A-6 vs Buccaneer

Discussion in 'Modern' started by tomo pauk, Mar 2, 2010.

?

A-6 orBuccaneer?

  1. A-6

    44.4%
  2. Buccaneer

    55.6%
  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Two great bombers, weren't they :)

    Which one is better, please explain why you like one or another.
     
  2. pbfoot

    pbfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    niagara falls
    One of the few Brit aircraft that was the equal of other nations birds , I've always likes the description used that it was carved from the solid. Few if any aircraft impressed me with its lo level flying like the Buccaneer
     
  3. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,076
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Wow, this actually is a hard one. I'll go with the A-6, only because I think it could carry more. However, I will not deny the Buccaneer was a great plane.
     
  4. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,204
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Great Thread - both very capable aircraft. I've got this think about this one....
     
  5. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I choose the Buccaneer for my preference, as to which is the better aircraft though, I don't know enough about the A-6 to make an informed decision.

    Here's a few Buccaneer bullet points for people who might be interested.

    * The Buccaneer design evolved from an unsuccessful tender to built an all weather fighter for the RN, the winning design was the DH Sea Vixen.

    * It was the first area ruled design to be produced in the UK, hence the rather obvious 'coke bottle' fuselage.

    * Much of its development was funded by the US mutual aid programme and the USN seriously considered buying it. Why they chose not to is something I am currently researching.

    * The max payload it could carry was 16,000lb, similar to a standard Lancaster. 4,000lb internally. (what is the load of the A-6?)

    * It was the last UK bomber to enter service with an internal bomb bay (until the F-35B arrives)

    * It entered service with the RN in 1962 but not with the RAF (who didn't really want it) until 1970, when it was to be retired the RAF were loathe to part with it.

    * At very low level it was faster than both the F-111 and the Tornado (which replaced it)

    * During the Gulf War in 1991 the Bucc was required to illuminate targets for the LGB's of RAF Tornadoes which could not do it for themselves.

    A supersonic version of the Buccaneer was offered to the RAF several times - they declined it because it was a Navy bird and they wanted TSR 2 - They ended up getting the standard navy bird anyway - fortunately it was excellent.

    * One of my favourite ever sights was TV footage of a Buccaneer manouvering wildy almost on the desert floor during red flag 77 accompanied by a very excited and impressed commentary from a US military controller, made you proud to be British! :)
     
  6. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,678
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    great thread but very hard to make an informed decision. My military career was spent hanging around A-4s which were less capable than both. The little a-4 could lift up to 10000 lbs of payload, but in RAN service 8000 lbs was the usual limit. We suffereed high attrition rates with the Skyhawks, because the landing gear was just not up to the high stresses of landing on a rough and small flight deck like that on the Melbourne, though to be fair the main problem was the worn out catapult on the ship itself
     
  7. shadow81

    shadow81 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Occupation:
    Now i teach japanese
    Location:
    buenos aires
    A-6.
    I read somewhere that A-6`s could carry twice B-17`s payload.
    Bucc is was a great bird too, but (to me) Intruders all wether capability is amazing.
     
  8. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    I think both of them were similar in payloads. I think the A6 was about the 16-20K range in load out.

    Buccaneer could defend itself, A6 couldn't

    A6 could carry just about everything in the inventory, the Buccaneer was more limited.

    All in all, a very tough call.

    Odd thing, neither one had a cannon. If one did, I would probably go with that one.
     
  9. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    He-he, really a tough call :)

    No why Buccaneer is more able to defend itself then A-6, tim?
     
  10. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I've read that the Buccaneer was an extremely tough bird to bring down
    Can't speak for the A6 unfortunately but that's a handy attribute to have if you spend your life skimming along on the deck
     
  11. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,768
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Yes very difficult one to answer I think. Like Joe I have to think about this one.
     
  12. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    I think the Buc could carry air to air missles. At least that is my understanding. But I could be wrong about that. But Wiki says it didn't so I am probably in error.

    I am sure the A6 did not carry anything air to air. At least not standard. Depended on the escorts to keep it viable. That and it's manuverability. If it was attacked, the pilots were told to manuver. It was supposed to be extremely manuverable. Seen one knock around once and it was pretty impressive. Back then anyway. Now, everything can manuver.
     
  13. Butters

    Butters Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    carpenter
    Location:
    South Shore of Nova Scotia
    I'd go with the A-6.

    Much better range and payload + excellent low speed handling

    Buc could probably outrun anything down on the deck after ordnance release, but modern LD/SD radars and modern missiles would probably negate that advantage.

    Both were excellent attack bombers.

    JL
     
  14. red admiral

    red admiral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I wouldn't characterise the A-6 as having much better range and payload. They're basically identical, with around 1000m range hi-hi-hi for the nuclear strike mission (after strapping lots of external tanks to the A-6). The A-6 can carry more payload, but isn't going very far or fast with it as it's all external.

    The comparison pretty much comes down to the Buccaneer having better performance and survivability, especially at low level, whilst the A-6 has a better all-weather capability from the electronics (when they work).

    No air-to-air missiles on the Buccaneer, though plenty of studies for "fighter" versions, simplest was sticking four Red Top missiles under the fuselage and wings. Turn and altitude performance is rather lacking from the small wing.
     
  15. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You're correct tim, the Bucc could and did carry the sidewinder.
     
  16. comiso90

    comiso90 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Video and multi-media communications expert
    Location:
    FL
    intheresting from wiki:

    The small wing of the Buccaneer was suited to high-speed flight at low level. Such a wing, however, did not generate the lift that was essential for low-speed carrier operations. Therefore, the wing and horizontal stabiliser were "blown" by bleeding compressor gas from the engine through surface vents. A consequence of the blown wing was that the engines were required to run at high power for low-speed flight in order to generate sufficient compressor gas for blowing. Blackburn's solution to this situation was to provide a large air brake. The tail cone was formed from two leaves that could be hydraulically opened into the airstream to decelerate the aircraft

    i didnt know about the 'blown" effect.


    Compressor gas blowing ... air breaks and engine at high power for low speed ... hmmmm
    ,



    .
     
  17. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Buccaneer was hefty piece of machinery, weighting (empty) some 20% more then A-6, but with about same wing area.
     
  18. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #18 Waynos, Mar 3, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2010
    Yes the blown wing was a very advanced feature that gave excellent low speed control and with it the Bucc was a much more effective aircraft than it otherwise would have been. This same feature was later used to give the TSR 2 STOL capability despite its tiny delta wing when everyone else seemed to be using heavy and complex VG mechanisms (including us a few years later, ironically)

    The following quote goes rather well with the pic below it :)

    ][​IMG]


    More Bucc info....

    Thunder Lightnings - Blackburn Buccaneer - History
     
  19. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    :shock:
    Did it drop bombs on people - or just run them over? :)
     
  20. Butters

    Butters Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    carpenter
    Location:
    South Shore of Nova Scotia
    I don't remember the entire A-6 fleet being grounded for over a year while they tried to figure out how to keep the wings from falling off, either.

    If you want to fly 1000 mi screaming along at 100 ft and drop a nuke, the Buc is your baby. But if want to carry a honking big load of bombs night and day in any weather and drop them exactly where you want them, the A-6E is better.

    JL
     
Loading...

Share This Page