Bomber role - why was Vulcan picked over Victor?

[cokecan]

evening folks.

whilst mooching around Cosford museum today i saw the rather fab V-Force display, which included - on the Victor notes - a passage that said 'Victor only continued in in its bombing role for 10 years, even though it could carry more bombs further, faster, and at higher altitude than Vulcan'.

so, good Ppruners, could someone enlighten me as to why Victor was moved to the Tanker/MR role while Vulcan - according to whoever wrote the notes at Cosford - a less capable long range bomber, retained the role?

i think i had heard something about Victor having more of a fatigue problem at low level than Vulcan, but i may well not have, and even then it may have been horse poo...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

At a guess, it's because we needed a tanker and the Victor was much better at that than the Vulcan. 2 wing hoses & capacity inside. So it's more a case of Victor chosen for tanker role than Vulcan chosen for bomber role.

[Finningley Boy]

When the future still involved the F111 and AFVG, if not the TSR2, follow me so far, the residual V-Bombers, after 1971, were going to be just a handful of Victors for both Bomber and Recce.

FB:)

[Fareastdriver]

When the Valiants folded all the tankers were in 3 Group and all the Victors were in 3 Group. 55 & 57 Sqns were suddenly reroled as Victor Mk1 tankers, just two pods on the wings, and this grew into 3 pointers and then the Mk2. No 1 Group stuck to their bombing competitions with their Vulcans though there were some temporary Vulcan tankers.

[Dr Jekyll]

Was any consideration given to reconverting a few Victors back to Bombers after the Vulcans were retired or would it have been totally impractical? Might have come in useful in GW1.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Mark 2 Victors were Blue Steel carriers and never bombers. At low level their greater wing span and design meant they suffered greater fatigue and were limited to 220kts in training compared with the Vulcan that could do 240 with a dash at 350. In war the Vulcan could go to 415.

As stated the Mk 2s were then re-roled as tankers to replace the Mk 1s that were only ever an interim tanker as their fuel uplift in hot climes was low and they needed to do a tanker-tanker transfer before they had a useful give away.

There were very few Mk 2 Victors (34) compared with the Vulcan. Two sqns of 8 missile carriers and one of 9 SR before they were converted. There were 89 Vulcan Mk 2.

The main reason for the few Victors was political as Sir Frederick fell out of favour in the desire to rationalise the UK aircraft industry. If you read Wikipedia it will give you more information:

Handley Page Victor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor)

[Art Field]

With the bomb-bay modified to take the centre hose unit it would take a major programme to convert the Victor2 back to a bomber. As far a fatigue is concerned anyone who flew on the early receiver sorties for new captains would be glad that the Victor was pretty tough. Indeed a few captains continued to test the control extreme limits. a Scottish pilot was renown fop his enthusiasm. The Vulcan was in fact easier to fly in the receiver role and smooth to fly behind but it was rather fuel limited.

[matkat]

Pontious is indeed correctit was the fatigue problem that determined the role.

[Tankertrashnav]

Flew on Victor K1/K1a s for 6 years and although the fuel uplift limitations as mentioned by Pontius Navigator restricted their usefulness, they were nevertheless a very reliable aircraft. Have to confess I never envied the Vulcan rear crews stooging around at low level without bang seats. At least up where we operated you had the illusion of safety!

Just look at this picture of a Victor in anti-flash white before they started sticking bits all over it (no windscreen wipers even) and you have to agree this is one of the prettiest post war RAF aircraft.

Handley Page Victor - Flight Image of the Day (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/2008/02/handley-page-victor.html)

[Pontius Navigator]

Tell me about the vortex generators :E

[Willard Whyte]

one of the prettiest post war RAF aircraft.

Hmm, 'tis all in the eye of the beholder. I've never been a fan of the vast majority of post war British aircraft, pretty much bar the Vulcan and TSR2. All the curves make 'em look a bit wimpy. I prefer something that looks aggressive, hence a general preference for American products. Better names too.

[Tankertrashnav]

Better names too.


Hmm - Fortress - Superfortress - Stratofortress - do I detect something of a fortress mentality here? ;)

All those "wimpy" curves allowed the Victor to slip through Mach 1 like a knife through butter if you were inattentive enough to let it.

[jamesdevice]

would the fact that the Vulcan (at least those with the strong points) could carry two Skybolts under the wings, but the Victor only one under the fuselage have any bearing on the decision? Or had the Skybolt already been abandoned by then?

[Finningley Boy]

I think Skybolt was cancelled by the Kennedy Administration.:(

FB:)

[jonwilly]

And of course Handley Page did all it could to avoid Merging with other UK Companies.
This did not endear her to the UK gov.

john
Best looking mach 1 aircraft the RAF ever had.

[Art Smass]

Lots of Wimpy Curves on the Lightning too ;)- and a great name to boot:ok:

[4Greens]

In view of the limited size of the UK aircraft industry, it is perhaps even more curious as to why we ended up with three V bombers in the first place.

[Shark Zero Six]

I was around when the Victor was being developed (and the rest of the V force) As a kid in the antipodes a great attraction was waiting to see the Farnborough airshow on TV (they used to fly the film to OZ back then - and I grew up thinking that the British country side was grey in color...)

we of course had our mandatory information books "The Observers Book of Aircraft" and some of us were even lucky enough to get hold of Flight Magazine.

Result was we were all child experts on aircraft and could tell you how many rivets were in every aircraft flying.

One thing I remember was the Victor. we were regulary getting snippets of info re the aircraft and I recall when word went around our group that a version had exceeded Mach 1. I've subsequently seen courtesy of Google (Alas the observers books no longer exist...) that they could indeed do it in a shallow dive.

Can anyone advise what the max speed ever reached (even if it's just a rumor) in a Victor.

Also was it capable of getting past M1 in level flight, or was there just not sufficient power?

Only ever saw one in real life, about 1963...flew low over Sydney at high speed one summer morning, came straight at me and overhead.

Beautiful.

thanks

[Willard Whyte]

Ah yes, the Lightning. Very apt, particularly reference endurance.

[Halton Brat]

I can feel a new thread coming on - 'Prettiest post-war RAF aircraft'....

Oh dear.

:rolleyes:

HB

[Pontius Navigator]

4Greens, remember we were at the fore front of aviation where the only way to prove a design was to build and test. The USA is still able to afford fly-off competitions.

In UK the Canberra, IIRC, was unique but the Sperrin and Valiant were insurance policies against failure to meet the full OR for the Victor and Vulcan. The 3 Vs were really therefore intended to be 2 however Vickers tried to stay in the game with the Mark 2.

Other multiple buys were the Swift and Hunter. Sea Vixen and Javelin; argueable de haviland got it right and Gloucester, after 9 attempts was still trying. I doubt you could have got a Javelin off a carrier (more than once).

By the time we got to the Tornado it was our second attempt at a one-size fits all.

[Tankertrashnav]

I can feel a new thread coming on - 'Prettiest post-war RAF aircraft'....

Oh dear.




Waste of time - Victor and Hunter 1st equal, the rest nowhere! ;)

[Halton Brat]

Tankertrashnav

Clearly, you were deprived of the opportunity to admire the sensuous curves of the Wiggins Aerodyne...............

HB

[Agaricus bisporus]

Seems odd to me that anyone would think that Vulcan, Victor and Valiant are names inferior to their american counterparts. What could be more appropriate than the Roman god of fire and thunderbolts (which he thoughtfully tended to use in a defensive/retribution manner rather than an aggressive one), or victory and valour? There's nothing very get-up and go or valiant about hiding behind the walls of a fortress, is there? Mitchell - some personality cult or other, Liberator - er - liberate? Its a bomber fer chrissakes! Superfortress, bigger thicker walls. Peacemaker. Hmm, arguable, but hardly aggressive or macho is it.

Personally never saw anything soft or fluffy in the lines of the V force either, they all looked pretty muscular to me.

And aren't the more modern Russian aircraft all curves - and to my eye they're far more aggressive and menacing looking than anything else.

[Pontius Navigator]

Peacemaker. Hmm, arguable, but hardly aggressive or macho is it.

Actually the Russian forces consider themselves a Peacemakers rather than Peacekeepers. The latter is really fluffy and in Europe we know who provides many peacekeepers.

[Rocket2]

I assume that stealth wasn't a consideration at the time, but is the curvacious Vulcan more difficult to spot on radar than the rather pointy (but agressive looking) Victor or did the huge wing area make it stand out more?

[wiggy]

AFAIR the problem wasn't the curves of either, the intakes were the biggest ( radar) giveaway.

[tornadoken]

4G: why 3: UK actually flew 7 wing shapes. Avro+HP as insurance (UK SOP: see Halifax+(Manchester) Lancaster; Hurricane+Spitfire). So strenuous was the Spec. (high and far) that insurance on the insurance was sought; simple Short Sperrin (2 built) and a jet variant of Lincoln (6 Ashtons built) were funded. We also flew wing-concept vehicles for 2 more: the AWA all-wing, and Short's aero-isoclinic wing. Vickers' simpleton was rejected, but in April,1948 won a design contract by committing to get (to be Valiant) in Service before (to be Vulcan/Victor Mks.1). Attlee in 1951 ordered 25, intended as pathfinders. The uplift to 104 was 50% US MDAP-funded to get rid of Lincoln NOW! When Mks.1 Victor/Vulcan were deployed, 24 Valiants were assigned from 1960 to Saceur as his Tactical Bomber Force, with US weapons.

cc: #1: why more/longer Vulcan Bs. Both were funded into design in November,1947; 25 of both Mks.1 were ordered 25 July,1952; both Mks.2 funded 31 May,1956. Production orders were placed on 5 March,1957 for 120 and on 30 May,1957 for 42 more, split equally. They were to carry, initially the UK gravity H-Bomb (to be Yellow Sun Mk.1), to be supplemented by "stand-off bomb" Blue Steel (Mk.1, longer range versions intended. HP schemed such a thing). Defence Policy was then re-jigged somewhat, military and industrial. 2 factors caused more Vulcan 2s to be deployed than Victor 2s:
- In September,1957 industry was invited to tender for (to be TSR.2). MoS required Teams. Sir Fred.HP confused "team" with "lead", so was deemed to be "difficult".
- January,1959: UK joined US to procure (to be GAM-87A Skybolt ALBM), Douglas Prime Contractor, Avro Weapons Research Division 29 March,1960 appointed Sister Firm. MoA accepted their input, that low-slung Victor could not carry Skybolt. Victor Mk.2 order was reduced to three Squadrons, Blue Steel, then changed to two, plus one as SR.2: total U/E of 24. Skybolt Vulcan 2 would equip 2 Wings each of 24, at Coningsby and Scampton.

Mks.2 had been intended to replace all 3 Mks.1. The Tanker Force was funded in 1958 to support fighter detachments in the Rapid Deployment Force. MBF Valiants would be chopped when Vulcan/Victor Mks.2 arrived, so were acquisition "free" to tank. Valiant's November,1964 wing fatigue required a quick decision on which Mk.1 would take over Valiant's NATO Tactical Bomber Force Task, and which would tank. TBF was U/E 24, the tanker Force was then 16: it was logical to plan that when the Mks.2 were displaced by Polaris, they would in turn replace the Mks.1. We had more Vulcan 2s than Victor 2s, so Vulcans to B, Victors to K.

All 3 V-Bomber bays were designed around UK's memory of Fat Man (10 tonnes, 62 inch diameter). No intention of risking these assets to haul iron. Valiant was used at Suez, Vulcan in Black Buck because they were there. Staff had no operational feedback, in Nov.1964, on comparative low-level/fatigue issues.

(Mostly, this is from Wynn's Strategic Nuclear Force Official History)

[kiwibrit]

I don't know if it influenced the decision to choose the Vulcan - but I was impressed how quickly the armourers could load one. The low belly of the Victor must have made loading a pain.

[Tankertrashnav]

Some good info on bombing up Victors here - particularly with regard to Blue Steel:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/447817-victors-vulcans-cuba.html

[Pontius Navigator]

kiwi, Yellow Sun 7 minutes, WE177 35 minutes and these are the times from start load to aircrew accepted and signed off.

I don't have the time for 3x7x1000lb but it could be very slick. What would take the time here would be the checking and removal of all the safety pins.

[Fareastdriver]

3x7x1000lb
I always thought the Victor had five crutches of seven.

[Tankertrashnav]

http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org/explore/images/aircraft/Handley%20Page%20Victor%20K2/ew8_l.jpg

It did Fareastdriver - Pontius is talking about the tin triangle, which by the time it heaved its own not inconsiderable bulk into the air couldn't manage as big a conventional bombload as its sleeker, faster and prettier sister ;)

(OK, I admit it - it was because of the size of its bomb-bay)

[Pontius Navigator]

the tin triangle, which by the time it heaved its own not inconsiderable bulk into the air couldn't manage as big a conventional bombload as its sleeker, faster and prettier sister ;


Ah, but it could heave its own bulk into the air and with fuel as well :}

Out of Butterworth our Australian cousins failed to see us get airborne. We lifted off at around 4500 feet whereas the prettier sister left muddy tracks in the overshoot at the 8000 foot mark and with only 21000 on board and they were looking in the wrong place.

[Tankertrashnav]

P-N - Yes can't argue that point, assuming we are talking about Mk 1's. One of our guys once reported passing 500' ten miles out of Dubai, and was mightily thankful that he had no high ground straight ahead as he certainly wasnt going to risk a turn! Turned out the fuel figures had been calculated assuming 40C when in fact the true temp was probably nearer 50C on the runway.

We were still prettier though ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN, I recall a Mk 1 tanker at Akrotiri lost a donk on take-off. Immediate actions included hitting the fuel dump, something a Vulcan never had, and the whole peninsular became an instant no-smoking zone. He was still jettisoning as he passed the fence.

Course by then they weren't pretty as their paint was very shabby.:p

[kiwibrit]

I remember going to Marham after BrizeNorton - where, If a VC10 was taking off, you had no doubt it was going to get airborne. My first glimpse of a Victor 1 tanker moving on the runway was framed by a couple of hangars. The thing seemed to be moving at constant speed. So I went out of the airfield side. to watch a take off. Again the beast seemed to move without accearation down the runway - and I wondered if I was about to witness an accident. At the last momeet there was a bit of a lurch , and there was flight - of sorts. The tanker seemed to follow the curvature of the earth until, a long way out, it climbed away. It struck me that a Victor K1 with full fuel load was not a place to be if there were an engine failure on take off - but perhaps an ex K1 aircrew could advise on that. I guess a fully-loaded B1 would have been in the same situation. Fortunately by that time the Sapphire was pretty reliable.

Aha! Cross-posted with Pontius. Sorry - got interrupted, by Senior Management here, mid post composition :E

[Pontius Navigator]

kiwi,

NP.

The big difference between the Valiant and the Victor 1 was give away. I don't know the comparative fuel loads and giveaway in numbers but do know that a Valiant could 'take' a fighter to the Far East. It could fly to Malta or El Adem, Khormaksar, Gan, Tengah with a Javelin plugging in along the way. The Victor, OTOH, require route activation first.

Route activation was a question of prepositioning tankers at each staging post and tanking aircraft as they passed through. It was a non-starter with the Vulcan-Valiant as the Vulcans could reach the Far East in 2 days whereas it took at least that long to activate the route for even one aircraft.

For Javelins the Valiant was perfect. It could flow from Marham and also reach the Far East in 2 days, although 4 was the norm, with a Javelin in tow. If spares could be positioned down route they could increase the Valiant give-away.

The Victor, OTOH, require full route activation with the main refueller being topped up at TOC before it could take its fighter down the route.

[Herod]

Shark Zero Six. I was also in Oz in the early sixties, growing up mad on aeroplanes. Luckily My father was stationed at RAAF Pearce and we got a good selection of visitors from the Mother Country. All 3 V's, Comets and Britannias. Security was pretty relaxed as well, so it was possible to actually touch the beautiful birds. I ended up joining the RAF, but not to fly the sexy stuff; Wessex and Hercules were my lot. Not pretty, but fun.

[Fareastdriver]

My Valiant log book reminds me that it was about 5 hrs Honington-Akrotiri. Of that 4.30 would be in the cruise at 8,000 lbs/hr....36,000. 2,500 T/O and climb plus 10,000 overhead. Out of 74,000 capacity that allowed 25,500 for an accompanying aircraft. A Javelin at about 4,000lbs/hr was easy. IIRC 3 Valiants could take 4 Javelins to Cyprus with the No1 Valiant staging through Luqa. Once you got a fighter airborne and up to alltitude if you filled it up even the Lightning could get as far as the Mediterranean.
The Victors of 55 & 57 used to take up almost all of Honington's runway with just a 10 k inert on board. I watched a tanker version take off at Tengah once, never again.

[Pontius Navigator]

FED, quite.

[longer ron]

The Victors of 55 & 57 used to take up almost all of Honington's runway with just a 10 k inert on board. I watched a tanker version take off at Tengah once, never again.

Victor Mk 1 ??

[Tankertrashnav]

At the last moment there was a bit of a lurch , and there was flight - of sorts. The tanker seemed to follow the curvature of the earth until, a long way out, it climbed away. It struck me that a Victor K1 with full fuel load was not a place to be if there were an engine failure on take off - but perhaps an ex K1 aircrew could advise on that. I guess a fully-loaded B1 would have been in the same situation. Fortunately by that time the Sapphire was pretty reliable.


I was rather hoping that Pontifex, a very experienced Victor K1 QFI (and ex Valiant captain) might pitch in here - but maybe he's not following this thread.

A couple of points. In six years of flying in the back of K1s I never once experienced an engine failure, or even a precautionary shutdown. After a rather shaky start in life, the Sapphire settled down to be a thoroughly reliable engine, although admittedly a little short on thrust and on occasions 101.5% power was used on takeoff. We used to practise assymetric circuits where the fuel dump facility referred to by P-N was only simulated, as the Norfolk farmers might have objected to their crops being sprayed with Avtur.

Second point - the "bit of a lurch" you talk about was when all three rearcrew simultaneously reached down, grabbed their seats, and pulled upwards - worked every time ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

Longeron, B1s at Honnington. Marham was always home to the tankers.

[Wander00]

Never was in the V-Force, but in an idle moment just wondered if there was a marked difference in accident losses between the 3 aircraft types.

[Pontius Navigator]

Wander, probably not. In numbers maybe but if you factor in numbers of each type and flying hours in service then it was probably pretty steady. The exception would be the tankers.

Once the tankers were removed from the stress of low level flying and a reduced predeliction for trying to penetrate CuGr the losses would have been very low indeed.

TTN mentioned the reliability of the Sapphire. During my time in the Vulcan about 300 hours mtbf was good although many shut downs were precautionary. Unlike passenger jet useage the military engines were rarely run at a constant setting for many hours. They were also amongst the most powerful unreheated engines in service anywhere at the time.

[Art Field]

Tankertrashnav. Not as good as Pontifex but a Valiant co and Victor 1 and 2 QFI. There were hairy moments on Valiants because we, on occasions, did not have the protection of having a stop speed that was above a go speed and still had to go. There was rather a short amount of knowledge on performance all round. They fitted WaterMeth inject on the Tankers which gave us another 1000lbs thrust per engine and boy was that welcome but even so I can remember waiting at take-off for fuel to burn off before launching.

The VictorK1 was only maginally better but fortunately there was, by the time it became a Tanker, a much better understanding of performance. Even so you could get caught out by the difference between met temperature and runway surface temperature which was often quite a bit higher. I have vivid memories of lifting off on the sand at the end of Masirah. According to the performance graphs you would be able to fly a circuit, having lost an engine, if you were below the T/O weight the graph gave you but I sometimes had my doubt. When we got the K2, well!!

[ian16th]

AF,

When 214 tanked for the Javelins to the far east, the take off's from Gan were done before the sun came up and with water meth.

The locals all complained that we woke them up!

[Heathrow Harry]

Slightly off topic but there's photo of Victor dropping a shed load of (conventioanl) bombs in one of Bill Gunston's books - but he rather enigmatically says that there is something odd about it but not what - any ideas???

[Pontius Navigator]

Looking at the photo, if we number the septupal carriers from the front the drop sequence would appear to have been the lower 3 bombs from carrier 3, then 5 then 1. They were followed by the top 4 from carrier 5, then 3 then 1 in pairs thus giving the sequence 5-3-1-5-3-1.

From that you can see the sequence went from 3-5-1 to 5-3-1. Then followed 3 each from 4-2 and then 4 each from 4-2.

The oddity would appear to be the drop of the initial 3 from carrier 3 rather than 5.

The bombs on carrier 5 also show an uneveness in attitude possibly due to turbulence.

Will that do?

[Fareastdriver]

Take offs in a Valiant from Eastleigh, Nairobi were always doubles. The water meth tanks held 1410 lbs of stuff and it lasted 90 seconds. That was precisly the point at which the mainwheels left the runway;...... you lost 4,000lbs of thrust and the mainwheels left the runway again some time later.

[Heathrow Harry]

thanks - maybe the photo was dodged?

[forget]

There's a photograph of 1 Victor + 35/1,000lbs at Song Song. Page 19.

http://www.raf-butterworth-penang-association.co.uk/PDF/Issue25Christmas2009.pdf

[Pontius Navigator]

Harry, it wasn't.

A copy was presented to Strategic Air Command at Offutt. They were so impressed they requested a similar one of a Vulcan dropping 21.

Unlike the Victor drop the Vulcan drop showed a simple stack of 21 bombs as their drop pattern was sequential from all the carriers rather than in blocks as I described the Victor drop.

The first Vulcan camera drop ended in farce. The drop was at Aberporth and a chase was to photograph the drop. The crew duly ran in on the target. At the appropriate point the bomb doors opened and 7 seconds after that the bombs cleared the aircraft.

Before the crew could even call bombs gone they heard:

"Stand-by to drop, in 5 -4 -3 -2 -1"

Too late she cried and of course the chase did not have its camera running. No one had told the crew that the ground control would call the drop. The second went without a hitch. A third drop was then arranged at El Adem, this time with HE. I have a photograph from that drop arriving. It was taken by a Daily Telegraph photographer and I have a copy of the original slide somewhere. The picture was in pure black and orange.