By: Tiornu
- 27th October 2007 at 20:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember once trying to find the rationale behind the nickname Robin, but I can't recall if I had any success. In any case, we wouldn't want to confuse her with the actual USS Robin, which was not quite as impressive as an aircraft carrier.
By: EdLaw
- 27th October 2007 at 22:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder why the Type 984 radar wasn't chosen for the Type 82s, given its apparent performance. Working alongside the usual Type 965s, it could have yielded an excellent capability, and with the potential for a universal fitting (i.e. on all the new ships and carriers). Might it have simplified things?
New
Posts: 3
By: Tanzy Lee
- 28th October 2007 at 10:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Watch the birdy
I remember once trying to find the rationale behind the nickname Robin, but I can't recall if I had any success. In any case, we wouldn't want to confuse her with the actual USS Robin, which was not quite as impressive as an aircraft carrier.
It could be (though a tenuous suggestion) that Robin in HMS Victorious context could have that the Robin was England's national bird, until the currency changes when our Farthing (which had a Robin on it) was withdrawn. Still, I'll leave it at that- Trivial Pursuits...
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 28th October 2007 at 12:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder why the Type 984 radar wasn't chosen for the Type 82s, given its apparent performance. Working alongside the usual Type 965s, it could have yielded an excellent capability, and with the potential for a universal fitting (i.e. on all the new ships and carriers). Might it have simplified things?
The type 984 was a brilliant radar, when it worked. It suffered from being a valve (vacuum tube) driven piece of electronic kit. Valves are fragile and like lightbulbs can die unexpectedly. They also take up a lot of space and weight compared to any equivalent solid state (transistorised) equipment and proposals to fit a county class DLG would have included deleting the forward guns as weight compensation! There was a proposal in the sixties for a solid state version of the Type 984 (imaginatively designated type 985) but it never got past the proposal stage, as the '984 was associated with the carriers and the politicians were against anything to do with them. The '984 was thus declared obsolete in 1966 (despite still being the most advanced and capable radar in RN service) adding another reason for phasing out the existing carriers, ie they would need a lot of money spent on them to update their radar fit to keep them viable. The type 985 was also in competition with the Anglo Dutch type 988 'Broomstick' radar intended for the CVA-01 class and the type 82 DLGs (Bristol class) and the latter was seen as more modern so '984 would have to soldier on in the existing ships until they themselves were replaced.
By: F-18RN
- 28th October 2007 at 18:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmmm... the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is labelled "Coming Soon"... maybe I can piece the data together from the Technical Specifications & External Payload & Airframe Configurations sections?
If it is any consolation, however, I am sure the Hornet could have launched from Vicky & Hermes with a nearly full payload :diablo:
I'm glad to see someone's reopened this thread. I don't know Bager if you've revisited the above site but the first part of the Aircraft CArrier OPerations section is now open and seems to contian some interesting technical data about the RN Buccaneer.
Also does anyone know where I might find a website with profile and plan drawings of warships, including ships like Victorious post war?
By: F-18RN
- 28th October 2007 at 18:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmmm... the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is labelled "Coming Soon"... maybe I can piece the data together from the Technical Specifications & External Payload & Airframe Configurations sections?
If it is any consolation, however, I am sure the Hornet could have launched from Vicky & Hermes with a nearly full payload :diablo:
I'm glad to see someone's reopened this thread. I was trying to find it some time ago. I don't know Bager if you've revisited the above site but the first part of the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is now open and seems to contain some interesting technical data about the RN Buccaneer. http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/
Also does anyone know where I might find a website with profile and plan drawings of warships, including ships like Victorious post war?
By: Jolanta Nowak
- 28th October 2007 at 20:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It could be (though a tenuous suggestion) that Robin in HMS Victorious context could have that the Robin was England's national bird, until the currency changes when our Farthing (which had a Robin on it) was withdrawn. Still, I'll leave it at that- Trivial Pursuits...
Ah, yet another dodgy bit of ID-ing. That's your chance of heading up the Observer Corps gone west.
The bird on the back of the farthing was not a Robin but a Wren.
Wrens?... at sea? It'll never happen, I tell you...
By: Bager1968
- 28th October 2007 at 22:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice info, but I guess I'll need to wait for the 2nd & 3rd installment of the carrier ops section... as I still see nothing to indicate take-off speeds in either land-based or catapult-launched modes.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 29th October 2007 at 00:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The type 984 was a brilliant radar, when it worked. It suffered from being a valve (vacuum tube) driven piece of electronic kit. Valves are fragile and like lightbulbs can die unexpectedly. They also take up a lot of space and weight compared to any equivalent solid state (transistorised) equipment and proposals to fit a county class DLG would have included deleting the forward guns as weight compensation! There was a proposal in the sixties for a solid state version of the Type 984 (imaginatively designated type 985) but it never got past the proposal stage, as the '984 was associated with the carriers and the politicians were against anything to do with them. The '984 was thus declared obsolete in 1966 (despite still being the most advanced and capable radar in RN service) adding another reason for phasing out the existing carriers, ie they would need a lot of money spent on them to update their radar fit to keep them viable. The type 985 was also in competition with the Anglo Dutch type 988 'Broomstick' radar intended for the CVA-01 class and the type 82 DLGs (Bristol class) and the latter was seen as more modern so '984 would have to soldier on in the existing ships until they themselves were replaced.
All correct, it should also be noted that the 988 would have been huge as well, see any of the models of the original Type-82 design with it to get an idea!:eek: Apparently the 985 was at one point proposed as a fairly easy upgrade for the 984, whether it would have been easy or it was just a marketing claim I dont know.:confused:
New
Posts: 3
By: Tanzy Lee
- 29th October 2007 at 18:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Birdy flew away
Ah, yet another dodgy bit of ID-ing. That's your chance of heading up the Observer Corps gone west.
The bird on the back of the farthing was not a Robin but a Wren.
Wrens?... at sea? It'll never happen, I tell you...
By: duffgun
- 26th October 2008 at 10:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi, this is my first post, just thought i would bring this up as i my granddad worked on the rebuild of the Vic. From what I know reading several books on the Vic there was never any plan to operate Phantoms from her, she was due to be disposed in 1972 so there was no point. a Phantom did do a touch and go on the Vic though. Hms Hermes was not due for disposal until the early 80's and the navy was planning to operate Phantoms from her seems to me it would be a bit marginal.
By: Paul Holtom
- 13th February 2009 at 19:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why did the Navy never fit HMS Ark Royal (scraped 1979) with the type 984 radar? It was fitted to HMS Hermes from 1959 to 1970 and removed before she became a helicopter carrier in 1973, HMS Victorious before re-commissioning in 1958 and removed at Portsmouth prior to scraping in 1968, HMS Eagle from 1964 until the end of her last commission in 1972, she was towed to the breakers yard in 1978 with the large "dustbin" type radar aerial still in place above the island. In addition to the type 984 Eagle also had the type 965 (double bedstead) radar on the aft of the island.
Ark Royal went into refit in 1966, when she re-commissioned in 1970 she was given two Type 965 radars (double bedstead) and also a new US type CCA (Carrier Controlled Approach) radar. Was this a superior system to the 984? or a cost cutting measure? I would imagine the system from Victorious would have been available if needed!
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 13th February 2009 at 22:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why did the Navy never fit HMS Ark Royal (scraped 1979) with the type 984 radar? It was fitted to HMS Hermes from 1959 to 1970 and removed before she became a helicopter carrier in 1973, HMS Victorious before re-commissioning in 1958 and removed at Portsmouth prior to scraping in 1968, HMS Eagle from 1964 until the end of her last commission in 1972, she was towed to the breakers yard in 1978 with the large "dustbin" type radar aerial still in place above the island. In addition to the type 984 Eagle also had the type 965 (double bedstead) radar on the aft of the island.
Ark Royal went into refit in 1966, when she re-commissioned in 1970 she was given two Type 965 radars (double bedstead) and also a new US type CCA (Carrier Controlled Approach) radar. Was this a superior system to the 984? or a cost cutting measure? I would imagine the system from Victorious would have been available if needed!
Bringing Ark Royal up to Eagle's standard would have taken a similar amount of time, ie about 5 years, which would have meant her being in refit until 1972 at least. Eagle's reconstruction included a completely new island structure. Ark Royal's refit was politically sensitive, and had it dragged on longer there were fears it would have been cancelled. This explains why she emerged from refit fiited for, but not with 4 Sea Cat Launchers. There simply wasn't time to fit them before she was due back in service. After the '66 Healy axe' the government declared the type 984 as obsolete as further justification for phasing out the carriers (it was only fitted to three carriers so the cost of replacing it and keeping them in service became unjustifiable). Fitting two 965s was th ebest that could be done in the time available, though only one could be operated at a time because of mutual interference.
By: Paul Holtom
- 13th February 2009 at 22:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for your reply Obi Wan!
Makes you wonder why Eagle didn't get the Phantom refit in '66 instead of Ark which had considerable more work needed to bring her up to date. Would it not have cost less to operate the F4s from a refitted Eagle?
By: Paul Holtom
- 13th February 2009 at 23:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This shot taken in '67 shows Victorious cross operating with the yanks who were using the very a/c Argentina would have used had they purchased the Vic in the late '60s!
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 14th February 2009 at 11:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for your reply Obi Wan!
Makes you wonder why Eagle didn't get the Phantom refit in '66 instead of Ark which had considerable more work needed to bring her up to date. Would it not have cost less to operate the F4s from a refitted Eagle?
Ark Royal's 'Phantomisation' refit cost £32million. Eagle's would have cost in the region of £5million, and the navy intended to refit both. Enough F-4Ks (FG-1s) were bought to equip two frontline sqns and a training sqn plus attrition spares (48 aircraft + 2 prototypes) and the first the RN knew that Eagles refit was cancelled was when 20 of their Phantoms were delivered in RAF camouflage! These equipped 43sqn and some went to 767NAS to train the RAF aircrews at Yeovilton, still in RAF camo but with Navy side numbers and 767 sqn badge on the tail. Ark Royal's refit provided work in Devonport dockyard which was then as now a marginal constituency politically. Eagles refit would only have taken about six months so was of little value politically. Common sense has little to do with many of the decisions taken at that time, it was mostly a case of the pollies saying "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 14th February 2009 at 18:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's some pics of 767NAS Phantoms, including one of the RAF aircraft loaned back to the Navy. 767 was disbanded in 1972 when the RAF took over the training of all Phantom crews, but the need for naval oriented training of the FAA Phantom crews dictated the need to establish a Phantom training flight at Leuchers, with about seven aircraft transferred from 767NAS. These aircraft were officially on RAF charge but retained their Navy camouflage, though they lost the 'Royal Navy' titling on the fuselage. The PTF was mostly commanded and crewed by the FAA.
Also some pics of Phantoms from 700P NAS conducting trials aboard Eagle in 1968, note the large metal plate chained to the deck behind the catapult, which was used to absorb the heat of the afterburners in place of Eagle's non water-cooled JBDs. After launch the plate would glow white hot and was cooled down by fire hoses before the next aircraft to launch could taxi over it. Eagle also had her number three arrestor wire upgraded from DAX I to DAX II standard for the trials (retaining this installation to her decommissioning). So the upgrades needed to Phantomise her were: Three DAX II arrestor engines, Water cooled JBDs for her existing cats, and bridle catchers (not essential, but certainly desirable to bring down operating costs) . Total cost estimated in 1970 prices about £5million.
By: Paul Holtom
- 14th February 2009 at 19:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks again for your very comprehensive answer. I had seen the photo of the RAF cam'ed 766 phantom somewhere before, however I never knew the explanation.
I have also seen a photo of a RAF Cam'ed Buccaneer on Ark's waist cat, serial partly visible XV...... Any ideas on that?
By: Paul Holtom
- 14th February 2009 at 19:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Further to my post above, when I joined the RN unit at RAF Honington in August 1974 all bar one aircraft were in RAF camouflage 237 OCU markings with the addition of a naval style crown in stick on dayglow red on the port and starboard engine panels. None of these aircraft as far as I remember had hold back gear or catapult hooks. XV338 and XV160 are the two I remember. Nether of these or any of the other a/c I remember would have been capable of carrier opps. My point is the RAF coloured Bucc on Ark would not have come from the RN unit at Honington not least at that time!
The only Navy cab on the RN unit was XV869 which was still wearing the markings of 736 squadron! However it had been up graded to S2"D" standard.It was later painted up with 809 squadron markings when transferred in 1975.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 14th February 2009 at 20:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Further to my post above, when I joined the RN unit at RAF Honington in August 1974 all bar one aircraft were in RAF camouflage 237 OCU markings with the addition of a naval style crown in stick on dayglow red on the port and starboard engine panels. None of these aircraft as far as I remember had hold back gear or catapult hooks. XV338 and XV160 are the two I remember. Nether of these or any of the other a/c I remember would have been capable of carrier opps. My point is the RAF coloured Bucc on Ark would not have come from the RN unit at Honington not least at that time!
The only Navy cab on the RN unit was XV869 which was still wearing the markings of 736 squadron! However it had been up graded to S2"D" standard.It was later painted up with 809 squadron markings when transferred in 1975.
237OCU handled all Buccaneer training from 72 onwards, taking over from 736NAS. All buccs were built for carrier ops, though RAF examples simply had the catapult spools 'unbolted' in service. converting them back wouldn't have been a big job, probably a few hours work. 237OCU operated a small pool of Navy configured Buccs not only to provide training for FAA crews but to act as rapid replacements for any aircraft lost by 809NAS in service, hence the 809 painted example mentioned above (the aforementioned PTF served a similar funtion for 892, and 849HQ flight operated three AEW3 Gannets in the seventies for B flight's benefit). The Buccs pictured here are painted in 809 colours, but the lack of side numbers on the nose indicates they are on the strength of 237 as reserve aircraft for 809. I have a picture (not on my computer sadly) of a 237 aircraft in RAF camo on the static steam catapult at RAE Bedford so some of the S2A/S2Bs also had catapult points.
Posts: 152
By: Tiornu - 27th October 2007 at 20:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember once trying to find the rationale behind the nickname Robin, but I can't recall if I had any success. In any case, we wouldn't want to confuse her with the actual USS Robin, which was not quite as impressive as an aircraft carrier.
Posts: 1,327
By: EdLaw - 27th October 2007 at 22:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder why the Type 984 radar wasn't chosen for the Type 82s, given its apparent performance. Working alongside the usual Type 965s, it could have yielded an excellent capability, and with the potential for a universal fitting (i.e. on all the new ships and carriers). Might it have simplified things?
Posts: 3
By: Tanzy Lee - 28th October 2007 at 10:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Watch the birdy
It could be (though a tenuous suggestion) that Robin in HMS Victorious context could have that the Robin was England's national bird, until the currency changes when our Farthing (which had a Robin on it) was withdrawn. Still, I'll leave it at that- Trivial Pursuits...
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 28th October 2007 at 12:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The type 984 was a brilliant radar, when it worked. It suffered from being a valve (vacuum tube) driven piece of electronic kit. Valves are fragile and like lightbulbs can die unexpectedly. They also take up a lot of space and weight compared to any equivalent solid state (transistorised) equipment and proposals to fit a county class DLG would have included deleting the forward guns as weight compensation! There was a proposal in the sixties for a solid state version of the Type 984 (imaginatively designated type 985) but it never got past the proposal stage, as the '984 was associated with the carriers and the politicians were against anything to do with them. The '984 was thus declared obsolete in 1966 (despite still being the most advanced and capable radar in RN service) adding another reason for phasing out the existing carriers, ie they would need a lot of money spent on them to update their radar fit to keep them viable. The type 985 was also in competition with the Anglo Dutch type 988 'Broomstick' radar intended for the CVA-01 class and the type 82 DLGs (Bristol class) and the latter was seen as more modern so '984 would have to soldier on in the existing ships until they themselves were replaced.
Posts: 251
By: F-18RN - 28th October 2007 at 18:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm glad to see someone's reopened this thread. I don't know Bager if you've revisited the above site but the first part of the Aircraft CArrier OPerations section is now open and seems to contian some interesting technical data about the RN Buccaneer.
Also does anyone know where I might find a website with profile and plan drawings of warships, including ships like Victorious post war?
Posts: 251
By: F-18RN - 28th October 2007 at 18:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm glad to see someone's reopened this thread. I was trying to find it some time ago. I don't know Bager if you've revisited the above site but the first part of the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is now open and seems to contain some interesting technical data about the RN Buccaneer. http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/
Also does anyone know where I might find a website with profile and plan drawings of warships, including ships like Victorious post war?
Posts: 198
By: Jolanta Nowak - 28th October 2007 at 20:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, yet another dodgy bit of ID-ing. That's your chance of heading up the Observer Corps gone west.
The bird on the back of the farthing was not a Robin but a Wren.
Wrens?... at sea? It'll never happen, I tell you...
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 28th October 2007 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice info, but I guess I'll need to wait for the 2nd & 3rd installment of the carrier ops section... as I still see nothing to indicate take-off speeds in either land-based or catapult-launched modes.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 29th October 2007 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All correct, it should also be noted that the 988 would have been huge as well, see any of the models of the original Type-82 design with it to get an idea!:eek: Apparently the 985 was at one point proposed as a fairly easy upgrade for the 984, whether it would have been easy or it was just a marketing claim I dont know.:confused:
Posts: 3
By: Tanzy Lee - 29th October 2007 at 18:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Birdy flew away
Quite correct! Faulty memory equals dud coin.
Tanzy.
Posts: 14
By: duffgun - 26th October 2008 at 10:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi, this is my first post, just thought i would bring this up as i my granddad worked on the rebuild of the Vic. From what I know reading several books on the Vic there was never any plan to operate Phantoms from her, she was due to be disposed in 1972 so there was no point. a Phantom did do a touch and go on the Vic though. Hms Hermes was not due for disposal until the early 80's and the navy was planning to operate Phantoms from her seems to me it would be a bit marginal.
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 13th February 2009 at 19:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why did the Navy never fit HMS Ark Royal (scraped 1979) with the type 984 radar? It was fitted to HMS Hermes from 1959 to 1970 and removed before she became a helicopter carrier in 1973, HMS Victorious before re-commissioning in 1958 and removed at Portsmouth prior to scraping in 1968, HMS Eagle from 1964 until the end of her last commission in 1972, she was towed to the breakers yard in 1978 with the large "dustbin" type radar aerial still in place above the island. In addition to the type 984 Eagle also had the type 965 (double bedstead) radar on the aft of the island.
Ark Royal went into refit in 1966, when she re-commissioned in 1970 she was given two Type 965 radars (double bedstead) and also a new US type CCA (Carrier Controlled Approach) radar. Was this a superior system to the 984? or a cost cutting measure? I would imagine the system from Victorious would have been available if needed!
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 13th February 2009 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bringing Ark Royal up to Eagle's standard would have taken a similar amount of time, ie about 5 years, which would have meant her being in refit until 1972 at least. Eagle's reconstruction included a completely new island structure. Ark Royal's refit was politically sensitive, and had it dragged on longer there were fears it would have been cancelled. This explains why she emerged from refit fiited for, but not with 4 Sea Cat Launchers. There simply wasn't time to fit them before she was due back in service. After the '66 Healy axe' the government declared the type 984 as obsolete as further justification for phasing out the carriers (it was only fitted to three carriers so the cost of replacing it and keeping them in service became unjustifiable). Fitting two 965s was th ebest that could be done in the time available, though only one could be operated at a time because of mutual interference.
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 13th February 2009 at 22:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for your reply Obi Wan!
Makes you wonder why Eagle didn't get the Phantom refit in '66 instead of Ark which had considerable more work needed to bring her up to date. Would it not have cost less to operate the F4s from a refitted Eagle?
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 13th February 2009 at 23:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This shot taken in '67 shows Victorious cross operating with the yanks who were using the very a/c Argentina would have used had they purchased the Vic in the late '60s!
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 14th February 2009 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ark Royal's 'Phantomisation' refit cost £32million. Eagle's would have cost in the region of £5million, and the navy intended to refit both. Enough F-4Ks (FG-1s) were bought to equip two frontline sqns and a training sqn plus attrition spares (48 aircraft + 2 prototypes) and the first the RN knew that Eagles refit was cancelled was when 20 of their Phantoms were delivered in RAF camouflage! These equipped 43sqn and some went to 767NAS to train the RAF aircrews at Yeovilton, still in RAF camo but with Navy side numbers and 767 sqn badge on the tail. Ark Royal's refit provided work in Devonport dockyard which was then as now a marginal constituency politically. Eagles refit would only have taken about six months so was of little value politically. Common sense has little to do with many of the decisions taken at that time, it was mostly a case of the pollies saying "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 14th February 2009 at 18:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's some pics of 767NAS Phantoms, including one of the RAF aircraft loaned back to the Navy. 767 was disbanded in 1972 when the RAF took over the training of all Phantom crews, but the need for naval oriented training of the FAA Phantom crews dictated the need to establish a Phantom training flight at Leuchers, with about seven aircraft transferred from 767NAS. These aircraft were officially on RAF charge but retained their Navy camouflage, though they lost the 'Royal Navy' titling on the fuselage. The PTF was mostly commanded and crewed by the FAA.
Also some pics of Phantoms from 700P NAS conducting trials aboard Eagle in 1968, note the large metal plate chained to the deck behind the catapult, which was used to absorb the heat of the afterburners in place of Eagle's non water-cooled JBDs. After launch the plate would glow white hot and was cooled down by fire hoses before the next aircraft to launch could taxi over it. Eagle also had her number three arrestor wire upgraded from DAX I to DAX II standard for the trials (retaining this installation to her decommissioning). So the upgrades needed to Phantomise her were: Three DAX II arrestor engines, Water cooled JBDs for her existing cats, and bridle catchers (not essential, but certainly desirable to bring down operating costs) . Total cost estimated in 1970 prices about £5million.
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 14th February 2009 at 19:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks again for your very comprehensive answer. I had seen the photo of the RAF cam'ed 766 phantom somewhere before, however I never knew the explanation.
I have also seen a photo of a RAF Cam'ed Buccaneer on Ark's waist cat, serial partly visible XV...... Any ideas on that?
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 14th February 2009 at 19:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Further to my post above, when I joined the RN unit at RAF Honington in August 1974 all bar one aircraft were in RAF camouflage 237 OCU markings with the addition of a naval style crown in stick on dayglow red on the port and starboard engine panels. None of these aircraft as far as I remember had hold back gear or catapult hooks. XV338 and XV160 are the two I remember. Nether of these or any of the other a/c I remember would have been capable of carrier opps. My point is the RAF coloured Bucc on Ark would not have come from the RN unit at Honington not least at that time!
The only Navy cab on the RN unit was XV869 which was still wearing the markings of 736 squadron! However it had been up graded to S2"D" standard.It was later painted up with 809 squadron markings when transferred in 1975.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 14th February 2009 at 20:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
237OCU handled all Buccaneer training from 72 onwards, taking over from 736NAS. All buccs were built for carrier ops, though RAF examples simply had the catapult spools 'unbolted' in service. converting them back wouldn't have been a big job, probably a few hours work. 237OCU operated a small pool of Navy configured Buccs not only to provide training for FAA crews but to act as rapid replacements for any aircraft lost by 809NAS in service, hence the 809 painted example mentioned above (the aforementioned PTF served a similar funtion for 892, and 849HQ flight operated three AEW3 Gannets in the seventies for B flight's benefit). The Buccs pictured here are painted in 809 colours, but the lack of side numbers on the nose indicates they are on the strength of 237 as reserve aircraft for 809. I have a picture (not on my computer sadly) of a 237 aircraft in RAF camo on the static steam catapult at RAE Bedford so some of the S2A/S2Bs also had catapult points.