VULCAN B1 & B2 Difference's

A number of the early B1s were completed, and flew, with straight leading edges before later being retro-fitted with the kinked wing (e.g. XA889). I believe there was at least one B1 that kept its original straight edge wing throughout its flying life.

Rich

The second B1 XA890 was used as a trials aircraft and retained the straight wing leading edge throughout its life.

IIRC, it was only the two prototypes that were completed without the kink. More straight leading edges had been made but were modified before being fitted to airframes.

A number of the early B1s were completed, and flew, with straight leading edges before later being retro-fitted with the kinked wing (e.g. XA889). I believe there was at least one B1 that kept its original straight edge wing throughout its flying life.

Rich

I don’t know much about the Victor 1’s, but I would think there were some similarities electrical system wise which were remedied in the Victor 2’s.

Indeed, the B1 used 115v dc gennies and the B2 200v ac run through CSDU’s. The small intakes under the mainplane are the oil coolers for them.

IIRC, it was only the two prototypes that were completed without the kink. More straight leading edges had been made but were modified before being fitted to airframes.

Vulcanpilot’s mention of the electrical system reminds me I read about a B1 being lost due to a short in one busbar causing all electrical power to be lost virtually immediately.

One of the main significant design differences between the B.1/B.1A and B.2 is the electrical system.

The B.1/B.1A was basically a DC aircraft utilising 4 DC generators, 1 per engine connected to a 4 buses, these being a common No.1 & 2 Gen bus, No 3 gen bus and no.4 gen bus) A 96v battery is connected to the battery bus. In normal operation, the busses are all operating independantly but there is provision for cross-connection (redundancy) should any of the generators fail. There were also rotary transformers to provide the 28V and rotary inverters to give the AC for the avionics.This looks fine on paper but there were instances of all 4 generators failing with reliance only on the battery which in this situation would last about 5 minutes, thereafter all the PFC’s would run down and the aircraft would become uncontrolable 😮 No RAT or AAPP!

By way of addressing these limitations, plus the requirement for uprated radar (TFR)/avionics (Smiths MFS) etc, the B.2 was redesigned with a 3-phase high-frequency electrical system comprising of 4 engine mounted alternators, and something called a synchronising busbar. Instead of the battery to provide emergency operation, both a Ram Air Turbine and Airbourne Auxiliary Power Plant were installed, the RAT being deployed by a handle on the pilots glareshield and the AAPP being operated from a small sub-panel at the AEO station. This made the whole thing quite a bit more robust and much less prone to an aircraft loss even if all engine-driven alternators went off.

I don’t know much about the Victor 1’s, but I would think there were some similarities electrical system wise which were remedied in the Victor 2’s.

always nice to know when im wrong, i stand corrected 🙂 even if was a little like being bludgeoned to death with a salmon
when did they revise the shape of the wing on the B.1?

Ben

Nashio966’s explanation of the difference in wing shapes of the Vulcan isn’t entirely correct. The pure delta was present on the two prototypes and a small number of early production B1s. Most B1s, however, featured the original 99 feet kinked wing shape (ascribed incorrectly to the B1A in the diagram).

The B1A featured an improved ECM kit, most noticeable by the installation of the ‘bee sting’ at the very rear of the airframe beneath the fin, but there was no change in wing shape.

The B2 featured a revised wing shape (known as the Phase 2), still with kink, extended to 111 feet wingspan.

Any thoughts on the B2A ….

That shot of a “clean” Victor B.1 certainly shows its unique design to good advantage.

Pointy noise, buried engines, T-tail…It’s hard to think of a more futuristic design that ever saw operational service.

Even the B-58 pales in comparison….

always a pleasure

Ben

Thanks chaps. the knowledge you have on this forum never fails to impress me……thanks again!!!;)

Now thats exactly what i wanted, great info chaps, much appreciated. whilst were on the subject what about the B1 & 2 Victors 😉

The major differences were.
The 18″ stub wing, the mk 1 had intakes blended into the fuselage the mk 2 you see a parallel section of mainplane before the intake

Longer span, indeed when they were converted to K2 they were cropped slightly.

Conway engines instead of Sapphires

RATs the scoops are visible on the top fuselage.

Extended intake in front of fin

Shock bodies (window boxes, Whitcomb pods etc) on trailing edge of mainplane.

AAPP mounted in stbd side stub wing.

Internally.
An improved electrical system

Improved avionics

No 2 tank fitted

No 9 tank fitted

the main difference i think in the B.1 and B.2 victors is that the B.2 had more powerful engines and better systems IE conways instead of sapphire engines. i think the change in wingspans etc, were down to the conversions made to K.2. (dont quote me on this, im almsot certainly wrong) I believe the K.2 tankers had their wings clipped though not quite as sure. there are significant changes in intakes and bits added on over the life of the victor

this was one of the last B.1’s “XA923” which was GI at cosford intul it was scrapped in the mid 80’s you can clearly see the small intakes

..As opposed to XH715 here at brunty

you can see fairly large differences in the airframes, ram air vents all over the place, underwing fairings, different intake design (this for the more powerful conway engine i presume, more power = more air needed)

again hope this helps

Ben

Now thats exactly what i wanted, great info chaps, much appreciated. whilst were on the subject what about the B1 & 2 Victors 😉

large redesign in the leading edge of the wing the B.1 had a pure delta, which then evolved into the B.1a, which had a slight kink in the leading edge, which in turn lead to the B.2, which had a bigger kink in the leading edge

Diagram showing the difference in wing profiles between marks

(courtesy of www.avrovulcan.org)

Vulcan Prototype B.1 “VX770”

Vulcan B.1a

Vulcan B.2 “XH558”

Hope this helps 🙂

Ben

The B2 had an increased wing area with a much more aerodynamically improved wing and they were also fitted with more powerful Bristol Olympus engines than was fitted to the B1. It was also fitted with updated ECM fit which was housed large fairing or pod aft of the tail.