Bomber role - why was Vulcan picked over Victor?
 

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...

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.

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:)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Tell me about the vortex generators :E

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.

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.

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?

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

FB:)

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.

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

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.

Victor top speed
 

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

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

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

Oh dear.

:rolleyes:

HB