By: bms44 - 23rd April 2011 at 17:45
The arrival of XX889 at Brunters. What a flight line we will have!
Hope you’ve got something else to fit between these two bits! Did ya check the Pickfords truck before he shot off? :p
By: Bucc900 - 23rd April 2011 at 08:51
The arrival of XX889 at Brunters. What a flight line we will have!
By: Rigga - 22nd April 2011 at 20:51
Brick
If the Bucc was ever called the “Brick” (and I never heard that myself) Then it’s more likely to be because it was built like a Brick Sh!thouse.
By: Chox - 22nd April 2011 at 01:25
folk get so worked up about paint schemes
Well maybe “worked up” is a bit excessive. Just disappointed I guess. The Buccaneer at Gatwick is a unique aeroplane and it is a shame when it gets repainted so that it no longer looks like the aircraft that it was. But if it is to be repainted that’s good news. As for the Sea Princes, it’s just a shame (at least to me) that they just don’t look like Sea Princes with red paint on them. Bit like the Sea Vixen when it was painted in those ghastly Red Bull colours (which caused endless controversy), and even our beloved Vulcan which wears a paint scheme that no Vulcan ever wore in RAF service. Naturally it’s good that any great aeroplane survives but it is annoying when they just don’t look like they did when they were in service. It’s especially annoying when replicating an authentic paint scheme really isn’t difficult to achieve.
may have been aimed at the S1, as those gyrons were guttless
True, but I guess the origin of that particular nickname will remain a mystery. But then, who comes up with names like “Tiffy” and “Tonka” and so on? Never ceases to amaze me how enthusiasts can’t bear to use an aircraft’s proper name. I suppose we should be grateful that nobody started calling Phantoms “Phannies” ?!
By: mjr - 21st April 2011 at 23:36
[QUOTE=’568 crew;1734629]I thought this thread was supposed to be about Buccaneers?
And was the aircraft ever nicknamed the ‘Brick’?[/QUOTE]
may have been aimed at the S1, as those gyrons were guttless!
By: mjr - 21st April 2011 at 23:34
this looks so much smarter than that orrible red doesnt it…;)
what is it with the anal “it must be 100% acurate colour as it was in service” thing? ” awwwww..errr.. that letter is err… 3.256mm’s too far to the errrr..left and the wrong shade on pomigranit red I think you’ll find?”, guffaw guff guff “……. who gives a monkeys! 99% of punters don’t. oh the groans and flapping when the Sea vixen went in to red bull colours. yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnwnnnnn :rolleyes: I really find it mind boggling that folk get so worked up about paint schemes.
Anyway back to Buccs:D:D
By: Chox - 21st April 2011 at 19:15
Like most of these nicknames, it seems to have been coined by enthusiasts rather than aircrew. Tonka, Tiffy, you know the list…
By: '568 crew - 21st April 2011 at 15:58
I thought this thread was supposed to be about Buccaneers?
And was the aircraft ever nicknamed the ‘Brick’?
By: Chox - 21st April 2011 at 13:50
Photo of WF118 taken in 1974, while she was still in service with 750 NAS. Seems to be the same colours she wears today.
Well no, it shows the standard dayglow orange colour but the photograph (like most photographs of dayglow-painted aircraft) simply doesn’t show it very well.
Pagen01 – Sea Princes didn’t carry International Orange, in fact that’s essentially an American designation. It was standard dayglow orange/red (referred to as orange or red depending on the publication). I accept that some Princes do appear to have been painted with a more reddish shade of dayglow at some stages (although again even this may simply be a symptom of poor photographic reproduction), but if such mis-matches did occur, I suspect that this was more to do with easy availability of paint stocks rather than any specific colour scheme directive. The vast majority of Sea Princes (almost all of them in fact) wore standard dayglow orange, using the same paint which was applied to the helicopter fleet.
As far as I can recall, the only FAA aircraft which wore glossy red patches were the FRADU Canberras, Chipmunks and Hunters (okay, some helicopters too), towards the end of their careers.
Not a case of listening to anyone else’s input at all. I understand why the Gatwick Princes have received red paint, and that’s fine, if that is the view taken by the museum. The red paint will certainly look smarter for much longer than dayglow ever would, but my point is that, as a punter who likes to see aircraft as they once were, the Princes look very odd wearing red paint which they didn’t carry whilst in service. Okay, it’s good that aircraft like the Sea Princes are being preserved, but it’s just frustrating when they appear in distinctly non-authentic paint schemes.
By: Halcyon days - 21st April 2011 at 13:46
Silver/Yellow/red/Orange/Dayglo??
Personally I dont care for this sort of trivia-but do like to look and enjoy aircraft of this vintage.
A nice little line up of whatever colour you want to call them Sea Princes at Culdrose.Circa 1973-4?
By: TwinOtter23 - 21st April 2011 at 12:52
Did Sea Prince’s ever carry wing tanks? :confused:
By: pagen01 - 21st April 2011 at 12:30
Lovely picture, not sure it is at Culdrose though?
Drives me bonkers!
It drives you bonkers because you don’t listen to anyone else’s input, and when you see something that you don’t agree with you assume that it’s wrong.
The problem is people take notice of what you say and then it looks bad on the museum that you’re having a go at.
The Sea Pince trainers were delivered in silver with yellow bands, they then recieved International Orange (not day-glo!), I’m unsure if the reddish colour superceded that scheme or appeared along side as you see both in similar eras, but the reddish orange definitely existed, as Lauriebe’s link above shows.
As for FAA trainers in general, as far as I’m aware they wore silver with yellow bands until the light grey (or silver on some) and International orange scheme came about, the only FAA trainer I’ve seen to wear flou/dayglo is the Sea Balliol at Cosford, but that was a trials machine.
I think some of the misinformation of dayglo use comes from old colour pictures where the colours don’t reproduce properly.
By: lauriebe - 21st April 2011 at 11:56
Photo of WF118 taken in 1974, while she was still in service with 750 NAS. Seems to be the same colours she wears today.
By: Chox - 21st April 2011 at 10:44
You are obviously an expert on Sea Prince colours, not!
The red used on the Sea Prince predates the use of Dayglo
Well I’m afraid that’s not true. Sea Princes were delivered in silver finish with dayglow orange trim. Most had a white top to the fuselage. The silver was eventually replaced by Light Aircraft Grey and the white top was removed. There were exceptions (such as those in RAF style communications colours and some which wore silver with yellow trainer bands) but they didn’t carry red patches either. The nose, wing and tail trim was always dayglow. As for the actual shade, some aircraft appear to have worn a red-ish shade of dayglow but on the vast majority of aircraft it was the standard orange as applied to Wessex, Whilrwinds, Hillers, etc. It was still this same shade in 1977 when I fingered the paint in the hangars at Culdrose!
Okay, I know why so many Sea Princes have now received red paint, and I understand the need to keep the aircraft looking smart. But using red instead of orange just makes the aircraft look odd. I accept that dayglow fades but it faded whilst in service use too, therefore it seems reasonable to allow it to do the same in a museum? Far better to carry faded dayglow than a non-authentic red which ruins one’s nostalgia trip!
I don’t know why red is sometimes found under the orange on some Princes but I guess it’s simply a primer colour. The same red can be found on the black/dayglow Meteors used by the FAA. In the case of WP308, you’re assumption that it now wears an “early” paint scheme would be wrong in any case as it certainly had a white top by 1966 (together with dayglow trim) and was therefore, presumably delivered in this scheme.
Good to hear that the Buccaneer will be repainted in due course!
Sorry to sound so negative, and of course I’m a big fan of the Gatwick museum, but from a punter’s point of view it really is frustrating to see lovely old aircraft repainted in colours that they never worse. Drives me bonkers!
By: pagen01 - 21st April 2011 at 09:26
I can honestly say that I can’t remember the Sea Princes flying in fluorescent orange, as Peter says they were a redish orange, and I’ve seen them in International Orange, which is bright but certainly not dayglo.
Int Orange and Fluo orange seem to get confused on some FAA aircraft quite regularly, especially with Gannet T.5s!*
*Had to mention them somewhere!
By: Peter Mills - 21st April 2011 at 07:33
Oh dear Chox!
You are obviously an expert on Sea Prince colours, not!
The red used on the Sea Prince predates the use of Dayglo.
We found the original red when the nose was stripped a few years ago.
In fact the other airframe is going through the same process at the moment and guess what, the lowest layer is red not Dayglo.
Dayglo is a real pain outside, it only lasts a few months even with “the proper” lacquer coat, so finding the red was a bonus.
On the other hand, the blue on the Bucc came out of the tin a different colour than it said it was and dried to the lighter shade, it should be corrected this year.
By: Halcyon days - 20th April 2011 at 22:37
Fast and low inbound to Old Warden
Unfortunately it was in the days of roll film and it would have taken too long to wind on!! Also I was with my young son-who was only about 3 or 4 years old-so thought it best to duck and put my hands over his ears!!
(he still remembers it-even though he is 31 now!!)
Oh to have had a modern digital camera on a multi burst setting!!
By: Flygirl - 20th April 2011 at 16:47
Fast and low inbound to Old Warden
Like this!
By: 91Regal - 20th April 2011 at 16:40
A couple of scans from my old pics box.
First one may be from either Cranfield or Fairford (but maybe somebody knows better ?)
http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx153/91Regal/UnidentifiedBuccaneer-possCranfield.jpg
Second on is from a BAE Hatfield open day, mid or late 80’s. Might this be the infamous tomato ‘bomber’ ?
http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx153/91Regal/BuccaneerHatfieldOpenDay-midorlate80s.jpg
By: bms44 - 19th April 2011 at 11:30
Low, very slow and earthbound…Sea Witch…Debbie…Gate Guardian RAF Lossiemouth 1994
Sign In
April 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm
