Laurie, it will be in the Journal of the Royal Institute of Navigation although I can email a copy soon.

As for the radius of action, I would not be as generous as the Encylopedia of WMA. There are many open sources that are complete nonsense. For instance the operational data for the Vulcan used by HQ FEAF planning staffs was more akin to the Observer’s Book of Aircraft.

An assumption had been made that a Mark 2 had to be better than a Mark 1 which completely overlooked the fact that the Mark 2 was designed to LIFT 2 Skybolt missiles. It was not designed to fly higher, faster or further than a Mark 1. The only thing it did do better than a Mark 1 was climb!

The ROA quoted was pretty near identical to the Vulcan.

PN, many thanks. I would appreciate a copy of the article. I’ll PM you my email address if that is okay.

Thanks also for the additional gen on operational data. Must admit, I have pretty much accepted these as fact. Will treat them with a little more scepticism now.