Vulcan rocketry!

[Tim McLelland]

I was looking through a Vulcan B1 manual today (no really!) and I noticed that on the engineer's panel there are some switches for RATOG functions.
Now, I know the Victor and Valiant flew trials with DH Sprite RATOG pods but the Vulcan supposedly didn't. Certainly there have never been any photographs to suggest otherwise.
Anyone know if the RATOG gear was ever actually fitted for trials?

[BEagle]

I don't know about RATO, but the Vulcan was never fitted with an engineer!

[hobie]

anything usefull here .... :confused:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1043286

[Tim McLelland]

Photos on that link confirm what I found in the manual - the switches were there but presumably no gear was ever actually carried. I waded-through all the Avro archive photos and never saw anything, so unless anyone can prove otherwise, I think we can conclude that the switchery was built-in, in anticipation of RATOG being fitted, but then it was subsequently abandoned...
...unless anyone knows differently?

[Pontius Navigator]

Tim,

On the keypublishing link there was a suggestion that the Vulcan's had difficulty getting off the ground in Ascension.

From my experience in Aden and Butterworth a fully armed and fuelled Vulcan on unrestricted power had a ground roll of about 4500 feet. In contrast, at Butterworth a Victor 1 had a ground roll of about 8050 feet. The runway was slightly shorter than this :)

As for Black Buck, from the horses mouth so to speak:

"Apart from a failure to pressurise I do not remember any problems getting a Vulcan airborne., I expect the Victors would have appreciated RATOG more."

[Tim McLelland]

It does seem like a rather odd notion, as I've never heard of any instances where the Vulcan has ever been regarded as anything other than over-powered. Perhaps the Ascension comment comes from too many people reading that "607" paperback which does rather over-hype everything. Although I haven't read every line in that book (is it me, or is it too turgid?), I would think that somewhere in the text the author will have suggested that the Vulcan literally scraped off Ascension's runway with inches to spare... or something like that!


As for RATOG, I guess we have to assume that it was never more than a plan which resulted in switchery in the B1 cockpit, but never progressed beyond that.

[BEagle]

Personally I consider '607' to be an excellent book. It appeals to ex-Vulcan people and the genpub alike and is written in a way intended to keep the reader's attention.

It is not a dreary list of facts and figures, thankfully.

I am not aware of any inaccuracies or exaggerations in the book.

[flipflopman RB199]

Interestingly, having read these posts, I did a little digging on RATOG on the Vulcan.

Vulcan B2's were definitely scaled for RATO, with it being a pair of jettisonable Spectre rocket engines. There is still a sub section devoted to it in the Topic 3 (Spare Parts Schedule) under the heading "Rocket Assisted Take Off Equipment - Removable Items" and was incorporated as Mod 2!

Mod 1 of the Vulcan fleet was "Incorporation Of Rocket Assisted Take Off Gear, Fixed Stores.

Mod 2 was "Incorporation Of Rocket Assisted Take Off Gear, Removable Stores"

Interesting too, is that on the underside of the panels covering the Rapid Start charging points on XH558 (Between jetpipes at rear of engine) there is a warning label, stating "This Panel Is To Be Removed Prior To Fitment Of Rocket Gear", or words thereabouts.

Hmmmmmmmm...

A few more coals for the fire!!


Flipflopman

[Tim McLelland]

That is interesting- you would have thought that the whole RATOG notion would have been dropped by the time the B2 was constructed - evidently not! Are there any corresponding switches still left in the B2 cockpit though?

[Safety_Helmut]

I was looking through a Vulcan B1 manual today (no really!) and I noticed that on the engineer's panel
That is interesting- you would have thought that the whole RATOG notion would have been dropped by the time the B2 was constructed - evidently not! Are there any corresponding switches still left in the B2 cockpit though?
Must be interesting for someone who claims to be writing the authorative text on the Vulcan, and knows bugger all about it.

This is the second thread on which I have seen you have a dig at another author's work. I personally thought Vulcan 607 was a good read, as many others on here seem to have too.

S_H :uhoh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Is it possible that the notion of RATOG was retained in concert with the intended fitment of two Skybolt?

[flipflopman RB199]

Tim, no there are no RATOG switches remaining now,

And those pics over on the Key Publishing forum are very unlike the later B2 layout. Although they have the MFS instuments, the RATOG switch is positioned where the TACAN is on the later aircraft. Also, the JPT gauges are very different to later B2's and the 'chute "Jettison/Stream" switches appear on the 1st Pilots console, rather than the Centre console, as in every other B2.

Having said that, having seen the original consoles, and the amount of filler plates, and chopping up that has been done, could well be hiding a very different original layout. The fact that Mk21 oxygen regulators are fitted, with pressure jerkin facility, indicates an operational Vulcan, possibly very early in its career, whilst still in the High Level role?


Flipflopman

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

I don't know about RATO, but the Vulcan was never fitted with an engineer!


Beagle,

Please do excuse my small injection of humour in this serious thread... I just wondered if this was due to the fact that the Vulcan was indeed - never fitted with an oven ? :)

CRpxGood

[Tim McLelland]

It would seem that the switchery was only evident in the B1 then (presumably with external attachment points), and that the external attachment points lingered-on into the B2 but never had any practical purpose. Interesting indeed, and a shame that Sprite trials presumably never happened - a Vulcan B1 with Sprites would have been quite a take-off!
Safety_Helmut, I should point-out that I'm not claiming to write the "authoritative text on the Vulcan" - I'm just doing a book which will hopefully be worth reading, combining material from my past books with additions and amendments so that it creates what will doubtless be a far-from perfect book, but hopefully something better than anything else that's likely to come along. As for "having digs", I'm entitled to a view just like you are, and I personally thought the 607 book was a bit heavy-going; It would have made a great chapter, but a whole book?
As for the new book from Tempus, I wasn't "having a dig" at that either - just pointing-out that it's rubbish! It is full of mistakes, nonsensical information, and lots of material that has been reproduced without permission from myself and other people (one of whom is already talking to his solicitor). I'm amazed it got published actually! However, feel free to continue whining if it makes you happy; I've got broad shoulders;)

[Wader2]

There is clearly a problem with each new generation of books and articles each repeating earlier sources and not using original material.

Mr Paul Graham in the Spring 2007 edition of Air Power Review, writing about RAF NUclear Deterrence in the Cold War fell in to this trap when he included a table Statistics of Contemporary Bombers from another source. A source is cited but there are 10 different sources under that endnote; are we to believe that the ensuing table is Graham's own work?

There is a table with Range quoted in kilometers and speed in knots or mach together with a service ceiling in feet.

The table suggests a B52 as capable of 883k/0.84M and a Bear at 970k/0.79M. Inspection would suggest two error. Converting km to nautical miles gives 477 and 524 with the latter being rather faster than 0.79M would suggest.

The Vulcan Mk 1 is quoted at 0.84M and the Mk 2 at 0.96M. I seem to recall the Mark 1 actually had a higher mach number. As for the ceiling of the Vulcan Mk 2 at 65000ft, this is certainly questionable and not the published in-service figure. The 4000 mile range and 8 hour plus flight time are really Observer's Book of Aircraft stuff.

Much of the rest of the article seems accurate and authoritative but its credibility is thrown in doubt be sheer errors in an inconsequential table.

At least if contemporary primary sources are used, years after the event, an author can claim lapse of memory from his contributors.

[buoy15]

CRpxGood
Where's the humour in that?
Ovens are only employed on serious, long day out operational ac, as are engineers, whose only familiararity with the oven, is the Galley Master, which they switch off during MAD serials or compass checks
Flt Deck and Navs are shown around the galley as part of the OCU course, so they are familiar with the ac layout
In fairness, Flt Deck and Navs willingly help out in the Galley in long transits, but under close supervision from the AE cadre - I mean - you wouldn't let your 2 year old supervise the Barbie - would you?

[Wader2]

In fairness, Flt Deck and Navs willingly help out in the Galley in long transits, but under close supervision from the AE cadre - I mean - you wouldn't let your 2 year old supervise the Barbie - would you?

Yer, right, learnt that the hard way.

Took orders, down the back, 6 pies in, 19 minutes later done to a turn.

"Port Beam Snort snort, 3 o'clock 3 miles"

"Action stations standby for MAD - port beam you mean 9 o'clock."

"Captain, no, 3 o'clock, I'm looking out the stbd beam window."

20 minutes later - no pies just a happy smiling MAD Op.

[Tim McLelland]

Wader, that's one of the problems with aviation books - in reality there isn't much information around other than stuff which has already been previously published in books and magazines. Most books are essentially based on information gleaned elsewhere, although most tend to have something new to add here and there. The problem is that it's all too easy to assume that just because something's written in a book or magazine, it must be true. Of course that's often not the case, and so stories and "facts" get repeated time and time again without anybody ever stopping to question anything.
It's rather like the infamous "Vulcan B.Mk.2A" which pops-up in just about every Vulcan book and article, or the "SR2" etc., and yet no such designation existed. Then there's the story that Roy Chadwick lovingly created the delta/flying wing design, whereas he didn't in reality. Things get really bad when you get things like the new book I've mentioned, and the author invents new stuff of his own... "Vulcan B2 BB" - eek!

Books are never perfect sadly - you have to gather all the available information and make a (semi) educated guess!

[ORAC]

No opinion can be trusted; even the facts may be nothing but a printer's error.
W. C. Williams

[flipflopman RB199]

It's rather like the infamous "Vulcan B.Mk.2A" which pops-up in just about every Vulcan book and article, or the "SR2" etc.

Controversy time again Tim,

The Vulcan SR very nearly did exist, and it is mentioned in official publications, notably as "Vul Mod 003" This was a mod to upgrade the Vulcan to an SR reconaissance variant. This mod was later cancelled however, and appears to only have been intended for the B1 and B1a.

As an aside, a little more trawling today, turned up the fact that Mod 707, was to "Modify the R.A.T.O. instrument panel and electrical system, in line with latest requirements" and having read the mod, it lists several switches and indicators which were to be replaced, along with a number of cables. So it would appear that it was retained for use on B2's although how often, I have no idea. It also makes reference to the "R.A.T.O. Panel", although again, I have no idea where this would have been located!


Flipflopman

[Busta]

No oven, just sou peters.

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[Blacksheep]

Just a thought, but the 'V' force used lots of dispersal airfields ranged around the UK to disperse the force during "times of international tension". (and I've slummed it in broken down caravans and vandalised barrack buildings at nearly half of them!) I imagine that RATOG was intended to increase the number of available dispersal sites by using smaller airfields. Placing solitary aircraft all over the country would have made it impossible to eliminate the V Force in a first strike attack, but the logistics would also be horrific - and that's why the idea was dropped.

[Hipper]

I was just reading the Valiant Pilot's Notes and this aircraft had installed a water-methanol system.

Was this ever used and did the other V bombers have it?

[Art Field]

Hipper. The Valiant Tankers had a working water injection system, we called it water-meth but maybe that is water-ethanol?. If I remember correctly it was 60% water and 40% the other. Our Avons were rated at 10,000lbs static thrust and water gave us another 1,000 lbs. We used it frequently if we were hot, high and heavy. It lasted about 40 seconds. One disadvantage was to a stream take-off where subsequent aircraft found themselves virtually IMC from the smoky exhaust. Its use also reduced engine life between overhauls but it was very welcome since in those days we often took off with Stop the wrong side of Go [as we called them then]. I am not aware of any of the other Vs being so equipped.

[Hipper]

It was methanol - sorry. Edited my post.

It seems there was 145 gallons of the stuff usable and it temporarily upped the max revs to 8,300.

[Tim McLelland]

It's an interesting business. On the face of it, there would be no reason why the Vulcan B2 would need RATOG under any circumstances. But as has been said, it suggests that even if was never explored officially, it might have had something to do with retaining the ability to operate from runways which were outside of the designated dispersal list. Can't really think what other purpose RATOG would have on a B2.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tim, if it was long enough to land on at normal landing weights it was long enough to take-off from.

6000 ft was the normal minimum landing supposedly with a TBC stream. As I recall El Adem was only 6000 or 6500 feet in those days and we could never stream because of cross winds :}

Chivenor and Brawdy were both used regularly and were about 6000 feet with many others at only 7000.

[Tim McLelland]

Indeed, I wasn't questioning that point, I meant that (as Blacksheep has commented) the only reason I can think of for retaining a RATOG capability would be if there was some vague notion of operating from dispersal sites that were outside of the normal list, ie with less than 6,000 feet of available runway. Otherwise, it's hard to see what purpose the RATOG gear would fulfil? 'Course this doesn't explain how on earth you'd get the aircraft into the place safely in the first place, unless you waited for a day with a pretty decent headwind?!

[Pontius Navigator]

'Course this doesn't explain how on earth you'd get the aircraft into the place safely in the first place, unless you waited for a day with a pretty decent headwind?!

Exactly.

They were, as you know, delivered to short and to soft airfield but also at basic weights. A min landing run, minimal fuel, max aerodynamic braking, chute stream etc and it could do a very short landing but not all the time.

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

They were, as you know, delivered to short and to soft airfield but also at basic weights. A min landing run, minimal fuel, max aerodynamic braking, chute stream etc and it could do a very short landing but not all the time.


I read with interest !. I wonder, XM594 (B2) is, as you no doubt know on display at Newark Air Museum (once Winthorpe). It was flown in of course, and I was wondering just how long the runway would have been there (especially at the time). Must have been an achievement even in a 30 kt headwind, and I think proves further that the Vulcan could operate (at least into) from a short field.

CRPxGood

[Pontius Navigator]

Clear right, nah, Newark is plenty long enough, 4250. Now Catterick, that was tighter, you will find more on the Vulcan thread, 3500. Cosford was 3600

Southend is a tad short too.

[Rocket2]

PN: How about the ones at Halton? :}

[Wader2]

Halton's runway is longer. The minor airfield book shows 3707 feet. It also shows Cosford at 3890 of asphalt. That do you?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Wouldn't it have been possible to fit reheat to the Olympus engines as fitted to the Vulcan to give them that extra bit of grunt to get off a short runway?

[Pontius Navigator]

THS, in theory yes however, and this is purely speculation and I expect the engineers will comment too.

In the 50s reheat was all or nothing, throtleable reheat came later. Reheat cans weigh more than clean pipes and, unlike RATOG, would have to be dragged around all the time. RATOG would be a self-contained bolt-on and drop off. Reheat would use precious fuel so that aircraft using short runways would suffer greater range penalties and be limited to shorter range targets.

Strategically bombers on longer runways would therefore become priority targets as the enemy could deduce they were deep penetration missions.

[wonderboysteve]

Am I correct in thinking Vulcan B.3 would have had reheat for takeoff?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Tim

As a journalist, how on earth can you have the audacity to criticise '607' when you have not even read the whole thing? Is that not both supremely arrogant and professionally dubious at the same time?

You made similar comments about another Vulcan book you haven’t read in another thread.

I think that your comments here are unprofessional and unacceptable.

FTR, I very much enjoyed ‘607’.

You stated that:

I should point-out that I'm not claiming to write the "authoritative text on the Vulcan" - I'm just doing a book which will hopefully be worth reading, combining material from my past books with additions and amendments so that it creates what will doubtless be a far-from perfect book, but hopefully something better than anything else that's likely to come along.

Broadly interpreted, you are happy to settle for regurgitated mediocrity, then?

You then said:

That's one of the problems with aviation books - in reality there isn't much information around other than stuff which has already been previously published in books and magazines.

I simply do not agree. This sort of attitude is very prevalent in the military aviation publishing sector, but it's about time there was a shake up to rid us of it.

What you say smacks of laziness and apathy, and it should not be that way. This is particularly true of texts pertaining to an aircraft where there are dozens of operators still alive today to interview.

Since you frequently reference your trips to the archives, pilots’ notes, and whatnot, I had assumed that your Vulcan book would have been written ‘from the ground up’. Based on this comment and your earlier admission that it’s actually a mishmash of what you have already written, I wonder how well your book will be received by the reviewers?

Finally, you say:


Books are never perfect sadly - you have to gather all the available information and make a (semi) educated guess!

You might, but not all of us do!

I agree that books can never be perfect, and will always contain some statements that people will take issue with. But, make a semi educated guess? YGTBFSM. If you do the interviews and let the sources tell the story themselves, then you don’t have to do any guess work. If there are no sources available, then you present both sides of the story and allow the reader to make his own mind up.

I really think that you should consider things more carefully before you post about other peoples' works and your own modus operandi. You are not portraying yourself, or our industry, in a very good light.

[Tim McLelland]

Naturally, you're welcome to think what you like, it's a free country!

I've been around (and worked in the business) long enough to have seen-through all the bullsh*it that prevails in aviation publishing and the simple fact is that virtually no book is "original" or written "from the ground up" as you put it. The only ones that are, tend to be the "one off" titles produced for smaller companies that someone has written as a "labour of love" in his spare time, but they're the exception rather than the rule. I know it might be a depressing notion and you might want to change it, and in many respects I wish you could, but you can't. Aviation publishers just don't pay enough money to encourage anyone to produce a book from scratch, it's that simple. If you knew just how little money you actually got for such projects, you'd wonder why anyone even bothered (and many people don't!).

As for 607, I stand by what I said. I did read it all but not too carefully as it is a tad turgid in my opinion. It's a nice enough book but a bit too long in my opinion, and it does tend to over-dramatise events for obvious commercial reasons. He also shamelessly steals text from other Vulcan books (including my own) and other books too, which is not something that bothers me, but it would be nice to have been acknowledged...

As for the new Tempus book, I stand by what I said about that too - it's rubbish. Much of the material has been gleaned from other books which would be fine, except he evidently didn't seek permission to do it. The eight-page profiles for example were simply stolen from a magazine. Classy!
Finally, as for my new book, it's a mix of text from my previous books, combined with new stuff, and first-hand stories from "Vulcan people". Given that the Vulcan's story is already well-known, there's not much you can do other than add to it in parts and that's what I've tried to do. It might not meet with your approval but there we go; it might not be quite what I would ideally like to produce either but as I'm sure you know, life's often full of compromises. Whether reviewers like the book or not is irrelevant; it's worth bearing in mind that aviation books aren't produced for the interests of "enthusiasts" - they are aimed at a wider market of readers with a more casual interest. Naturally, enthusiasts buy them too but they're not the main market, so when an aviation magazine praises or criticises a book, a publisher generally doesn't even pay the slightest attention - but then again, when have you ever bought or not bought a book on the bassis of a reviewer's opinion?


I think you possibly have some over-romantic notions of aerospace publishing. I admit I did too maybe twenty years ago but unfortunately it's a very different business these days.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

I've been around (and worked in the business) long enough to have seen-through all the bullsh*it that prevails in aviation publishing and the simple fact is that virtually no book is "original" or written "from the ground up" as you put it <snip> Aviation publishers just don't pay enough money to encourage anyone to produce a book from scratch, it's that simple. If you knew just how little money you actually got for such projects, you'd wonder why anyone even bothered (and many people don't!).

I think you possibly have some over-romantic notions of aerospace publishing.


My 'over romantic notions' come from having spent seven years writing full time for the military aviation press, and having penned eight military aviation books for the world's leading aviation publishers. I am, therefore, all too aware of how little is paid for books.

Even so, most of my books were written from scratch (two borrow sections from previous books), and all have been widely applauded by the people that count – the readers – for their originality and reference to primary source material. So, your argument that the only way a great, original book can be released is if someone does it as a hobby is totally flawed.

FTR, I have a mortgage and similar financial commitments, and I do not enjoy any particular financial benefits that might make it easier for me to do this than you. What I do have, in spades, is a professional pride in my work and a determination that my books will be the best researched and most informative that they can be. Why? Because I don't want the punter being ripped off, and I don't want people saying that I write **** books.

Taking my most recent book as an example: I have visited the US twice to interview retired military pilots, and have a total of 80 hours of taped interviews with around 45 individuals living across the US. Whether the story is already well known is neither here nor there; what matters is that the punter is entitled to expect fresh perspectives and new stories for his hard earned cash. The money I actually live off of is that which I earn for TV, partwork, periodical, photography, monthly magazine, archiving and research commissions. On that I am able to live comfortably.


My 7 years may be less than half of your 20, but it's enough to know that I am right about what can and cannot be done in this business. There are an increasing number of aerospace publishers who are beginning to look past writers who sit behind the excuse you just gave and are recognising that they can get incisive, brand-spanking-new (at least, written from scratch) content for the same money from guys like me. I know because they are picking the phone up to me.

As for 607… He also shamelessly steals text from other Vulcan books (including my own) and other books too, which is not something that bothers me, but it would be nice to have been acknowledged...

Right, so on the one hand it’s impossible to write anything new about the Vulcan; on the other, no one is allowed to write a Vulcan book that uses text that looks vaguely like yours?

As a side note, does he or his publisher know you are accusing him of plagiarism?

As for the new Tempus book, I stand by what I said about that too - it's rubbish.

I have also heard that it’s a rip off of a number of sources, including you, but that is no excuse for brazenly implying that it's **** without having even read it.

In any case, why don’t you take legal action? If there is as serious case of plagiarism to answer to here, you should stop talking about it here and contact your publisher.

Whether reviewers like the book or not is irrelevant

Are you joking?! The reviewer, Tim, is the punter who buys your book, reads it and then posts a review on Amazon for the whole world to see (i.e. not a sado peridocial) saying that it’s ****, not worth the money, and a re-hash of another book of yours that he already has. That is who the reviewer is.


It's worth bearing in mind that aviation books aren't produced for the interests of "enthusiasts" - they are aimed at a wider market of readers with a more casual interest.


What, you mean like the sort of person who reads books s/he buys them cheaply off of Amazon?


When have you ever bought or not bought a book on the bassis of a reviewer's opinion?


I frequently read book reviews online to see whether a book might be worth spending my spondoolies on. I wonder if I am alone?

I am sorry, Tim, but I think that your attitude stinks. And you’re right, it is a free country and I am entitled to hold this view.

I am done here. You can have the last word.

[Tim McLelland]

Like you say, you're entitled to a view just like I am. I don't propose to waste my time arguing with you, not least because this thread is supposed to be about Vulcan RATOG developments and I'm sure none of the forum users want to be hijacked and taken into another topic just because you don't happen to like what I've said! I know what I know and if you think differently then good for you;)

[off centre]

I know what I know


And will inform the rest of us repeatedly.

[Tim McLelland]

And will inform the rest of us repeatedly

oooh, aren't we bitter and twisted:rolleyes:


Well done and thanks for your useful and constructive postings - and for the other er... two that you've contributed to PPrune...

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Back to the rocket science, I've just bought this picture on eBay:


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/Victor1.jpg

Clearly a MK1 Victor riding the RATOG.

My late Dad worked on the Exprimental side of Woodford from building the 1st Prototype to well after the Skybolt trials. Unsurprisingly, he was friends with some of the other foremen and supervisors and, as a lad, I would listen in on some of the conversations. As I remember it, drawings for RATOG were released but never actioned. Seemingly, as already posted by others, Vulcan 1s even with OLY 102s had enough power for the intended runways. I also recall mention of reheat and the effect of jetpipe length and resonance. Again, though, engine thrust was more than adequate and no more was heard of reheat.

Sadly, nearly all the blokes of that seniority and level of involvement have now died, taking their memories with them. Oh for a photographic memory and the sense to ask questions while you still had the chance.