Sea Vixen Question

Oops. I even looked up the serial to make sure I got it right and still managed to type it wrong.

XP924 is indeed owned by drilling systems ltd of which DHA is a sister company

XP924 Is the correct serial, but owned by Drilling Systems? I thought it was owned by De Havilland Aviation?

The Royal Navy have just gone one back up and running!

Was at RNAS Yeovilton Airshow this year!

Hi Matt, it was XP 924 at Yeovilton, and she is owned by a simulator company, Drilling Systems here at Bournemouth, at least I hope it was or we have brought the wrong one home!!!

XP294 is privately owned and nothing to do with the Navy.

http://www.dehavillandaviation.com/

The Royal Navy have just gone one back up and running!

Was at RNAS Yeovilton Airshow this year!

Scotiaq

Not doubting what you say, perhaps I misunderstand, but XJ490 is displayed at the Queensland Air Museum and it has the rain dispersal mod.

Sea Vixen Canopy

Just to finally clear things up, yes it was for Rain Dispersal and as PK says tapped from the compressor of both engines.

It was istalled on ALL Operational Sea Vixens (FAW 1 & 2) from XJ 494.

All DH 110s & pre- production Mark 1s did not have rain dispersal.

That is from XJ 474 to XJ 494 – all pre-production aircraft

I was a tiff on Sea Vixens 1966-1971.

Queen of the Skies in her day and XP 924 still is.

Duct

Folks,

A couple more photo’s of that same cockpit section…….

.

Another photo from the same cockpit section showing the external air duct.

Thanks SO much for all your suggestions and research!-and how i agree with BMS!-too often the threads degenerate in petty squabling -but not this time, thanks again, everybody!

Nice shots there XM, clearly showing the two hot air pipes in the fairing from the engine.

Just echoes what I was going to say too. Thanks Oxcart for kicking off this thread, and thanks to all the others with the knowledgeable inputs. Great fun, have enjoyed it…surely that’s what it’s all about….and not a grumpy or huffy member to be seen…!;)

Thanks chaps, all seems a bit clearer now, although why the Vixen was the only jet to have to deal with it in this way is odd. Maybe because the original DH -110 was for the RAF (had a different windscreen layout), and one of the first high perfomance carrier jets, that it didn’t encounter the same rain disperal problems until going to sea.
The ducting was introduced on to the FAW.1 as a mod after service entry, hence most service pictures show it fitted.

Nice shots there XM, clearly showing the two hot air pipes in the fairing from the engine.

The rain removal system was fitted retro, and as stated was basically just bolted externally then faired over, the warm air is supplied by both engines. The splitter plate was added so that at higher speeds the air was not required, as this plate diverted the air around the windscreen. initially without this plate many screens cracked because of the air temp caused many temp differences at varying altitudes and speeds. Just another bit of stick it on and see what it does.

Think you’re right, the fairing would be an attempt at a clean aerodynamic line, covering pipework, trunking, perhaps wiring too, but it does look rather heavy-handed on this photo link posted earlier: it looks more agricultural than aeronautical!

http://www.cockpitmania.co.uk/salewant.htm

Folks,

A couple more photo’s of that same cockpit section…….

.

I do understand all you are saying, and it applies to FAW.1 & 2s (only the 110s lacked the fairing)
I just dont get the raised and curved part of it under the windscreen side panel. Is it designed that way for a reason rather than the whole assembly being faired more aerodynamicaly to the fusalage? I have taken the liberty of ed you pic to show what I mean.
Nowt to lose sleep over I know!

Pagen,

The reason for this ‘teardrop’ design under the front windscreen is simple, while the aircraft is stood still, say on deck between sorties, then water will run down the screen and into the ducting.

To prevent the water from running down the ducting and into the engine (therfore inducing premature carrosion issues) the teardrop shape collects the water and then it drains through the low point drain hole as illustrated by the streak marks in your attatched picture.

Hope this helps.

John.

From DE HAVILLAND TWIN BOOM FIGHTERS – by Barry Jones, Crowood Press…

“Trouble had been experienced on FAW.1 aircraft with rain and sea-spray affecting vision through the windscreen. This was rectified on the FAW.2 by the fitting of a deflector ahead of the screen which channeled water aft on the port side beyond the rear of the cockpit canopy”

It doesn’t explain why the same deflector is clearly visible in photos of FAW.1s – maybe a retrofit??

Ken

Think you’re right, the fairing would be an attempt at a clean aerodynamic line, covering pipework, trunking, perhaps wiring too, but it does look rather heavy-handed on this photo link posted earlier: it looks more agricultural than aeronautical!

http://www.cockpitmania.co.uk/salewant.htm

It would be interesting to see if any cutaway drawing of the Sea Vixen showed what this lot covers. Does the new Air-Britain book on the Vixen provide any clues? I haven’t managed to get a copy yet. 🙁

The fairing covers 2 bleed air pipes, one goes to the external surface of the windscreen for rain dispersal and de-icing and the other to the inner surface for de-misting.
As for the heavy, bolted on look of it, the raised portion at the front provides a windbreak and boundary layer seperator, to allow the rain dispersal and de-icing bleed air to do it’s job.

Think you’re right, the fairing would be an attempt at a clean aerodynamic line, covering pipework, trunking, perhaps wiring too, but it does look rather heavy-handed on this photo link posted earlier: it looks more agricultural than aeronautical!

http://www.cockpitmania.co.uk/salewant.htm

It would be interesting to see if any cutaway drawing of the Sea Vixen showed what this lot covers. Does the new Air-Britain book on the Vixen provide any clues? I haven’t managed to get a copy yet. 🙁

I do understand all you are saying, and it applies to FAW.1 & 2s (only the 110s lacked the fairing)
I just dont get the raised and curved part of it under the windscreen side panel. Is it designed that way for a reason rather than the whole assembly being faired more aerodynamicaly to the fusalage? I have taken the liberty of ed you pic to show what I mean.
Nowt to lose sleep over I know!

“I still don’t quite understand why the fairing is raised and shaped like it is though, especially below the side windscreen area.”

Pagen01, it would makes sense , if as DeHavEng said, the left hand engine compressor fed the canopy de-icing, water dispersal, demisting,etc., and as it was not so with the earlier marks, it would make sense for the necessary piping to be fed along from the engine , and rather than have serious modifications cutting into the existing framework, the easier, and quicker option would be to run that , as you can see on the photo of ‘131’ along the outside of the fuselage just below the canopy (as you said, the side windscreen area).
There must be some (official) archive paperwork existing that would detail just when where and why that modification (if it was a modification) was required to be fitted to the later aircraft , or if it became standard in the factory-produced FAW 2’s.

Another interesting response in from my brother -in-law, who cannot really add anything more to what we now know, is as follows …

” Hi Bri – Sorry I can’t say for sure – terrible isn’t it?! But I do know that the Mk.1 suffered with cracked windscreens a lot because of the tension in the bolted down glass sandwich – we were always renewing them (‘orrible job!) So I think that fairing was something to do with relieving the tension, I do remember we didnt have to renew them so often on the Mk.2. Anyway if I see any of my old mates (there are not many of them around now!) I shall tap their brains and let you know “