Handley Page Victor

[kengeorge]

Evening all,
               Hi GTX hope this helps you out
    Ken.

[GTX]

Thanks, that's about the best I've been able to find as well - I'll see how I go, but if anyone has a better one, please speak up.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Other Victor questions:

I've read that the Victor had structural provision to carry an additional 28 1000lb bombs in underwing containers.  Has anyone got any drawings/pics of such an arrangement?  Interestingly, this could have given the Victor a potential conventional bomb load of around 63,000 - 72,000 lb (depending upon how many bombs were carried internally - typical max load being 35 x 1000 lb, though this was apparently a RAF operational limit not the max possible loadout for the bay which was 48 x 1000 lb)!  This is I believe even more than the B-52D "Big Belly" which held 60,000lb IIRC.

Also,

Does anyone know if there were proposals to fit the Victor (or the Vulcan for that matter) with a similar tail gun as proposed for the Valiant with the "Eager Beaver" arrangement:



Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Another I'm afraid - has anyone got any representations of what the proposed (though never implemented) crew escape capsule looked like?

Regards,

Greg

[jcf]

Hi Greg,
according to Handley Page Aircraft since 1907, C.H.Barnes (Putnam, 2nd ed 1987, reprint 1995)
the underwing bomb containers were schemed but "never, in fact, detailed and manufactured for trial".

The HP 98 was a proposed Pathfinder version of the HP 80 Victor and was to include radar-layed tail guns, no details.

The 'crew escape capsule' worked on in the early days was simply detaching the entire front of the aircraft, the plan
was abandoned in 1950 after "unsuccessful RAE trials of a 1/4-scale cabin and fuselage fitted to a 32-ft span M.L. glider".
Engineering complications were also a factor because, among other reasons: " more than 600 Breeze-type plug and socket
connections would have been required for the electrical circuits, raising severe problems of weight, space, accessibility and
reliability". 
The prototype did have structural provision for explosive bolts.

Jon

[GTX]

Thank Jon.

I knew the pods were never trialed but I thought there might have been drawings.  Not to worry though - I've got some drawings of ones for the Valiant, so will do something similar.  Any idea where they would have been mounted - I'm thinking where the slipper tanks are.  Alternatively I could go the easy way and use some external TERs from a B-52.

Re the gun - same story.  I guess there is no reason why I cant use the Eager Beaver set up.

Finally, I am planning to go with straight forward ejection seats all round.

More to follow.

Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

That gun system looks not unlike the setup for the B-47.  Maybe an old Hase 47 can be a donor?

Regards,

John

[kitnut617]

Greg, there are a number of drawings for the wing bomb carriers in the books written by Roger R.Brooks, these are called The Handley Page Victor-The History and Development of a Classic Jet.  There's two volumes and you need Vol.1, pages 75 to 77. These books are published by Pen & Sword Books Limited, ISBN 978 1 84415 411 1.

[GTX]

Those books are now on order!  Thanks.

Does anyone have any thoughts on possible alternative engines (other than the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire for the B.1 and Rolls-Royce Conway for the B.2), but in the same era.  The only one I can think of at this stage would be a Rolls-Royce Avon variant instead of the Sapphire.

Regards,

Greg

[pyro-manic]

The Vulcan used the Olympus, so that is a contender...

[PR19_Kit]

You could change even more history and go for the de Havilland Gyron. The Gyron was giving 20000 lbs thrust when the Olympus was only up around 17000, which would indicate a potential for 25-30000 lbs thrust in your time frame.

You'd need some SERIOUSLY big intakes though....

[GTX]

Some further answers to my questions (thanks also to the replies already given):

Proposed crew escape capsule:



Wing bomb containers (note there were proposals for containers under the engines and in the same place as the B.2's fuel pods):





Finally, re the tail gun - no pics, but I did find the following intriguing comment in the Ministry of Supply's Specification (No. B. 128 P - reprint from 1 Sep 1954 incorporating amendment 1 - 6):

                "Tail Armament

                     4.07  Deleted by Amendment No.4."

I wonder - did the original specifications (at least up to Amendment No.4), include a tail gun?  Any information?

Regards,

Greg

[tinlail]

I've been looking at the Seamaster on the front page and thinking it would look good with Victor wings in it.

[GTX]

Re alternative engines, I wonder how fitting afterburners to the existing engines (either Sapphires or Conways) would go?  I'm not so much interested about speed increases but rather increased take off thrust, especially when carrying maximum (i.e. fuselage and wing stations) conventional bomb loads in something like a SE Asian environment.  I know external rocket pods were trialled and separate/additional wing mounted engines were proposed but these either took up a lot of space not to mention additional weight/drag and/or burnt additional fuel (note, I know a thrust augmenter/afterburner does the same, but it may be a better option, especially re drag). 

Any thoughts?

Does anyone have any idea what a thrust augmented/afterburning Conway may provide in take off thrust?

Regards,

Greg

[PR19_Kit]

Does anyone have any idea what a thrust augmented/afterburning Conway may provide in take off thrust?

The Mk 202 Spey, as fitted to the F-4K, produced 12000 lbs dry and about 20000 lbs in burner. The Conways in the Victor Mk 2 produced around 17000 lbs dry, but they wouldn't scale up by the same percentage I'd guess. This is because the Conways had a relatively low bypass ratio (It was the world's first turbofan engine but they didn't call them by that name at the time) and there might not have been enough surplus air to burn.

So how does an extra 40% thrust sound? That'd be about 24000 lbs. or so.