pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I'm not really familiar with the use of the 104 as an interceptor all my knowledge is on the strike fighter version . Sorry to infer the that the Holy Grail of Brit aircraft was a dog
A-6 vs Buccaneer
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Butters
Senior Airman
Gracious! You know that a gentleman never mentions the..um...'endearing idiosyncracies' of the 'world beater' Lightning or Harrier when in the company of the British.For shame, sir!
JL
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
The Buccaneer fleet was grounded after quite a long time, not when it was just starting to see service. In service from 1962 but fatigue problems starting to appear in 1980 doesn't sound too bad. You've got to factor in that most operations were at low level, with consequent increase in stress. Much higher stresses operating at 500ft and below compared to the A-6 cruising around 30,000ft. The fatigue issue certainly wasn't so much of a problem as with other period aircraft.
Saying the Bucc is bad from lack of a dedicated EW version doesn't make sense. The RAF has never had such an aircraft, instead relying on individual aircraft carrying ECM pods.
Saying the Bucc is bad from lack of a dedicated EW version doesn't make sense. The RAF has never had such an aircraft, instead relying on individual aircraft carrying ECM pods.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I remember reading that the bucc was only given a sidewinder to give the crew moral fibre rather than a real air weapon.
Best defence was get on the deck and run.
Saw a Bucc at an airshow. It came in very low and fast...rock steady it was. Like on rails. The most impressive low level flyby I ever did see.
Saw a pix of a scrapped Bucc and they weren't lying when they said it was solidly built. The fuselage was a giant box of thick metal. I will see if I can find it.
Best defence was get on the deck and run.
Saw a Bucc at an airshow. It came in very low and fast...rock steady it was. Like on rails. The most impressive low level flyby I ever did see.
Saw a pix of a scrapped Bucc and they weren't lying when they said it was solidly built. The fuselage was a giant box of thick metal. I will see if I can find it.
Its horses for course isn't it, and thats why both sides of the argument are of course right, in their own way. For instance if the RN had operated the A-6 we might have thought it an awful choice, but only because it would have to be winched onto a British carrier by crane, there to remain until winched off again 
One of Blackburns early designs for the M148T requirement was similar to the A-6 with a large shoulder wing with fuselage mounted engines slung underneath and a blunt nose with side by side seating. So it obviously has merit
PS butters. great poem, loved it.
timshatz, I don't think any naval aircraft would be much use without all weather capability, especially anywhere near the UK.
One of Blackburns early designs for the M148T requirement was similar to the A-6 with a large shoulder wing with fuselage mounted engines slung underneath and a blunt nose with side by side seating. So it obviously has merit
PS butters. great poem, loved it.
timshatz, I don't think any naval aircraft would be much use without all weather capability, especially anywhere near the UK.
Last edited:
Good point. Probably the home of zero vis flying.
- Thread starter
- #48
- Thread starter
- #50
idk but surely slowest that w/o, but the internal load of Buc was small so that advantage was limited for mission with small load
p.s. just find a article, talk of speed of .92 Mach at 60 meters with external bomb load (not specified)
Last edited:
Tornado is only faster than Buccaneer at low level when completely clean, ie useless, as it carries everything externally. The Buccaneer has a better transonic drag profile than the Tornado so although the overall top speed is much lower, the transonic drag rise at low level is far less severe with the Buccaneer, the Buccaneer was faster with four sea Eagles under the wings at low level than the Tornado is when carrying two of them plus two hindenburgers (which is its max and another advantage of the Bucc)
The buccaneer could carry a 4,000lb load internally and bomb a target for which the Tornado would have to carry the four bombs under the fuselage and, again, two hindenburgers on the inner pylons to match the range and would cruise about 100kt slower.
The buccaneer could carry a 4,000lb load internally and bomb a target for which the Tornado would have to carry the four bombs under the fuselage and, again, two hindenburgers on the inner pylons to match the range and would cruise about 100kt slower.
My source is only 'recieved wisdom', nothing specifically written down I'm afraid, so feel free to dismiss it. Indeed as I searched for written evidence I started to wonder if it was a case of 'Tornado envy'
I have found written sources for other limitiations of the Tornado when compared to the Buccaneer, but not yet on this speed issue, so I withdraw it. At least unltil I turn something up.
I have found written sources for other limitiations of the Tornado when compared to the Buccaneer, but not yet on this speed issue, so I withdraw it. At least unltil I turn something up.
