Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Victor as conventional bomber

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Victor as conventional bomber

Old 30th Dec 2016, 13:16
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Victor as conventional bomber

Re reading Gunston's "jet Bombers" over a mince pie he shows a picture of a Victor dropping conventional bombs



The caption reads

" There's a story behind this photo of a B.1 dropping "35thousand-pounders" but we won't blow the gaff."

What was the story???
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 13:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SAM. u.k.
Age: 78
Posts: 274
there's only 33?
denachtenmai is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 13:28
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fife
Posts: 242
Don't know but wasn't there once a similar show of force during Confrontation?
Coochycool is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 13:35
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Clearly 5 sticks each of 7 bombs in the original picture
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 14:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 92
I believe the picture is 'retouched' (early 'photoshopping' for you young 'uns), although both the reason and source of that information are long forgotten. Hopefully, someone else can flesh that out a little.

The Victor is known to have been able to loft 35 x 1,000 pounders (and close to 70,000 lbs of sea mines, iirc), but perhaps the B.1 was height / payload restricted in some way, making tinkering with the image the easier PR solution?

Last edited by JG54; 30th Dec 2016 at 14:24. Reason: Fat fingers.
JG54 is online now  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 14:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,889
From what I've read, there was some concern that when the lowest bomb in the stick of 35 dropped from Victor B1A XH648 by Flt Lt Thomson's crew over Song Song range (to send a clear message to the Indons...) detonated, it might set off the next...and that would continue progressively up the stick. At which point the highest bomb would still be rather close the bomber... This was because the release interval had been set to a short value, making the release photo look impressive whilst ensuring that all 35 bombs remained within the Danger Area!

No-one let slip this piece of gen to those observing the drop...
BEagle is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 16:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 72
Posts: 97
I vaguely remember reading that it couldn't release all the bombs as quickly or as closely as the picture shows. I stand to be corrected though. If they were released as shown it would be interesting to know what the G force was after the almost instantaneous release of 35,000 pounds from the Bomb bay!
morton is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 18:08
  #8 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 78
Posts: 16,750
Morton, the PESJ - pilots emergency safe jettison - could literally drop the lot on the Vulcan. I imagine the Victor had a similar system.

The release system was the 90-way. This was used to set the time interval between bombs.

From memory we used a setting of 0.30 seconds. For a stick of 35 bombs as 0.3 seconds the time between 1 and 35 was 10.2 seconds. The vertical distance between first and last would be about 1,800 feet.

Again from memory the available shorter intervals were 0.18 and 0.09. Assuming the shortest would give an interval of 3.06 seconds and a vertical separation of 150 feet. This looks pretty close to the setting. I am not sure if there was a shorter time available.

Apart from the rapid weight reduction there was also CofG change but minimised through bomb sequencing stn 3-5-1 in sequence followed by 4-2.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 19:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 76
Posts: 6,242
Aside from the technicalities, that has alway been my favourite V-Force bombing photo. Shame they weren't still available in Iran or 'Stan [OK, I know, collateral etc. etc.] because that's close to a good B-52 delivery.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 19:39
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 72
Posts: 97
The internet is a wonderful thing and I am now standing corrected!
V-Force: Victors in Malaya Finest Hour Warbirds
morton is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 20:31
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SAM. u.k.
Age: 78
Posts: 274
Clearly 5 sticks each of 7 bombs in the original picture
Whooosh
denachtenmai is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 20:56
  #12 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 78
Posts: 16,750
From Morton's link
What the propagandists wanted was a trail of bombs released in sequence, the first bomb exploding on impact with the sea before the last bomb left the aeroplane, the intention being to create a ‘wall of water’ as an impressive spectacle.
and my calculations you can see that the vertical stack of bombs would have been about 1,800 feet with standard spacing and assuming a low level drop to achieve the aim the aircraft would have been in the 1% range of frag damage from ONE bomb and well inside the blast range damage zone.

PS, they never let us Vulcans drop HE out there after the odd Victor 'heard but not seen' on both China Rock and S2.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 21:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,877
QUOTE

it would be interesting to know what the G force was after the almost instantaneous release of 35,000 pounds from the Bomb bay!

I cannot get my head round how a decrease of mass can cause a G Force. Can someone please explain? If my leg drops off, I do not rise in the air even though I am lighter [and disregarding falling over!]. It matters not if I am at rest or at constant velocity ...... the leg drops-off and I soldier on, comparatively legless and certainly 'armless.

I am well aware of the anecdotal evidence of the heave of a Lancaster as a Grand Slam departs, and do not doubt the reality of the effect, but my knowledge of aerodynamics is inadequate to explain. Perhaps the late hour and the red biddy is to blame.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 21:47
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southport
Posts: 1,185
Well, from a purely physics point of view, before you drop any bombs the wings are producing enough lift to hold up the plane+crew plus 35000lbs of bombs. Then you drop them, suddenly(ish) lightening the plane by 35000lbs, so unless something else changes you suddenly have an extra net force of 35000lbs pushing the aircraft upwards, which is quite a lot. Would think in a more modern plane there would be some sort of automatic compensation thing going on?
andytug is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2016, 22:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oil Capital of Central Scotland
Age: 54
Posts: 448
Hey LB, check your PMs
Donkey497 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 08:09
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 72
Posts: 97
LB. My simplistic thinking is as follows. In flight at a constant altitude the Aircraft generated lift (upwards force) equals the Aircraft weight (downward force). Any change to either will, obviously, cause an imbalance and the Aircraft will either rise or fall. The loss of 35,000lb would, I assume, result in a large upward movement and bending of the wings due to this movement and felt as a G force.

You are quite right though, the loss of your legs does indeed cause you to fall to the ground – as I have found on a few lost weekends. However, it was the muscles in your legs that kept you upright and no amount of arm flailing will generate enough lift to compensate for the loss of leg muscle – again as I have found in the past!

Last edited by morton; 31st Dec 2016 at 08:12. Reason: tortology
morton is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 08:13
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
excellent link Morton - great pictures and all the detail as well!!!

Many thanks!!!
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 08:55
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 76
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by morton View Post
LB. My simplistic thinking is as follows. In flight at a constant altitude the Aircraft generated lift (upwards force) equals the Aircraft weight (downward force). Any change to either will, obviously, cause an imbalance and the Aircraft will either rise or fall. The loss of 35,000lb would, I assume, result in a large upward movement and bending of the wings due to this movement and felt as a G force.

You are quite right though, the loss of your legs does indeed cause you to fall to the ground as I have found on a few lost weekends. However, it was the muscles in your legs that kept you upright and no amount of arm flailing will generate enough lift to compensate for the loss of leg muscle again as I have found in the past!
It's a long time since I flew a Victor 1, 49 years in fact, but I wonder how far a Victor 1 could carry 35 1000 pounders at a max tow of 185,000 pounds? Marham to Leuchars?

As for the G loading on release, the increase would be about only . 28g . If the aircraft weighed 160,000 pounds then released 35,000 pounds then it now weighs 125,000 pounds with 160,000 pounds of lift, so 160 divided by 125 equals 1.28, assuming instant release and no pitch control input. Not a lot of G even for an airliner in a steady turn at 25 degrees of bank in light turbulence!

QFI hat off !
RetiredBA/BY is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 09:02
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,170
Would think in a more modern plane there would be some sort of automatic compensation thing going on?
The Nav Radar would have done all the flying and ranging through the bombing radar. The NBS bombing computer would have opened the doors and released the bombs IAW the sequence selected.

Any aerodynamic effects from the release would be corrected by the autopilot. There might have been a "Cor" from the pilots.

A Valiant was planned to carry more bombs, One of the projects was to have a bomb carrier with 10 1,000 bombs under each wing, (the underwing fuel tanks had a 12,500lbs each capacity). This with 21 1,000 pounders in the bomb bay would have totalled 41,000 lbs still with full (five hours) internal fuel.

Last edited by Fareastdriver; 31st Dec 2016 at 11:12. Reason: Memory jogged
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 09:08
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 74
Posts: 186
As BE says the picture is fixed as one bomb was out of frame but 35 were droped.
In August 1964, 10/15 Sqdn with Victor B1a, Detached to RAAF Butterworth and 55 /57 Sqdn at RAF Tengha stood Dawn to Dusk QRA, loaded with 21 x 1000lb bombs with Radio fusing (PN (Roy) who came out in Nov 64 in the Vulcans that relieved us, can tell you more about the fusing and he has a paper recording the Vulcan involvement).
The Aeroplanes were fitted with a bomb-bay tank that took the first two bomb positions.
We dispersed 2 Bombers to Gan and 55 Sqdn sent up 2 to Butterworth.
For those don’t know the history see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indone..._confrontation
The Victor detachment from Cottismore and Honington had been ongoing since early 1963,
The Vulcans did not arrive until Nov 1964 when as such it was all over after political changes in Indonesia.
My 15 Sqdn detachment returned to the UK in Nov 64 however we left XA941 behind as it had a centre line closure on one of its stb engines, which were then being fixed by the MU. Meanwhile I was posted to Honington and was promptly returned to Butterworth on New Years day as part of the servicing crew to recover the aeroplane.
Happy days
***

Edited to add comment about the http://www.finesthourwarbirds.co.uk/...ors-in-malaya/
This link is more concerned with the Tengha Operation. It was a Butterworth aeroplane that droped the first 35 bomb load sometime before May 1964. Additionally RAAF Butterworth on the mainland not on the island of Penang.

Last edited by orionsbelt; 31st Dec 2016 at 09:22.
orionsbelt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.