Civilian derivatives of the V-bombers

William, even if cracks had been discovered (and they may not, partly because of the different role and partly because it was a later design anyway), it wouldnt have been the end of the world. In 1976/77, cracks were discovered in the wings of Trident 3s and all had to be modified with reinforcment plates and new (old) wingtips. Similarly, in 1990, 2ft long cracks were found in the engine pylons of BA’s 767-300ERs, barely a year old, because the RB211-524 engines were a tonne heavier than the P&W or GE engines that had so far been sold with the aircraft. Neither of these incidents meant an end to the flying of these aircraft so if the V.1000 had gone ahead and if cracks had been found, I doubt it would have been the end of the world. The RAF retired the Valiant because it was the oldest and least technologically advanced of the V bombers and the Vulcan and Victor were in service and able to do the job better by 1964.

TobyV, I did say if the Valiant-originated wings suffered the same fatigue problems, etc, and your point about the different flight profiles of an airliner and a low-altitude bomber is, of course perfectly valid.
I do have a lurking feeling, though, that sooner or later the V1000/VC-7 may have faced early retirement because of these problems. A hypothetical scenario is for the Valiant worries to surface as they did in 1964, followed by urgent inspections of VC-7 wings that would have dented confidence in the aircraft, possibly fatally.
A quick glace at the abovetopsecret.com site suggests that the VC-7 would have been a heavy beast compared with the 707 – wonder what its fuel economy wouyld have been like?
PMN1, the VC-10 testbed had the RB211 on the port side.

William

William / Scouse – its a commonly held misconception that the Valiant’s fatigue failures were waiting to happen. As I understand it, they occurred when the V force was re-tasked for low level. The Valiant ‘rode’ (smoothed out) the low level turbulence better than either of the other two, but it paid for this as the wings flexed a lot and consequently this initiated fatigue cracks.

The Valiant B.1 simply wasnt designed to fly at low altitude and of course no jet airliner of that size regularly would cruise at low altitude. The Valiant Mk.2 had solved this problem but although a prototype flew (The Black Bomber), no production models were ordered.

PMN1 – no the external diameter of the earliest turbofans isnt hugely different to the turbojets as the bypass ratios are typically < 1. However, I’d contend that any alteration to the outer diameter and mounting points of the engine would require substantial modifications to the internal wing structure and external panelling at a crucial location in the airframe. Just look at the fun & games BAe has had over the years updating Nimrods.

This said, of all of the designs, the V.1000 was the one that was closest to making it and to start off with, it would have certainly dented 707 and DC8 sales. What I quest, is whether it would have had the longevity that the American jets have enjoyed.

Hi PMN, not strictly speaking true about the 707 (or DC8 for that matter) having exactly the same engines, theres quite a number of variants, some turbojet powered, some turbofan powered, with both P&W and RR (in the 707 case) and GE (in the DC8 case) providing the engines and then of course both being offered the upgrade of CFM56s from teh 1970s onwards, something not possible with a buried engine design. Indeed any engine modification would probably require a fair bit of internal re-engineering.

You are right that the Comet got by ok, but after a while the advantages of the modern system (and therefore of the aircraft using that system) would become apparent.

I do think though, that the V.1000 might have made a significant dent in 707/DC8 sales. However, we might not have had the lovely VC10 though. Swings and roundabouts!

Until the CFM56’s did the engine size change all that much?

There are someintresting images of a VC10 with a RB211 replacing the two of the engines on one side (cant remember which now).

If the V1000’s wings had suffered the same fatigue failures that brought the Valiant’s career to an abrupt end – well, you can probably guess the rest, and it’s an uncomfortable thought, to say the least.
There’s also the question of pasenger appeal. My recollection of Comets in the 1970s is that the cabins were distinctly noisy aft of the exhausts. The V1000, I suspect, would have been similarly afflicted: can anyone who flew Tu-104s add them to the list?
The 707 internally was much quieter than steerage in a Comet, and as the the VC-10 cabin noise was so low Vickers/BAC fondly believed that was enough to outweigh the rather higher operatings costs.
Wasn’t there a Conway-engined DC-8, too?

William

Hi PMN, not strictly speaking true about the 707 (or DC8 for that matter) having exactly the same engines, theres quite a number of variants, some turbojet powered, some turbofan powered, with both P&W and RR (in the 707 case) and GE (in the DC8 case) providing the engines and then of course both being offered the upgrade of CFM56s from teh 1970s onwards, something not possible with a buried engine design. Indeed any engine modification would probably require a fair bit of internal re-engineering.

You are right that the Comet got by ok, but after a while the advantages of the modern system (and therefore of the aircraft using that system) would become apparent.

I do think though, that the V.1000 might have made a significant dent in 707/DC8 sales. However, we might not have had the lovely VC10 though. Swings and roundabouts!

For considerable detail on the V.1000 I can recommend obtaing a copy of Project Cancelled by Derek Wood

PMN1,

To answer your question, all are limited by the fact that the engines are buried in the wing roots. For first generation pure turbojets this was probably fine, especially in the military application, but for civilian use, for noise and vibration levels, safety, ease of maintenance and development potential (by which I am thinking of ‘future’ bypass engines) it was a mistake.

Yes thats the most obvious problem but it doesn’t seem to have hindered the Comet too much while it was still flying and when you look at the B707, apart form the re-engining of the military versions, it more or less stayed with the same engine throughout its life.

Buried engines are probably not good for long term design but the designs might have given the UK something to establish a larger aviation industry if given the chance – the Comet 5 was apparently planned to use podded underwing engines so something along the same lines could possibly have been developed from the original buried engine design.

There are drawings in Putnams’ Vickers Aircraft since 1908. It shows the Type 1000 as well as the Valiant related VC5 which looks like a stretched Valiant.

PMN1,

I’m not sure how closely related the V.1000 was to the Valiant – not that close I dont think, but of the three, that one got as far as an almost complete prototype before the plug was pulled. The other two didnt make it that far AFAIK and look (deservedly, sadly) more like something that belongs in a Gerry Anderson show!

The model on the Above Top Secret site suggests quite a bit different and you’re right about the Gerry Anderson show, the Avro Atlantic looks like something out of that.

The HP111 drawing on the Above Top Secret site reminds me a bit of a low wing C17.

PMN1,

Theres another one thats been omitted from this (not related to any bomber though), the de Havilland Comet 5, which although I have not seen a picture of it, I believe was not a straight development of the Comet 4, but more of an all new design. DH arguably had the most experience of any British company at that point to put into a design of this class.

From what i’ve read, not that there seems to be much around is the Comet 5 had podded underwing engines. What the wing and fuselage was like I’ve never been able to find out.

PMN1,

To answer your question, all are limited by the fact that the engines are buried in the wing roots. For first generation pure turbojets this was probably fine, especially in the military application, but for civilian use, for noise and vibration levels, safety, ease of maintenance and development potential (by which I am thinking of ‘future’ bypass engines) it was a mistake.

I’m not sure how closely related the V.1000 was to the Valiant – not that close I dont think, but of the three, that one got as far as an almost complete prototype before the plug was pulled. The other two didnt make it that far AFAIK and look (deservedly, sadly) more like something that belongs in a Gerry Anderson show!

Theres another one thats been omitted from this (not related to any bomber though), the de Havilland Comet 5, which although I have not seen a picture of it, I believe was not a straight development of the Comet 4, but more of an all new design. DH arguably had the most experience of any British company at that point to put into a design of this class. Both the exploratory DH design and the V.1000 (which would have first gone to the RAF as a transport) were of course killed by BOAC stating that the Britannia was quite adequate for the time being, only to then order 707s a year later.

Of course this is all part of the long and sad saga of BOAC and BEA requesting designs from British companies that were poorly specificied later disliked or cancelled when what they infact wanted was a Boeing. Had DH and Vickers designed from the world market from the outset and BOAC and BEA been forced to buy “off the shelf”, both groups might actually have been much better off. Hindsight is a marvellous thing though 😀

There was ‘The Iron Maiden’ that looked remarkably similar to a Victor B2 😀 :diablo:

Regards,

Dan

p.s. people who have seen the film of the same name will know what I mean 😉

I do ! Some wonderful quotes.
“Please take that piece of Detroit tin out of here”
On watching same individual driving off and knocking down a stream of parking cones. ” Hey , you missed one!”
And my favourite, when our hero gets home from his beloved traction engine
“Mums looking for you!”
Thank you for brightening up my evening. 🙂
P.S. Roy Castle R.I.P.

There was ‘The Iron Maiden’ that looked remarkably similar to a Victor B2 😀 :diablo:

Regards,

Dan

p.s. people who have seen the film of the same name will know what I mean 😉

Hopelessly