Talk:Blackburn Buccaneer

Outward canted engines?

I don't see it in any of the images here, which don't really show the bottom of the aircraft, but the image on this page shows the bottom clearly. To my eye there appears to be a distinct outward angle on the engine nozzles. Is this actually there? If so, why? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it is there. Possibly to keep the jetwash away from the airbrake in the tail boom? (Hohum ^@) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are two well-known features to the Buccaneer: blown surfaces all over the wings, and voluptuous area ruling. As a result, the wings were completely dry (they folded too) and all the fuel tankage was in the fuselage. So the rear fuselage was distinctly 'plump', but there was no space to spare inside it. Past experience with the Hawker Sea Hawk and its bifurcated 'trouser leg' tailpipes meant no hesitation about canting the tailpipes outwards to give more clearance around the tankage (the avionics bay starts immediately aft of the ends of the tailpipes).

The S.1 with the Gyron Junior engines and narrower tailpipes are perhaps more obviously canted, but when the Spey was fitted to the S.2, the tailpipes were increased in diameter (c.f. the Phantom problems!). This required them to be canted even further outwards and down, although it's less evident in photographs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW - the tailpipes are canted, not the engines. And remember where most of the thrust in a turbojet or turbofan is produced. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Greetings fellow Torontonian, from what I have read ...

Alignment of exhaust (as with intake) is with local flowfield at flight condition that matters, both vertically and horizontally (which means the complication of a compound angle, see later). So if there's a bulge at the rear the flow follows it and hence nozzle alignment. Similarly in the vertical it's aligned with the downwash. So a rear podded engine has its nacelle pointed downwards at, say 3 degrees. Old-type buried installations with long distance between inlet and exhaust needed downwards curving jetpipe as flowfield significantly different from front to rear. For the Buccaneer this is not visually obvious from the usual side views, but downward curvature is shown to be very pronounced on drawings showing the engine installation (Roy Boot's book p.146). He mentions the actual compound angle was chosen to ensure the left and right jetpipes were not handed.

Also, for level flight at constant Mach number exhaust has to be inclined down relative to inflow by an amount which gives the maximum net propulsive force when weight is balanced by lift....... apparently. If you are interested in the explanation I'll look it out.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The jet pipes where canted outwards to prevent jet efflux buffeting of the rear fuselage, tail surfaces, and extended air brake. Buffeting causes accelerated metal fatigue and cracking of the skinning in the affected area. This is same reason for the canted jet pipes on the Comet 4/Nimrod, a result of experience with the Comet 1 although the straight jet pipe feature on this aircraft, which resulted in small fatigue cracks in the lower rear (unpressurised part) of the fuselage skin, was not a factor in the Comet accidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.163 (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the split 'petal' air brake at the rear of the aircraft was necessary due to the requirement to operate the original Gyron Junior engines at relatively high power for flap blowing and tail BLC during landing. The large amount of compressor bleed air needed for the BLC system was why the original Buccaneer S.1 gained a reputation for being 'underpowered' although this really only applied if an engine failed on take-off. This was the reason the Buccaneer received a 'WOG' (wheels on ground) - later changed to 'WOW' (weight on wheels) switch to automatically retract the undercarriage as soon as the aircraft left the carrier deck thus cleaning up the aircraft and allowing better acceleration on one engine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blackburn Buccaneer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Images appropriately licensed
• Link carrier, interdictor in lede

Modified as requested Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Specify that the Sverdlov's were light cruisers

Modified as requested Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Check for redundant links within the same section

Will survey as best I can, please let me know if there is a specific area believed to be troublesome in this regard Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Mention that BLC was also used for the horizontal stabilizer and amend the caption in that section accordingly

Modified as requested Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Link tailplane, AN-12

Modified as requested, all mentions of AN-12 removed. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Many of your captions should not have periods (full stops) as they're not complete sentences. See MOS:CAPTION

Modified as requested Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Be consistent about using the HMS prefix.

have made some changes in line with this request; I didn't want to link every mention though; is the consistency for non-linked mentions now consistent enough? Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• only 1 aircraft got an aircraft kill through the whole service. The kill was in the Gulf War against a taxiing AN-12 with bombs. The first part is awkward, and I suggest that you merge the second sentence into the first. The kill tally is contradicted later. Which is correct?

Have removed this content entirely, largely due to this contradiction - my apologies for not catching it. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Explain a little bit more about the spar rings, like location and maybe change the link to aircraft spar. Suggest adding a bit more about the wing spars in the structure section, with links and an explanation how it had to go around the engines

Modified but will work on more Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Explain that 216 Sqdn had barely received its aircraft before it was disbanded in the main body

Modified as requested Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Nicely done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)