chaza87Due to the nature of the development of the Atomic Bomb, Britain and the US were equal partners in the project. Our Tube Alloys was absorbed by the Manhattan Project which developed the A Bomb. British members of the project were integrated to such an extent that they headed the teams and were team members. Avril Harriman said the success of the project was due to the British and the Maud Report (I have his letter as a copy)
The Lancaster was considered as the delivery system for the bomb. In fact it was measured up for the project and a Lancaster was at Wright Field for testing. If the weapon had been used in Europe the Lancaster would have delivered it. It was not used in the Pacific for the simple reason there was no infra structure for maintenance and the B-29 was thus allocated to the task. The modification to the B-29 bomb bay was termed “Silverplate”. It is not widely known that the B-29s in England and the Washington B.1 were nuclear capable from 1948.
The work with the A bomb, the b-29 and the protocols for the use of the bomb are in the Quebec Agreement of 1943. Both nations should be highly praised for what they did. The evidence would seem to suggest they worked it all out remarkably well and do so to this day. (Much of this is included in a book ISBN: 9780957344341.)
chaza87Here is a page from one of the reports. I now believe they are tablets of stone, note the United Kingdom total
chaza87chax #60. Initially 75% of the cost of 125 Canberras and 12 Valiants were in 1953 Mutual Security Act. H.Leigh-Phippard, Congress and US Military Aid to Britain, Macmillan,1995,P.91. More later. Wynn,P.55 has “About half the cost of Valiant procurement was paid for under the US (MAP)”.
Many thanks for this. But I have official sources from America and accounts of the USAF on an annual basis. There is still nothing I have found that supports this view. I wonder what budget they are talking about because the MDAP budget says nothing about this at all. Maybe Mutual Assistance Program was different from Mutual Defence Assistance Program but on checking they are both the same. There is a definition in one of the paragraphs called “Grant Aid” Military aid granted foreign countries under terms of Mutual Defense Assistance appropriation
on a non-reimbursable basis. But there is nothing there and also in Off-shore. nothing there.
My source is USAF Summaries for 1945-2005, thousands of pages, nothing there
chaza87American assistance
Why though do we not hear much said about the Valiant?
1,475 fine flyers passed out on type, but it had been procured as Interim, crew and Units to roll into “proper” Medium Bombers. T.660 was deleted early in MoS’ June,1947 Bids Appraisal as no better than the funded Interim, Short Sperrin. Early delivery was unwanted as Blue Danube was in hand for 1956 deployment, matching (to be) Victor/Vulcan.On 3/4/48 first Marshall Aid (ERP) $ arrived in UK, just as Berlin brewed (Blockade from May). On 14/4/48 Govt. Tasked Chiefs to arrest a Red thrust on the Luneberg Plain – till then we had no enemy. RR and V-A, at that time idle or worse, resurrected T.660+Big AJ.65 (the little one not then working) and committed (reputation, not money – such ideas had not then reached UK) to deploy within 1955. On 16/4/48 Attlee gave them some of our ERP windfall, for development, not production, to re-insure the already-insured “real” Medium.
Korea, November,1950. AWA still building (Abraham) Lincolns! US gives us B-29 Washingtons and, 9/2/51, half the money to order 25 Valiant B.1 NOW please! Good job done by industry: last of 107 delivered 27/8/57…but because it was a truck. Wynn (RAF Strategic Official History),P.371 has recognition that the type was vulnerable to MiG-17 (deployed 1953). It could even be intercepted by early non-reheat, blind Javelins. Its version of NBS had problems finding Suez airfields where brass had been based until a few months earlier (Wynn, P.131/2).
It remained in service after proper types arrived because:
– P.R (to be) S.R had been neglected, and: – K had been invented, so this platform could serve; and:
– Saceur came up with money and Bombs for it to replace TBF Canberra B.6. Fatigue did for it 9/12/64, because it had never been designed to fly low or often.
This is all very interesting. I was researching the Mutual Defence Assistance Program for a publisher and was lucky enough to find the USAF annual accounts for MDAP. These included totals such as Washington, Neptune, Hunter etc. year by year. I have gone through many years and found nothing to support the view that the Valiant received any funding from the United States, or for that matter the Canberra. As a boy I was at Raynham and it was pointed out that the Canberras with black bombays and undercarriage wells were American funded! “Yes Chiefly.” Well its”… no chiefy.” Maybe there was some other budget but I have found nothing. I did find that the Royal Air Farce was allocated 170 Washingtons through Mutual Assistance and that included 3 RB-29 machines with about 89 in front line service. The totals varied year by year. These aircraft were to be allocated to SAC in the event of war, crewed by the RAF and were nuclear capable. As for the Valiant, that was a honey of an aeroplane
chaza87June 1983, p226 by Paul Tomlin
Hi,
Does anyone have back issues of Air Pictorial, that can help me? I’m looking for an article that appeared around September or October 1981 (although it may have been into 1982) about the use of Twin Pioneers by Ordnance survey for aerial mapping work. I’m sorry I don’t know the exact issue, but if anyone has that issue, or can point me in the right direction, I would be very grateful. Even better, if some kind soul is able to find it and scan it and either send it to me or perhaps post it on here so that it can be seen by a wider audience, that would be very much appreciated.
June 1983, p226 by Paul Tomlin finishes page 229. And would you kindly come round and help put them all back!
chaza87Yes
I have a run from 1953. I’ll have a look and let you know but it could be earlier. I’ll check from 1975 to 1985 and I’ll let you know today
chaza87I am certain that the designation involving the word “Intruder” is just a cover for the word nuclear. I understand they ran out of funds and the concept was cancelled. Maybe the real reason it was cancelled was it was too good and upset the balance of power. I think now it was the same for Skybolt and TSR2 – they were just too good and the Ruskies could never have caught up. Who could believe that the Valiant B2 was ten years ahead of its time and could have achieved the height of legend the same as Vulcan and Victor.
I saw its carcass on the back of a lorry but was surprised to find it was re assembled then ripped to bits with the rod charges, the tail was sliced off and the fuselage ripped to pieces with the rod charges.
chaza87Rods
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39674 #8
‘The third and final Valiant prototype to fly was the B2 low-level pathfinder which flew with the late Brian Trubshaw as co-pilot on 4 September 1953. This version of the Valiant never entered RAF service and after a landing accident in 1958, development of this version stopped.’
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/val2.html‘As the first production B.1’s were being finished off, the B.2 prototype (WJ954) flew for the first time on the 4th of September 1953. The B.2 was a one-off prototype stressed for low-level, high speed penetration as a target marker required by outdated RAF WW2 tactics. Shown off at Farnborough a few days later, the aircraft had two major visible changes – the nose was longer and the undercarriage was now located in big fairings underneath the wings instead of within the wing itself. This meant the wing could be a stronger structure for its low level requirements. WJ954 continued as a flying test-bed for a while but was eventually transported to Foulness in 1958 to be destroyed by having various weapons fired at it to assess the vulnerability of modern aircraft to gunfire.’
http://plane-crazy.purplecloud.net/Aircraft/Jets/Valiant/vickers_valiant.htmhttp://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/valiant/full/hitchwj954a.jpg
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/valiant/full/hitchwj954b.jpg
The aircraft was destroyed by the use of continuous rods against the fuselage not gunfire. Apart from this Valiant there was a Victor and two Washingtons involved in the trial. All firings were made using experimental models of Blue Jay, Red Dean or VR.725 warheads -]”Vickers ‘Valiant Type 673’
This unique aircraft, derived from the standard ‘Valiant B mk.1’ was
specially designed for intruder missions involving high speed and high ‘g’ at
low altitudes. Consequently, it was considerably stronger, structurally, than
the B Mk.1. For this reason, its fuselage strength and construction (conventional
skin and closely spaced Z-stringers) were considered to be similar in parts to
that likely to be used in more modern supersonic medium bombers such as the
Soviet ‘Blinder’ aircraft which C.R. warheads may be required to defeat.
For the purposes of the trial, the full-length valiant 673′ fuselage was
assembled, complete with inner wings, and mounted in the normal flying attitude
on supports under the wing roots. Dead loads were applied to the upper surface
of the tail plane to reproduce the approximate level-flight bending and shear
stresses at the attack station. The target was attacked at Stn.963, in the
bomb bay deflector region, in mainly tension and shear loaded material, from a
direction of 450 above abeam.”
chaza87This is brilliant. I’ve been trying for years to track down these companies. I was the archivist to the Morris furniture company for many years and recently retired. I was also ordered to write the company history!The company held the patent for the balsa ply and initially it was used for doors. It could save as much as 45 tons on a liner. They made batches of balsa ply for the various Mosquito firms. They also supplied wing tanks to de Havilland as well as Mosquito propellers. They also made up the 5V3 aeroply plywood for Ministry of Aircraft Production used in airframes. They were also involved in experimental work with Farnborough on wooden aircraft before the war. Their records are quite substantial. They made a fuselage out of a South American wood called Quipo, but it was found that the balsa was better for production. They were also involved with E. Gomme of High Wycombe, who made tails and wings as well as fuselages. The problem was after the war the various ministries came onto the premises and removed all the wartime record. I believe they went to the Ministry of Home Security
chaza87I’ll check again.
Thank you.
Thanks for letting me know. That confirms the grouping.
The book’s ISBN is ISBN-13: 978-0957344334 the other is ISBN is ISBN-10: 0957344333
Best wishes
chaza87Thank you for your comments.
I’m afraid your recognition of the various members of the Weir design team is off. The various individuals are correctly named, verified by myself with several cross checks and also by David Gibbings, former Rotodyne flight test engineer.
Thank you for your comments re the individuals in the image. That is not C G Pullin in the picture. If you compare any of the characters in the picture with that of Pullin none fit the bill. From your references and images in your own publications you will see that none of the characters fit this description as you have said. The picture shows Maurice Brennan and no other. R A Pullin had a handle bar moustache when he was capture by the Germans. Though my main source was Neil Morris who knew them all personally. There is a splendid picture of Maurice Brennan in the Secret World of Vickers Guided Weapons, John Forbat, isbn 0752453165 page 67
chaza87That’s a fabulous paper. I’m afraid the names of the design team of the W5 are slightly out. Yes Bennett is there but Raymond Pullin is on the extreme right. Maurice Brennan is the smallest figure. He went on to Cierva post – war and was involved with Saunders-Roe in the rocket programmes as well as helicopter work. There is a much fuller explanation of the Weir/Cierva development in the Sycamore Seeds ISBN-13: 978-0957344334. The appendix has a full list of patents, NARA and RAE reports on helicopter development and autogiro test work.
The figures in the group photo were pointed out to me by Neil Morris of H. Morris & Co which made the blades for all the Weir/ Cierva companies including the W9 and Cierva Air Horse. All the blades they made were wooden
chaza87I am intrigued by the aspects of this series of posts. No-one has pointed out that M52 aerofoil surfaces were of mahogany. That the design of the Vickers ~Transonic missile went through a multitude of tests, including flight trials, with wooden wings and horizontal and vertical tail surfaces. It was very much a success. The first model was lost due to turbulance, the second was lost when the motor failed to ignite (a copy of the German engine in the Schmetterling missile) and the third flew in October 9th 1948 a complete success. This missile had the all flying tail. An earlier report of the M52 said –
“With the gradual accumulation of knowledge it became clear that the E.24/43
was unlikely to reach sonic speed and when wind-tunnel model tests indicated the same serious
loss of longitudinal stability at high subsonic speeds as was then characteristic of all existing
aircraft the wisdom of continuing with this design was questioned. The decision was
reached to acquire preliminary experience of flight under transonic conditions using rocket-driven pilotless scale models.”
Also
“Early in 1946 the contract for the E.24/43 was cancelled, since in addition to the adverse feature
already mentioned there was now added a further unsolved difficulty–the impossibility of safe
escape for the pilot in the event of an emergency bale-out at high speed.”
Here is the description of the wing, “Wing.–The wing was of biconvex section 97.5-in. span and 18-94-in. mean chord.
It was constructed in mahogany, and formed a single-piece unit which passed right through the
body. Ailerons of mahogany were fitted to the trailing edges, and were operated by push-pull
rods running in tunnels formed in the thickest part of the wing. These rods were actuated by a
single bell-crank lever in the centre section of the wing and similar levers transferred their motion
through 90 deg to the ailerons. The fit of the pins at all pivot points was made tight purposely,
to avoid backlash ; for the aileron a distorting plate-type hinge was adoptedWing.–The wing was of biconvex section 97.5-in. span and 18-94-in. mean chord.
It was constructed in mahogany, and formed a single-piece unit which passed right through the
body. Ailerons of mahogany were fitted to the trailing edges, and were operated by push-pull
rods running in tunnels formed in the thickest part of the wing. These rods were actuated by a
single bell-crank lever in the centre section of the wing and similar levers transferred their motion
through 90 deg to the ailerons. The fit of the pins at all pivot points was made tight purposely,
to avoid backlash ; for the aileron a distorting plate-type hinge was adopted.”
There were in fact eight test vehicles in the Vickers Transonic program.
When flown from St Eval in Cornwall the mother Mosquito had to have a Meteor to
accompany it. This was to give the radar operators a trace to follow the target since the
Mosquito’s wooden construction caused no signature on the monitors.
If you carry out a patent search with the search term Phillips and Powis you will
see that the Miles company was well versed in the innovation of aerofoil sections.
The balance of evidence is this, Miles did the all flying tail first. The Americans
were given all the test reports on the M52 project just before the ending of Lease Lend.
Reciprocal aid is the British term for the British operating its own Lease Lend to the Americans.
Of course I stand corrected on all this but I have the papers in front of me.
chaza87Wellington fate
Just an update guys. The Americans got two Wellingtons, both received in August 1942 but had been scrapped by 1944. They also scrapped the EXE Battle but the engine was returned to the UK. They got a Mosquito, three Beaufighters, a Defiant and three Hotspur gliders. Interestingly enough they got a Lancaster and I’m working on its fate. There is nothing on the Whirlwind seen by Winkle Brown at Pensacola
chaza87Spitfires to Malta – King George V Dock
Sorry for being late but maybe the following can add to the saga.
Twelve Spitfires were off loaded from Wasp when it was discovered the drop tanks were faulty. The US Navy then repaired the faulty tanks on the Spitfires which were aboard the ship. In Operation Bowery the Spits flew off to Malta together with a batch from Eagle. Maybe Eagle’s Spitfires were those which were off loaded from Wasp.
The distance between Renfrew Airport was not all that long. But just as you come to the dock the road narrows considerably with trees and hedges on either side, also the dock gate was very narrow and that is probably why the wingtips were taken off.
One Spitfire was lost on take off from Hornet and another lost it’s tank and landed on Wasp. This machine flew off the next day with a batch of either Swordfish or Albacore. Certainly the machines were delivered to King George V Dock by Queen Mary trailer and those at James Watt dock by lighter. The distance between Glasgow and Greenock is substantial and one needs to consult a map to see the distances. There is no way any aircraft was taken through the streets of Glasgow as indicated by the good doctor.
Sign In
