Sea Vixen down

[Mezzanine]

Thanks, my plane knowledge is not great, I just recognised it by the unusual tail from the pictures.

It sounded superb when it went over

[Celtic Dragon]

Mezzanine said:

Would this be the same one which has flown over my house a few times this week?

Bedfordshire way...

It was due to be at Suttleworth next weekend

[Ayahuasca]

Why jettison the canopy? Not equipped with a bang seat, or the canopy not fitted with detonation cord?

[Dr Jekyll]

Ayahuasca said:

Why jettison the canopy? Not equipped with a bang seat, or the canopy not fitted with detonation cord?

There is certainly a bang seat, possibly it was to make it easier to get out in a hurry without ejecting. Though judging from a video I saw the canopy was jettisoned when the Vixen was already sliding down the runway, not sure why that was.

[FourWheelDrift]

Perhaps by deciding to bring it in for a wheels up landing if one of the dummy tanks broke off and the aircraft skidded off the runway onto the grass and turned over it would be easier to get out if the canopy is not there?

[Dr Jekyll]

According the instruction book (below) you aren't supposed to jettison the canopy in a belly landing.

https://www.seavixen.org/images/documents/Pt4._2._...

[Simpo Two]

Though 'back in the day' they'd jettison the canopy before impact in case it didn't open afterwards.

[Riley Blue]

Simpo Two said:

Though 'back in the day' they'd jettison the canopy before impact in case it didn't open afterwards.

I was at Duxford just over a month ago, stood near a family whose grandpa had a flight in a two-seat Spitfire. After it had landed and taxied back it took almost 15 minutes before his canopy could be persuaded to slide back.

[aeropilot]

Dr Jekyll said:

According the instruction book (below) you aren't supposed to jettison the canopy in a belly landing.

https://www.seavixen.org/images/documents/Pt4._2._...

Canopy operation is electric, and apparently in service the canopy manual un-lock was not the most reliable of devices, so likely the decision was made to power eject canopy at point of touch down, as pilot was likely turning all electric power off at touch-down as a safety measure.

[lufbramatt]

Sylvaforever said:

https://www.seavixen.org/seavixen-technical-docume...

Have a read..

https://www.seavixen.org/images/documents/2.Fuel_S...

Hydraulic systems all 4!

https://www.seavixen.org/images/documents/3.Hydrau...

Was it a selector issue?

Edited by Sylvaforever on Sunday 28th May 13:20

Interesting documents. A few years ago I had the opportunity to chat with the chief tech on the Sea Vixen, he explained to us how the flight controls and hydraulic systems in XP924 are very different to how the aircraft was operated in service as XP924 was modified by Flight Refuelling to D.3 status, so XP924 has fully powered controls to suit radio control.

[eharding]

Riley Blue said:

Simpo Two said:

Though 'back in the day' they'd jettison the canopy before impact in case it didn't open afterwards.

I was at Duxford just over a month ago, stood near a family whose grandpa had a flight in a two-seat Spitfire. After it had landed and taxied back it took almost 15 minutes before his canopy could be persuaded to slide back.

Standard briefing for a Yak-52 forced landing is to open and latch the canopy back beforehand, in case the landing distorts the structure preventing the mechanism operating afterwards - ditto in the Pitts. I think in most aircraft with a sliding or discardable canopy the inclination would be to make post-forced-landing egress as easy as possible.

I'd be interested to know the rationale behind the Sea Vixen SOP.

[MartG]

eharding said:

I'd be interested to know the rationale behind the Sea Vixen SOP.

Maybe retaining the canopy meant it was less likely to sink if it slid off the end of a carrier, and wasn't applicable to landing ashore ?

[Ayahuasca]

MartG said:

eharding said:

I'd be interested to know the rationale behind the Sea Vixen SOP.

Maybe retaining the canopy meant it was less likely to sink if it slid off the end of a carrier, and wasn't applicable to landing ashore ?

Could it be related to sliding into an arresting net? Or one of those nets around the edges of a carrier? You'd want the canopy in place for that to avoid decapitation.

[Krikkit]

Probably all correct! Presumably because they had a fairly decent ejection system (not quite 0/0 by the read of it, but I'd take my chances) you'd be better off getting it in the drink and then punching out.

[aeropilot]

Pics have been posted on the Navy Wings website of the damage.....

[Eric Mc]

Bad enough, I fear.

[MartG]

Eric Mc said:

Bad enough, I fear.

Yup - not just worn skin panels but also damage to internal framing

[lufbramatt]

I fear the worst with this. I happen to have a copy of the Sea Vixen A.P. at work, the damage to the bottom of those frames is really nasty. The frame webs (pink bits on the images) are made of titanium sheet and the A.P. pretty much states that these parts should be replaced rather than any attempt to repair made. Which would mean stripping and rebuilding the entire rear fuselage.

[aeropilot]

lufbramatt said:

I fear the worst with this.

As per my post when it happened.

While, technically, its possible to repair her........it will be a hugely time consuming (and likely eye wateringly expensive) undertaking and I suspect that understandably, the decision will be taken not to do so.

Bloody brilliant bit of flying though by Hargs to set her down as gently as he did.

[BrettMRC]

Wonder how long it will be before there is word one way or the other?