UK2 XN342 Blackburn BuccaneerS1.jpg

[Joseph Testagrose]

[Netko]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:09:21 +0100, Joseph Testagrose wrote
(in article >):

Something wrong here.

The Mk1 Buccaneer had dinky little intakes for its dinky little engines -
these look like the man-sized intakes of a Spey.

And XN342 is listed as Skeeter.

[Ramsman]

On 04/06/2014 14:11, Netko wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:09:21 +0100, Joseph Testagrose wrote
> (in article >):
>
> Something wrong here.
>
> The Mk1 Buccaneer had dinky little intakes for its dinky little engines -
> these look like the man-sized intakes of a Spey.
>
> And XN342 is listed as Skeeter.
>

That's just what I thought: "Those aren't Mk.1 intakes".

As for the serial, try XV342:
http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/S2_XV342_files/S2_XV342.html

Based on the history on that page, the caption in the original post must
refer to a different drawing.

Considering the vast quantity of good posts from Joseph, I think the odd
typo can be forgiven.
--
Peter

[Netko]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:35:58 +0100, Ramsman wrote
(in article >):

> On 04/06/2014 14:11, Netko wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:09:21 +0100, Joseph Testagrose wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>> Something wrong here.
>>
>> The Mk1 Buccaneer had dinky little intakes for its dinky little engines -
>> these look like the man-sized intakes of a Spey.
>>
>> And XN342 is listed as Skeeter.
>>
>
> That's just what I thought: "Those aren't Mk.1 intakes".
>
> As for the serial, try XV342:
> http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/S2_XV342_files/S2_XV342.html
>
> Based on the history on that page, the caption in the original post must
> refer to a different drawing.

Plausible but I'm still puzzled. The history of XV342 on the page you cite
puts it at Lossiemouth for its entire RN career, with no record of it having
served aboard Ark Royal as the illustration depicts.

Also, were any Mk2s painted in that anti-flash colour scheme? I didn't think
so but I could well be wrong.

> Considering the vast quantity of good posts from Joseph, I think the odd
> typo can be forgiven.

I agree and I'm happy to make it clear that I didn't intend any criticism of
the estimable Mr Testagrose.

[[email protected]]

Usually the captions are for the illustration above. That may be teh case
here.

[Ramsman]

On 04/06/2014 21:18, Netko wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:35:58 +0100, Ramsman wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On 04/06/2014 14:11, Netko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:09:21 +0100, Joseph Testagrose wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>> Something wrong here.
>>>
>>> The Mk1 Buccaneer had dinky little intakes for its dinky little engines -
>>> these look like the man-sized intakes of a Spey.
>>>
>>> And XN342 is listed as Skeeter.
>>>
>>
>> That's just what I thought: "Those aren't Mk.1 intakes".
>>
>> As for the serial, try XV342:
>> http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/S2_XV342_files/S2_XV342.html
>>
>> Based on the history on that page, the caption in the original post must
>> refer to a different drawing.
>
> Plausible but I'm still puzzled. The history of XV342 on the page you cite
> puts it at Lossiemouth for its entire RN career, with no record of it having
> served aboard Ark Royal as the illustration depicts.
>

800 NAS was based at Lossiemouth, but served aboard Ark Royal with its
Buccaneers.

> Also, were any Mk2s painted in that anti-flash colour scheme? I didn't think
> so but I could well be wrong.
>
Possibly, but I haven't found any photos or decal sheets with all-white
Mk.2s. I've only found grey FAA aircraft.

>> Considering the vast quantity of good posts from Joseph, I think the odd
>> typo can be forgiven.
>
> I agree and I'm happy to make it clear that I didn't intend any criticism of
> the estimable Mr Testagrose.
>
>


--
Peter