Thanks for posting P-K at what must be an awkward time.
Though the structure is similar and as straightforward as say a Hunter, the Vixen does use complicated electrical, fuel, and hydraulic systems, it’s possibly the most complex aircraft operating as a historic type with a PtF on the CAA register.
The type didn’t seem to suffer hydraulic failures beyond the standard of the day really, especially when you consider that the rigors of carrier deck operations always heightens low speed control and undercarriage issues. On top of that, no Sea Vixen was lost in service to a hyd failure.
It does have the four hyd systems which does allow some systems duplication, which I understand is one of the reasons that we still have one flying.
The Air Britain book does dwell on the losses a bit, but there are very few that can be linked to a common theme, it was a big and powerful aircraft for the FAA to take on in that period and it’s interesting to see how quickly the accident rate went down towards the end of its carrier ops, and how very few aircraft related accidents occured post carrier life, ie with ATDU/FRADU and the RAE etc.
I spoke with a renowned pilot of the type recently, and his words seem to back up the facts, in that the main common problems were the complicated fuel management systems for the crew, and a problem with the attitude and altitude information in service combat conditions which was attributed to some losses.
My understanding is that XP924 has modifications to its fuel systems to allow better management of it?
To me, this seems like an incident that can befall any aircraft, modern or old. The two under nose rocket pack blisters and the drop tanks look like they were a blessing in that they appear to have taken the brunt of the damage before reaching structures like the bulkhead and wingtips & pito.
Thankfully there are people and outfits around with the dedication to keep these aircraft flying against the odds, to which we must be very thankful.:)
Sign In
