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

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.

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

Tankertrashnav

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

HB

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.

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.

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?

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

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)

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.

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

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...cans-cuba.html

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.

I always thought the Victor had five crutches of seven.

http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition...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)

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.

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 ;)

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

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

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.

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.

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.