Author Topic: avionics fit  (Read 7296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oggieg

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 13
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
avionics fit
« on: December 30, 2014, 05:27:15 PM »
Out of interest,how much of the original operational avionics is used now.I can we that TFR is missing and I can't see a whole lot of use for the H2S/NBC figment but how about Tacan,IFF10,Decca Doppler and Rad Lt 6 & 7?

Offline oggieg

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 13
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2015, 06:48:20 PM »
One or two autocorrects in there but I think it makes sense

Offline garryash

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2015, 07:03:00 PM »
I can remember working on TACAN and IFF10. At Marham I was the IFF10 whiz kid in the electronics bay until They moved me to 55 Squadron on Victors

Offline deeleyt

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2015, 09:51:15 PM »
If you are talking about 558 then there is not a lot left in the backend, the back panel is almost completely clear of any equipment, except for the "Modern" stuff installed to operated the aircraft in todays world. The majority of the equipment left on is there to act as ballast to keep the airframe in balance.

Offline oggieg

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 13
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2015, 07:20:42 PM »
Are the ECM cans in with for ballast or did it leave the service with the ballast weights fitted?

Offline leslie

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 769
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2015, 06:58:11 AM »
ecm cans were removed in RAF days when she was a tanker. Twhich is why the RAF flew with a fuel tank in the bombbay, yhey have not been reinstalled.

Offline oggieg

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 13
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2015, 04:13:56 PM »
they flew with fuel tanks in the bomb bay whilst bombers,usually if they were travelling a fair distance eg Goose Ranger.An "A" tank at the front,a "D" tank at the rear and the "Flyawaypack" of spares in the centre.The "A" tank was shaped so access could still be got to the bomb bay through the doors at the front.

Offline deeleyt

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2015, 09:36:24 PM »
OK - Lets not mention Panniers

Offline Zero One

  • Club Member
  • Expert User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2015, 05:01:16 PM »
Are the ECM cans in with for ballast or did it leave the service with the ballast weights fitted?


ECM was removed early 1980s to accommodate the HDU during the tanker mod, when she was reconfigured to to look like a BMK2 in 1986 for the VDF, as has been said she carried the rearmost Bomb Bay Tank to counteract the loss of initially the ECM cans and latterly the HDU.
During the rebuild, 2005 onward, the tank was removed as was the H2S Scanner along with 11.5 tons of avionics gear which left her slightly tail heavy so a slab of red painted steel was mounted in the nose cavity we nicknamed it "Red Slab Radar". Certain black boxes in the nose undercarriage bay were also left in situ, as ballast to help re-balance a much lighter air-frame.
Buccaneer XX900 Crew Chief and Brunty Bears keeper

Offline djrose007

  • Volunteer Group
  • Expert User
  • *
  • Posts: 1521
  • Gender: Male
  • Me and my CTX1300
    • View Profile
    • RAF Luqa Remembered
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2015, 09:53:51 PM »
ecm cans were removed in RAF days when she was a tanker. Twhich is why the RAF flew with a fuel tank in the bombbay, yhey have not been reinstalled.

'Doors at the front' I think you've been watching Thunderball too much HAHAHAHAHAHA
David J Rose Mem. No. 17334
http://raf-luqa.weebly.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://raf-masirah.weebly.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://stonehouse-dtc.weebly.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (dog obedience training)

Offline 50ltech

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2015, 11:34:58 PM »
As stated earlier in the thread:

"... access could still be got to the bomb bay through the doors at the front."

This refers to the two small access doors, one at the front of each bomb bay door on the centreline. These allowed access to the bomb bay without having to open the bomb bay doors. It is my recollection that with the saddle tank fitted it was possible to slide under it provided that you were of a standard shape. As the last time I did that was in 1984 I would hesitate to attempt it now. However, I did manage to access the radome of XM655 a couple of years back and lived to tell the tale!

The ECM cans were removed at BAE Woodford in April/May/June of 1982 to those airframes that were converted to the tanker role in order to fit the Hose Drum Unit (HDU) in their place. At that time 3 drum tanks were fitted in the bomb bay to provide additional fuel capacity. I cannot remember if it was possible to access through the small doors with the drum tanks fitted. If anyone wishes to see photos of that configuration I have a copy of a BAE magazine which was written at the time.

Offline deeleyt

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: avionics fit
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2015, 11:46:24 PM »
With the Cylindrical tanks installed the Bomb bay could only be accessed by opening the main doors. Having to change modules from the Autostab with the tanks fitted was something of a cow, especially as I was never of the PTI desired shape and size.