Vulcan vs Victor
Discussion
Just doing some casual reading about two of the UKs cold war bombers.
It mentions that the Victor could fly higher, farther and faster....and also carry a larger payload than the Vulcan.
So why did the UK keep the Vulcan in service for as long as it did?
The Vulcan was also the plane chosen to bomb the Falklands. Would the Victor not have been a better choice?
It mentions that the Victor could fly higher, farther and faster....and also carry a larger payload than the Vulcan.
So why did the UK keep the Vulcan in service for as long as it did?
The Vulcan was also the plane chosen to bomb the Falklands. Would the Victor not have been a better choice?
Anyway, Eric will be along any minute to tell us how they were withdrawn from the bombing role due to low-level fatigue cracking, but more crucially which frame and station they cracked along, the number of rivets that let go, the NSN for the rivets in question and the name of the bloke who assembled them in the first place.
The Victor outlasted the Vulcan in RAF service by about ten years. Vulcans were retired by 1984. The Victor retired in 1993.
In nearly every category as defined by the original specification set out in the V-Bomber operational requirement, the Victor was by far the best.
However, by the mid 1960s, the game had changed and it was deemed that the Vulcan and the Valiant would be reconfigured for low level operations whilst the Victors (initially the B1 variant) would become tankers.
The Valiants were retired when the low level flying began to cause spar fatigue problems - althiough this was more of a cost cutting exercise as much as anything else. In the late 1960s, the Victor B2s were converted to tanker configuration as the K1s wwere retired.
Sadly, HM Government decided in their wisdom to give the B2K2 conversion work to Hawker Siddeley (the makers of the Vulcan) rather than Handley Page themselves. This decision was instrumental in Handley Page closing up shop in 1970.
In nearly every category as defined by the original specification set out in the V-Bomber operational requirement, the Victor was by far the best.
However, by the mid 1960s, the game had changed and it was deemed that the Vulcan and the Valiant would be reconfigured for low level operations whilst the Victors (initially the B1 variant) would become tankers.
The Valiants were retired when the low level flying began to cause spar fatigue problems - althiough this was more of a cost cutting exercise as much as anything else. In the late 1960s, the Victor B2s were converted to tanker configuration as the K1s wwere retired.
Sadly, HM Government decided in their wisdom to give the B2K2 conversion work to Hawker Siddeley (the makers of the Vulcan) rather than Handley Page themselves. This decision was instrumental in Handley Page closing up shop in 1970.
Crossflow Kid said:
Anyway, Eric will be along any minute to tell us how they were withdrawn from the bombing role due to low-level fatigue cracking, but more crucially which frame and station they cracked along, the number of rivets that let go, the NSN for the rivets in question and the name of the bloke who assembled them in the first place.
Not quite as detailed as that 
If only they'd been allowed to progress with this -
paul_y3k said:
Eric,
Don't tease ! what is it ? It looks evil !
The Valiant B2 - which was a dedicated low level interdictor development of the original Valiant. It flew in 1953 and had all the spar strengthening required for low level ops. In the end, the MOD didn't think there was any need for such an aircraft so they didn't order it into production. By 1964, it was EXACTLY what they needed - but it was too late by then.Don't tease ! what is it ? It looks evil !
Here's a question for the classic aircraft buffs!
In the 50's and 60's when aircraft were designed on paper with and with a slide rule, how much of the design was just "cobbled together" and how much was actually pre-planned?
i.e. in 2011, planes are now designed to the Nth detail on CAD, every wire, pipe and bracket will have been accurately designed. In early military jets especially, where persumably the design was on the cutting edge to some degree, i wonder how many of the systems and components were installed and shaken down on the basis of "that works, stick with it" etc??
Looking at pictures of say the Vulcan, so much of it looks a bit of a bodge tbh, and with it being a large and complicated plane, surely they simply didn't have the time or capabilites to actually predesign/ predetermine every last part?
In the 50's and 60's when aircraft were designed on paper with and with a slide rule, how much of the design was just "cobbled together" and how much was actually pre-planned?
i.e. in 2011, planes are now designed to the Nth detail on CAD, every wire, pipe and bracket will have been accurately designed. In early military jets especially, where persumably the design was on the cutting edge to some degree, i wonder how many of the systems and components were installed and shaken down on the basis of "that works, stick with it" etc??
Looking at pictures of say the Vulcan, so much of it looks a bit of a bodge tbh, and with it being a large and complicated plane, surely they simply didn't have the time or capabilites to actually predesign/ predetermine every last part?
There was quite a could series on TV a couple of years back called Engineering Britain's superweapons which covered the 3 V bombers. Worth a look if you didn't catch. Also have a look at the guys other uploads on the right called The Secret War if you really want to see some detailed documentaries on WW2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfOo7pRagZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfOo7pRagZY
Good Valiant B mk2 video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCbzOQwJfd4
Max_Torque said:
Here's a question for the classic aircraft buffs!
In the 50's and 60's when aircraft were designed on paper with and with a slide rule, how much of the design was just "cobbled together" and how much was actually pre-planned?
i.e. in 2011, planes are now designed to the Nth detail on CAD, every wire, pipe and bracket will have been accurately designed. In early military jets especially, where persumably the design was on the cutting edge to some degree, i wonder how many of the systems and components were installed and shaken down on the basis of "that works, stick with it" etc??
Looking at pictures of say the Vulcan, so much of it looks a bit of a bodge tbh, and with it being a large and complicated plane, surely they simply didn't have the time or capabilites to actually predesign/ predetermine every last part?
It's a bit unfair to say such sophisticated aircarft were "cobbled together". You can do quite good engineering, including aeronautical and mechanical engineering, without the aid of CAD or other computer aids.In the 50's and 60's when aircraft were designed on paper with and with a slide rule, how much of the design was just "cobbled together" and how much was actually pre-planned?
i.e. in 2011, planes are now designed to the Nth detail on CAD, every wire, pipe and bracket will have been accurately designed. In early military jets especially, where persumably the design was on the cutting edge to some degree, i wonder how many of the systems and components were installed and shaken down on the basis of "that works, stick with it" etc??
Looking at pictures of say the Vulcan, so much of it looks a bit of a bodge tbh, and with it being a large and complicated plane, surely they simply didn't have the time or capabilites to actually predesign/ predetermine every last part?
Obviously, the advent of CAD has taken a huge amount of guesswork out of certain aspects of aircraft design, such as hydraulic runs, cable runs and wiring routes etc. Don't forger, the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft were all designed with very little in the way of computer assistance.
CAD, as in drawing, doesn't get you that far on its own, the real advances in computer assisted design are finite elements and computational fluid dynamics.
The manufacturers want to go as far down the path of making aeroplanes / engines as they can with simulation before they physically make anything because the costs of getting things wrong with real hardware our so much higher...
The guys who were designing those planes did everything by hand and to be honest the designs might well be better because of it. Too often simulation means no one looks at the results properly.
The manufacturers want to go as far down the path of making aeroplanes / engines as they can with simulation before they physically make anything because the costs of getting things wrong with real hardware our so much higher...
The guys who were designing those planes did everything by hand and to be honest the designs might well be better because of it. Too often simulation means no one looks at the results properly.
A lot of the V-bomber design was done in the 40s, if memory serves. Amazing achievement.
Rather than speccing everything tightly they tended to err on the side of caution a little to make sure it was strong enough, which is why it was possible to go hedge hopping at mach .8 in something designed for stratospheric bombing, and why very early jet airliners could be barrel rolled...
Rather than speccing everything tightly they tended to err on the side of caution a little to make sure it was strong enough, which is why it was possible to go hedge hopping at mach .8 in something designed for stratospheric bombing, and why very early jet airliners could be barrel rolled...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff