't there a Buccaneer with development Tornado kit, which led the Test Pilots to wonder ' why are we bothering with Tornado ' ?!

Obviously needed upgrading or a revised airframe / engines, but overall seems to have worked.

Not sure what it would be like at medium level, then again the Tornado was not a spectacular success at that either...

My own ( peripheral ) experience of the Bucc' was the chase / photographic examples at West Freugh, green & yellow; the staish authorised an air-air photo sortie with an Andover, self thankfully not involved.

When the photo's were printed, it turned out the aircraft's upper surfaces had been liberally coated in guano by the resident Jackdaws - C/O was not a happy bunny, and one has to wonder about inspection procedures !

"As I stated on a previous thread, a Bucc could actually fly round the World without having to air-to-air refuel (we planned it but were stopped from doing it by RAFG because it would be an embarrassing act that its replacement the Tornado couldn't contemplate)."

Hi,

That sounds amazing.
Which route would you have taken? I suppose it would not have been around the equator.
More Northern routes would have upset the Russians and the Chinese more than RAFG.:}
Would it have been a circle around the Northpole, taking off from Norway?

Best regards, Transall.

Transall,

You misunderstand me or I have misled you. It would have taken about 30 days, with stop-offs on route, crossing the Pacific via a well-chosen route where the longest leg would have been Hickom to McLellan (2300nms) achievable with 23,000lbs (inc. bomb bay ferry tank) of gas in a Bucc at high level. The plan was to be escorted by a VC10 with spare engines, wheels etc and support groundcrew but no AAR (a pax/freight VC10 rather than a tanker).

In true Bucc spirit we would have visited most of the fleshpots of the World on route and taken a couple of days R&R on the way in those that provided the most pleasure (of course, for fear of being classed as early day New Labour politicians, we didn't tell RAFG that last bit. R&R is R&R after all!).

The point in my post was that we could do it without AAR whereas the GR1 couldn't even have got across the Atlantic let alone the Pacific without tanker support.

The Atlantic was easy for a Bucc. The Navy were the first to prove the Bucc eastbound direct from Newfoundland to Lossie without AAR and I have personally flown St Mawgan to Lajes to Gander without AAR on a westbound Atlantic crossing.

Foldie

Your post brings me back to my recent question about blackbuck. i.e. why didn't the bucs do it. Hmm. This issue with using up oil didn't appear to be a problem for you.:confused:

Thanks for the explanation, Foldie.

It was a magnificent plan.:ok:

Cheers, Transall.

And there was me hoping this thread would provide us with more marvellous footage of Bucs going about their business at zero feet....:E

Totally different aircraft I know but I was watching an F22 last year and the side view seemed vagely reminiscent of the Flying Banana. Silly old man's thought I know.

hulahoop,

I refer you back to:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...lack-buck.html

In my post #9 of that thread I stated:

Seems clear enough to me! However, for clarification, the problem was the length of the sortie from Ascension to Stanley, some 3800nms (one way) which, at 0.8M, would have taken just under 8 hours. Without a landing option on Corporate that turned the distance into 7600nms and rather more than the Bucc gearbox oil (or my ass) would last. Hickom to McLennan (with a bomb bay fuel tank and therefore no bombs), some 4.8 hours, was a mere bagatelle compared to a round-trip Ascension/Stanley/Ascension!

32 years ago, I flew a 4-hr maritime attack sortie in a Bucc from Honington deep into the Atlantic (with AAR) and back (to Mildenhall because some dope blacked the runway at Honington) without any gearbox oil problems.

Hope that helps

Foldie

Also no one has mentioned that the Bucc could land on an Aircraft carrier

If a real one was available.

The US have a fair few - presumably there was some cross decking in the good old days?

Like tu chan go, I had the honour to fly both types...and his comments about separating the flying / going to war issues are spot on. I wouldn't fancy a high threat MEZ pen in the Bucc, (not really sure I relish it in a GR4 either for that matter) but for the sheer pleasure of flying an aircraft around the Highlands, ridge rolling at low level - it would have to be the Bucc every time.

Ask me about flying the Bucc at lower speeds, sometimes cross-controlled going around finals, and I might have to think a little harder.....

....nah!....on Thursday I confessed....BUCCANEERS WERE BEST!!!:)

Quite so. The sheer workload involved with flying the Buccaneer from a tactical formation break into the circuit to a 45-25-25 landing, at night, whilst keeping an eye on the aircraft ahead and trying to avoid its wake, was quite the most demanding flying I've ever attempted.

I wasn't good enough; hats off to those who were!

If you are a proper fan look here:

Amazon.co.uk: Used and New: The Buccaneer Songbook (The Buccaneer Songbook: An Anthology of Drinking Songs)

Foldie

Foldie. . thanks for that, one click ordered in a heartbeat! My dad spent many years as a bombhead on Buccaneers, 1's and 2's. So after I've giggled a bit I will pass it on to him with pleasure.

Growing up with a dad who did that, you can imagine we're a Buccaneer family through and through. Quarried indeed. . . .

Parrot might have been a pile of cack for operators but it could be fixed in austere locations. Providing there was a handy radio shack.

regards

retard

I'm not so sure that the Blue Parrot was a pile of cack in the maritime role; it certainly did the job of locating the bad guys in a rolling sea pretty well! Over land it was a bit of an issue but then it was never designed to be used as a navaid and it was OK at Nordhorn on Tgt 1 even producing the occasional radar laydown DH:}!

Foldie