IIRC The Victors’s shape is in part due to the then current thinking that to perfom effectively at transonic speeds the cross sectional area of an aircraft had to fit a certain pattern when plotte dona graph – hence the practice became known as following the “Area Rule”. The Buccaneer followed similar fashion, hence it’s distinctly “nipped in” waist half way down the fuselage.
I think the “carrots” on the trailing edge of the Victor wing were also designed tand located so as to help “adjust” tte cross sectional area thus aiding conformance with the area ruling practice.
Of course, I may be totally mistaken…in which case we will soon find out.
Paul F
The Victor was “area ruled” when the mk2’s were built (prototype not included). Indeed the Whitcomb pods or window boxes as they were called by the ground crew were there to give more body in the mid section. The shape of the nose had more to do with the NBS (updated H2S) radar fitted under the cabin floor.
The mk1’s were never retrofitted with the pods.
We have been working on it yes, but its a long hard road.
Mind you I think we have enough trouble with our two old ladies and a Q shed 😮
Another group needs to be formed around it to finance and run it if it happens:)
Keep smiling
If you are interested, I know a man here in the Netherlands who has got about a squadron of them. You might be able to take one off his hands.
Compare the early US refueling technique for converted WW2 bombers (B-29/50 and KB-29s:
“The first nonstop around-the-world flight was accomplished by B-50A-5-BO (S/N 46-010) “Lucky Lady II” assigned to the 43rd Bomb Group. The flight which lasted from Feb. 26 to March 2, 1949, took 94 hours, 1 minute to complete.
About two-thirds of the B-50As were modified as receiver aircraft for an in-flight refueling technique developed by the British. The fuel delivery aircraft (KB-29M) would fly above and forward of the receiver aircraft (B-50A) and unreel a long refueling hose. The crew of the B-50A would extend an apparatus from the belly of the aircraft designed to snag the refueling hose trailing behind the KB-50M. Once the fuel hose was captured, it was pulled into the bomb bay of the B-50A where the crew connected it to the refueling manifold. Once the fuel transfer was complete, the hose was released and the KB-29M reeled it back in.”
The looped hose system developed by Flight Refuelling Limited. It was superceded by the probe and drogue system in the (very) late 40’s.
I had a friend who flow Lightning’s in the RAF On one tanking he took more fuel than what a Lightning can carry ie 25,000lbs taken for a jet that carrys 20,000lb of fuel ie he burnt 5,000lb of fuel tanking try that lol
Phantoms also had high fuel consumption during tanking, that’s why they would normally hook up to the centre-line. The HDU had a higher flow rate.
One-way trips – makes a difference. Apparently they used 4 Victors per Harrier (source: http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/1sqn_5.html ),
Hmm, not been that far in the MOD site, must have a look some time. Harriers have always had a problem with range.
I reckon stacking Victors to get one far enough out for the last top-up on the way out, & another one in place to pick it up on the way home, could well have taken more Victors, despite the smaller offload.
Actually,no. There were 4 Harriers (GR3’s) from Ascension to the task force off the Falklands. This was done in 2 pairs with a Nimrod escorting them as well on the first mission. I can’t remember the Victors using as many assets on those trips as they did with Black Buck.
Inhalng a boatload of fuel would quench the ignitors and cause the engine to flame out.
John.
I think you’ll find that the igniters will operate the moment the engine runs down. They are not working during normal running.
Doubtful Rob. The Buccs would have had a much harder time staging that far having 2/3rds the unrefueled range of the Vulcan.
It’s not so much the unrefueled range as the amount of fuel required to get you there and back. A Bucc would need to do more prods but would have used less fuel than a Vulcan. There were also bomb-bay fuel tanks available for the Buccs which with internals, slippers and bomb-door tank would have given them a fair range. The biggest problem would have been scheduling the tanker sorties, a number of Victors would have had to take off first to get into position with the Bucc catching them up. Not impossible though.
I’ve got a general in air refuelling question. Does a plane, when it gets refuelled, fill out all its tanks, including for example conformal ones on f16s and f15s and perhaps even external drop tanks? Or is it limited to original internal fuel tank volume?
In my own general experience it would depend on the mission. However, most receivers can fill up all the tanks they have on board. The IFR probe or receptacle are usually tapped into the main gallery.
Another factor that would mitigate against the use of Belgrano in and around the harbour is the same one that the Royal Navy were wary of – Exocet.
There were a lot of ships in the Task Force equipped with it, and a relatively static target could expect quite a bombardment.
And the attempts to put Martel on a Vulcan may have been rather more serious as well
I think that they would have sent a Buccaneer or two instead of converting a Vulcan to Martel. It was already cleared and it would have cost less Victors than a Vulcan.
Mk 17b HDU (HP Victor) about 4,000lb/min
It’s abit of a killer seeing all those shots, especially as I spent so much time keeping them together.
According to British Military Aircraft serials and histories XA515 served with 815 Sqn being delivered 5-’55. Unfortunately there are no other details apart from being transfered to ETPS. The only photo is of the a/c presumably after it was SOC.