Vickers Victory and Vickers Windsor

[wuzak]

The Victory bomber predated the Wellington V, or was at least concurrent.

The Wellington V was the airframe for which the Merlin 60 was originally developed, before Hives of Rolls-Royce suggested the 60 for the Spitfire. It was being developed around 1940/41, as was the Merlin 60.

The Wiki page for the Victory Bomber says 6 Merlins or Hercules. Maybe the Merlins would have been 60s, but I'm not sure what the Hercules would have done as no 2 stage versions were built. Maybe a turbo version.

The Vickers canard design was for a later specification, I believe the same one that the Bristol 100 ton bomber was designed for.

[kitnut617]

The Windsor wasn't pressurized

[kitnut617]

but I'm not sure what the Hercules would have done as no 2 stage versions were built. Maybe a turbo version.

The photo above of the Wellington Mk.V shows the turbo-charged Hercules engines, I'd assume the Victory Bomber would have the same

[jcf]

Basic high-altitude Wellington concept goes back to 1937 ~ 1938, first relatively complete proposal January 1939,
constructed in 1940.
First 'Victory' brochure January 1941.

Hercules VIII two-stage engine had supercharger fixed at Medium and an auxiliary mechanical supercharger, Hercules XVMT was similar but used a turbo-charger as the auxiliary. Hercules 38 as used on Wellington Mk.V
was the production version of the XVMT.

Wellington Mk. VI was created by re-engining the Hercules powered Mk.V with the Merlin 60.

[kitnut617]

The crew pressure chamber was like this:



The geodetic framing was attached like this:



The Victory Bomber would have been the same construction.

I can't remember who sent me these at the moment ---

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

The Victory bomber predated the Wellington V, or was at least concurrent.

Understood


kitnut617

The Windsor wasn't pressurized

According to what I'm reading here, it would appear to be: "The Windsor was designed to Air Ministry Specification B.5/41 (later modified to Spec. B.3/42) for a high-altitude heavy bomber with a pressurised crew compartment, and an ability to fly at 345 miles per hour (555 km/h) at 31,000 feet (9,400 m). Notable features of the Windsor included its pressurised crew compartment, four mainwheel struts (each extending from one of the engine nacelles and carrying a single balloon-tyred wheel), elliptical planform high aspect ratio wings, and guns mounted in barbettes at the rear of each (outboard) nacelle, which were to be remotely operated by a gunner in a pressurised compartment in the extreme tail."

The photo above of the Wellington Mk.V shows the turbo-charged Hercules engines, I'd assume the Victory Bomber would have the same

1. Wouldn't the radial require more creativity in the cowling design to keep drag low while allowing a higher top-speed?

2. Considering all the different variants of the Hercules, Merlin's and so on... what horsepower levels would have been used on the variants mentioned?

3. Would it have been acceptable to put a Napier Sabre on this design?

The crew pressure chamber was like this:




The geodetic framing was attached like this:

Firstly: I assume the small viewport up front is the bomb-aimer's position?

Secondly: I'm curious if it would have been a major technological hurdle, or a development issue (concocting the design, and working out all the kinks in a timely manner) in going from the earlier concepts of the high-altitude Wellington (which were dated from the late 1930's, and had a pressure-hull inside a largely non-pressurized frame) to going with a circular or ovalized fuselage which had the forward fuselage forming the front of the pressure hull which housed the crew-compartment (like our B-307 and B-29)?

This would require the whole forward fuselage to be pressure-load bearing, but would better capitalize on the strengths of the geodetic design better and provide more options for the cockpit and bombardier arrangement: With the tail-gun being remote-controlled, there would be no need for a rear pressure-compartment as on the B-29.


joncarrfarrelly

Basic high-altitude Wellington concept goes back to 1937 ~ 1938, first relatively complete proposal January 1939, constructed in 1940. First 'Victory' brochure January 1941.

With the Windsor coming last...

Hercules VIII two-stage engine had supercharger fixed at Medium and an auxiliary mechanical supercharger, Hercules XVMT was similar but used a turbo-charger as the auxiliary. Hercules 38 as used on Wellington Mk.V was the production version of the XVMT.

So it was a turbocharged Hercules...

Wellington Mk. VI was created by re-engining the Hercules powered Mk.V with the Merlin 60.

Gotcha...

[kitnut617]

The Windsor wasn't pressurized

According to what I'm reading here, it would appear to be: "The Windsor was designed to Air Ministry Specification B.5/41 (later modified to Spec. B.3/42) for a high-altitude heavy bomber with a pressurised crew compartment, and an ability to fly at 345 miles per hour (555 km/h) at 31,000 feet (9,400 m). Notable features of the Windsor included its pressurised crew compartment, four mainwheel struts (each extending from one of the engine nacelles and carrying a single balloon-tyred wheel), elliptical planform high aspect ratio wings, and guns mounted in barbettes at the rear of each (outboard) nacelle, which were to be remotely operated by a gunner in a pressurised compartment in the extreme tail."

The original spec was for a pressurized crew compartment, the spec was changed and the three Windsors that flew to the revised spec were not pressurized.  I've read this in an article somewhere, one of my Air-Britain quarterlies but I see if I can find it but it all became moot because the whole project was abandoned after the war and then the RAF concentrated on jet bombers

[KJ_Lesnick]

kitnut617

The original spec was for a pressurized crew compartment, the spec was changed and the three Windsors that flew to the revised spec were not pressurized.

Were external contours changed at all?

[kitnut617]

kitnut617

The original spec was for a pressurized crew compartment, the spec was changed and the three Windsors that flew to the revised spec were not pressurized.

Were external contours changed at all?

As you found in wiki', it says 'pressurized crew compartment', I would suspect it would have had the chamber as Vickers had been experimenting with it. What the contours would have been is anyone's guess as the spec was changed before they got that far.

[KJ_Lesnick]

As you found in wiki', it says 'pressurized crew compartment', I would suspect it would have had the chamber as Vickers had been experimenting with it. What the contours would have been is anyone's guess as the spec was changed before they got that far.

Which means there could have been changes. 

Ironically, the shape does look kind of similar (just more blended)

[Captain Canada]

Great stuff. Thanks for posting those pics Robert. I'll be saving those for sure. I think that would make an excellent diorama model, the wings finished and most of the fuselage, leaving the geodetic structure on the nose open with the pressure chamber visible.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Does anybody have any drawings of the early Windsor concepts?

[jcf]

Yeah, the pressurized Vickers 433 Warwick III (Spec. B.5/41) is in BSP3, by the time it became the Vickers 447 Windsor (B.3/42)
it looked pretty much like what was built.

No, I won't scan all the relevant info, too many pages.

There's a copy at bookshop in NY state:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1857801792/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

Or see if you get it via an inter-library loan.

[KJ_Lesnick]

joncarrfarrelly

Yeah, the pressurized Vickers 433 Warwick III (Spec. B.5/41) is in BSP3, by the time it became the Vickers 447 Windsor (B.3/42) it looked pretty much like what was built.

Okay, thank you -- that really helped.

Does this look like a pretty good shape so far for a better blended nose?




Everybody

Regarding the turret: Why is it so big?  One advantage of a remote controlled turret is that you don't have to have a person in there so you just need the guns, the ammo equipment, the enclosures and pivot mechanisms.

[kitnut617]

Does this look like a pretty good shape so far for a better blended nose?

No, the shape that those designs were for, were to include a pressure chamber, from what I understand you're trying to do is make the whole fuselage pressurized, so really it would have something totally different, like the Vickers Type 'C' for instance (which would be quite like a B-52 style)