Victor K1 Centreline Hose
 

I have just come across a nice picture of XA918 (which I think was the prototype) with 3 hoses trailed. The centreline seems to be the original long hose - it was modified shortly after introduction to service following an enthusiastic incident, I recall - can anyone remind me of the actual lengths?

show us your pics then...

XA918

http:/www.photobox.co.uk/album/239869566

I dont have any of my old notes

Does this help you guesstimate

The F4 was 57'7" long and the pull out was about the same again as when plugged in. The centreline was a similar length but a slightly bigger basket IIRC

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...Victor_F4s.jpg

Top West 50. I guess you are the tall one. The original centre hose was the same as the Valiant at 90ft. I believe it was found that in certain conditions it could become unstable on the Victor and set up the good old hose whip. They therefore shortened it to 83 feet which became the norm. Hope this helps.

Just wondering what a Day One student of aircraft design would make of that picture?:)

Any particular reason they had a 90ft hose, Art, was it just what would fit on the reel?

Gainsay. I guess it was a bit like, how long is a piece of string. It had to clear the aircraft by a comfortable margin in the refuel position but could not be too long or the hose would wave about too much. At the start of the Valiant it was the tin drogue which appeared to be heavier than the subsequent finned variety and certainly could swing around in turbulence. If the hose had been longer I do not think the HDU drum would have taken it, we often had piling of the hose as it was even after pre-dusting the 4 inch bore tube as in those days the hose was fabric covered.

The shorter, actually! Thanks for the numbers - it looks as if 918 was sporting the 90 feet version. I'm pretty sure the first 3-pointer was delivered (to 57 Sqn) with the 90 ft hose. The attempted first operational contact, amongst other things, took the probe off the receiver and damaged the tanker. I think the 83 ft hose was then retro-fitted and cleared for operational use?

Gainesy

Assuming you are talking about the pretty one in front of the two Phantoms , I think he might think:

I'll get rid of those bulgy things under the wings...

I think I'll flatten out that bumpy bit in front of the tail...

I'll get rid of that pointy thing above the cockpit...

Ah yes, and I think it would look good in all over white

Then it would like this:

Handley Page Victor B1, 7850M, Royal Air Force

Ah, that's even better :ok:

No doubt about it - the Mk1 was a very pretty aeroplane. And quite a performer at high level! I think, at the time they were converted to tankers, they welded the leading edge flaps.

XA 923
 

See link at Post No. 9

IIRC - XA923 was one of the three last pre-production Victors 1s, fitted with Yellow Aster side-scan radar and flown by Radar Reconnaissance Flight at Wyton. The radar recce fit needed additional electronics, so it and its "mates", XA 924 and 925, were considerably different from standard production aircraft - though that wasn't apparent from the outside. One result was that, in addition to the "teething troubles" of any new type, the RRF aircraft had teething troubles of their own.
One reason behind RR was the possibility of the "Open Skies" plan, under which Western and Soviet aircraft would be able to overfly each other's territory without let or hindrance ... not, as it turned out a very realistic idea, but it had considerable traction for a while, until both sides tacitly acknowledged that they both had more to hide than to gain.
Side-scan radar was expected to increase the coverage per flight over what "conventional" photgraphic recce would bring back, and do it in all weathers, but to be really effective, a very, very narrow beam was needed, produiced by a very, very long transmitter (see, e.g. Wedgetail 737s). The big problem with this, in the late '50s, and probably now, was fuselage flexing distorting the "emitter". Thus the "RRF three" gently went on to other uses than those intended.
Nice to fly, though !

Long/Short Hoses
 

The original 90' hose 3-pointer was indeed delivered to the RAF and the then OC 57 - Des ..... went off receiver training before Boscombe had cleared it! A whip developed and took the probe off at the weak link as advertised. There was a rumour that the hose had also hit the top of the cockpit and dented it! Someone probably knows more!! The HDUs were a straight lift from the Valiant, but the Victor and Valiant aerodynamics were very different, and if the Victor started a slight PIO motion, it got the hose very excited.

Some time later, I went to Boscombe on Victor B2 work and saw the video from the chase aircraft of the K1 trials. Awesome!!! The 90' foot hose with a large drogue on it was not very stable at the best of times, but when the pilot deliberately induced a PIO, the hose rapidly went unstable and whipped. I vividly remember the drogue apparently being above the tailplane and then whiplashing down to almost vertically below the HDU.

After extensive trials, the shorter hose was found to be 95% of the answer. The collapsable drogue had a canvas skirt that was attached in such as way that the slipstream held the drogue slats in the open position. There were two sizes of skirts, one deeper than the other, giving "High Speed" and "Low Speed" drogues, one flying slightly higher than the other. Not my area of speciality, but I think the eventual configuration was the shorter hose and high speed drogue. Will check that out.

Bob

It would appear that some people never learn, when 90 sqdn started tanking, their OC decided to jump the gun and go prodding without the aid of an AARI, broke his probe and ruined the drogue, Soon after he became OC 57 sqdn.

You mean a bit like this: refueling accident - Google Videos