Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
Mutley said:
I wish that was the scheme for modern fighters rather than the plain grey
It is very nice to see a modern warplane in anything other than sky camo grey... sadly that's the most tactically effective colour. I always thought the Black Bunny Squadron had the best standard paint scheme though. Being an elite test squadron they could do pretty much whatever the hell they wanted colour wise - and they did:
gwm said:
After watching the "Jet! When Britain ruled the skies" programme, this aircraft is one I didn't know about and looks very menacing:
Handley Page Victor
Handley Page Victor - part of the trio of stragetic nuclear V-bombers (Vulcan, Victor and Valiant). Sadly not strong enough for the low-level attack flying (the stress caused cracks in the airframes), so they were all converted to tankers - and such was their success in this role that they were in fact the last of the V-fleet to be retiredHandley Page Victor
Mutley said:
Caruso said:
ChemicalChaos said:
gwm said:
After watching the "Jet! When Britain ruled the skies" programme, this aircraft is one I didn't know about and looks very menacing:
Handley Page Victor
Handley Page Victor - part of the trio of stragetic nuclear V-bombers (Vulcan, Victor and Valiant). Sadly not strong enough for the low-level attack flying (the stress caused cracks in the airframes), so they were all converted to tankers - and such was their success in this role that they were in fact the last of the V-fleet to be retiredHandley Page Victor
In many ways, the Victor was the most capable of the V bomber trio. It could fly faster and further and could carry up to 35,000lbs of conventional bombs (much more than the Vulcan).
The reason for its retirement as a bomber is more due to the fact that the Polaris subs were taking over the nuclear deterrence role so not so many bombers were needed. Also, the Valiants had already been retired, including the tanker variants. This mean that some Victor B1s were converted into tankers. These were subsequently replaced when the B2s were also converted into tankers.
The Victors simply made good tankers - so it made sense to convert them and keep the Vulcans as bombers. In the end, a small number of Vulcans WERE converted into tankers.
The Treasury would not allocate any funds to the RAF to buy a new design for its tanker fleet. It had to make do with conversions from existing bomber or transport designs.
I think the new Airbus Voyagers are the first brand new tankers the RAF have ever had.
Eric Mc said:
.. The Victors simply made good tankers - so it made sense to convert them and keep the Vulcans as bombers. In the end, a small number of Vulcans WERE converted into tankers.
...
They were? Wow! Will have to see if there are any photos, make an interesting and different model of a Vulcan...
AstonZagato said:
When they change it back, will they strip the paint from the Typh first or just paint over it again? If the latter, how many layers of paint will they allow before bare-metalling it again?
I know airliners are always stripped backquite a few kilos in a coat of paint, it all adds up
Eric Mc said:
Is that the reason?
In many ways, the Victor was the most capable of the V bomber trio. It could fly faster and further and could carry up to 35,000lbs of conventional bombs (much more than the Vulcan).
......
The Victors simply made good tankers - so it made sense to convert them and keep the Vulcans as bombers. In the end, a small number of Vulcans WERE converted into tankers.
Yes, it was the reason. I quote: "In 1968, the type was retired from the nuclear mission following the discovery of fatigue cracks, which had been exacerbated by the RAF's adoption of a low-altitude flight profile to avoid interception" - this has also been stated on programs about the V-fleet numerous times. The Vulcan not only had a much stronger airframe far more capable of withstanding the stress of low-level flying, but its huge wing also made it much more agile and suited to the role (they could out-fly a lot of fighter aircraft during the Operation Red Flag wargames in America). It may have had a smaller payload and worse speed stats, but it was a no-brainer to keep it as the bomber.In many ways, the Victor was the most capable of the V bomber trio. It could fly faster and further and could carry up to 35,000lbs of conventional bombs (much more than the Vulcan).
......
The Victors simply made good tankers - so it made sense to convert them and keep the Vulcans as bombers. In the end, a small number of Vulcans WERE converted into tankers.
ChemicalChaos said:
Yes, it was the reason.
That's not strictly true I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not necessarily correct!While some fatigue cracking had been discovered around late '66 / early '67 it did not ground the fleet. Indeed, some of the SR Mk2 a/c continud to be used into the early/mid '70s in the low level Maritime Radar Reconnaissance role (until this was taken over by the Vulcan SR Mk2s of 27 Sqn at RAF Scampton). In fact some of the K2 a/c were used in the low level reconnaissance role during Operation CORPORATE (until such time as the Nimrods were fitted with AAR probes and took over the tasking).
The primary driving reason for retiring the Victor fleet from the Strategic Strike (nuclear attack) role was the adoption of Polaris by the RN. The Tactical Strike role (using the WE177 free fall weapon) was seen to be a much smaller requirement so could be given to the Vulcan thus releasing the Victor for the tanker role (in which it would always be more capable and more flexible than could the Vulcan ever be).
While the Vulcan could certainly outfly the fighters of the day (such as the F4) at high level, the idea that it could do so at low level is sadly mistaken. The survival of the Vulcan during Exercise RED FLAG was more down to better tactics and training than it was aerodynamic capability.
The Valiant was a different matter.
While it has been claimed that the cracking was fatigue driven from operating at low level, tanker aircraft which had never operated at low level also were found to be cracked.
A neighbour of mine worked for Vickers at Wisley at the time. When the stocks of main-spars that were in storage (and which had never been fitted to any a/c) were checked over they were found to be cracked.
I am reliably informed that that particular lightweight alloy used by Vickers was found to age harden and (eventually) start to crack/break up.
While it has been claimed that the cracking was fatigue driven from operating at low level, tanker aircraft which had never operated at low level also were found to be cracked.
A neighbour of mine worked for Vickers at Wisley at the time. When the stocks of main-spars that were in storage (and which had never been fitted to any a/c) were checked over they were found to be cracked.
I am reliably informed that that particular lightweight alloy used by Vickers was found to age harden and (eventually) start to crack/break up.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff