Vickers Victory

[KJ_Lesnick]

How long would it have taken for the six engined tractor propped Victory bomber to be built if it's bomb-bay could carry various ordinance instead of just the 22,000 pound bomb

[wuzak]

To give a rough idea....

Two prototypes of the Avro Manchester were ordered in September 1936.

The first prototype first flew on 25 July 1939, the second on 26 May 1940.

200 production aircraft were ordered December 1937. The first was delivered 31 July 1940.

So, almost 4 years between order of the prototypes (when detail design work would have commenced) to the first production aircraft delivered.

Vickers also had the Wellington to improve and produce at the same time.

The Warwick was delayed by this and specification changes. It was ordered sometime in mid to late 1935 and first flew in August 1939.

I see no issue in adapting the Victory bomber to carry conventional bombs, so long as the instruction to do this came before, or in the early stages of, detail design work.

[kitnut617]

Err, you asked this before ---

[Captain Canada]

It would be built in under a day if Dizzyfugu were building it 

[ChernayaAkula]

It would be built in under a day if Dizzyfugu were building it 

Funneee! And probably true.

[Rheged]

Once the prototype was accepted and the design frozen, they could probably turn them out rapidly.  I seem to remember seeing a recent TV prog. showing a wartime film of the "weekend Wellington"  built by the factory in (I think) less than 48 hours

Later correction.  It was 24 hours!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11107561

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

To give a rough idea....

Two prototypes of the Avro Manchester were ordered in September 1936.

The first prototype first flew on 25 July 1939, the second on 26 May 1940. 200 production aircraft were ordered December 1937. The first was delivered 31 July 1940.

So, almost 4 years between order of the prototypes (when detail design work would have commenced) to the first production aircraft delivered.

How long did it take for the Lancaster to be proposed, ordered, developed, and flown?  I know when it first flew (Jan 9, 1941) and basically when it entered service (February 1942).

I see no issue in adapting the Victory bomber to carry conventional bombs, so long as the instruction to do this came before, or in the early stages of, detail design work.

Yeah, that makes sense

As a weird idea, would it have been possible to have folded the Victory into what would be the Windsor design?  Not that I necessarily would want to make it as complicated as the Windsor (the wing design was out of this world!), but one design instead of two would save costs



Captain Canada

It would be built in under a day if Dizzyfugu were building it 

LOL

[wuzak]

Chadwick first proposed a 4 Merlin version of the Manchester in the second half of 1938. From then until 1940 work proceeded at a very low priority, as the Manchester to precedence.

Once detail design work for the production Manchester was completed more resources were put onto the 4 Merlin project.

At one point Avro was told that their factories would have to change over to Halifax production once the production run of 200 Manchesters were completed.

Chadwick reminded the Air Ministry about his 4 engine bomber, and he was given the go ahead to make a prototype. A Manchester was taken off the production line, and was converted in 6 weeks to the Manchester III, the Lancaster prototype.

But that is slightly different to what the Victory Bomber would entail.

The Lancaster used the Manchester fuselage complete. Most of the wing was the same - just a couple of inserts were added to extend the wings and give room for the extra engines. And some modifications to the undercarriage to cope with the additional weight.

The engines for the Lancaster were already engineered as quick engine change module for the Beaufighter II.

In contrast, the Victory Bomber would share little with the Wellington or Warwick, apart from construction technique. The engines required would be the two stage Merlins, which would have been thin on the ground for some time, particularly as the Spitfire would get priority.

The Windsor was similar, or later in timing, and appears to have gone to first flight in about 2 years.

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

Chadwick first proposed a 4 Merlin version of the Manchester in the second half of 1938. From then until 1940 work proceeded at a very low priority, as the Manchester to precedence.

Once detail design work for the production Manchester was completed more resources were put onto the 4 Merlin project.

So, about 2.5 years went by?

But that is slightly different to what the Victory Bomber would entail.

The Lancaster used the Manchester fuselage complete. Most of the wing was the same - just a couple of inserts were added to extend the wings and give room for the extra engines. And some modifications to the undercarriage to cope with the additional weight.

The engines for the Lancaster were already engineered as quick engine change module for the Beaufighter II.

In contrast, the Victory Bomber would share little with the Wellington or Warwick, apart from construction technique. The engines required would be the two stage Merlins, which would have been thin on the ground for some time, particularly as the Spitfire would get priority.

The Windsor was similar, or later in timing, and appears to have gone to first flight in about 2 years.

Could it make it into the air in the same time as the Windsor?

[wuzak]

So, about 2.5 years went by?

Most of which went by with work proceeding at low priority, with only a few people working on it.

They were working hard on the Manchester at the time.

Oh, and it was being done as a private venture.

Could it make it into the air in the same time as the Windsor?

I would doubt it.

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

Most of which went by with work proceeding at low priority, with only a few people working on it.

Hard to believe that it would become such a successful design

Oh, and it was being done as a private venture.

Was the Victory being done in the same way?

[wuzak]

Most of which went by with work proceeding at low priority, with only a few people working on it.

Hard to believe that it would become such a successful design

Most of the features that made it successful were already present on the Manchester.

Oh, and it was being done as a private venture.

Was the Victory being done in the same way?

It was an unsolicited design proposal.

The Air Ministry weren't interested, so if it were to proceed it would have to be as a Private Venture. But Vickers dropped it.

I would doubt it.

Even if the Victory was signed off on instead of rejected and folded into the Windsor design?  I'm just curious because such a design could have had serious potential simply in terms of the ability to comfortably carry a 22,000 pound load, carry it higher than even the Mossie, and faster than the Lancaster and some earlier fighters.

Performance estimates don't always match with real performance.

The Typhoon was expected to go over 450mph....but could not quite get to 400mph in initial production versions.

The Lancaster was expected to exceed 300mph and cruise at 280mph+. Top speed was 287mph, or thereabouts.

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

To give a rough idea....

Two prototypes of the Avro Manchester were ordered in September 1936.

When was the design first proposed about?  That really sets the time-table going you know?

The first prototype first flew on 25 July 1939, the second on 26 May 1940.

Which is 2 years and between 10-11 months from the ordering of the first two prototypes

200 production aircraft were ordered December 1937. The first was delivered 31 July 1940.

And that was about 3years 10-11 months from the ordering of the first two prototypes

So, almost 4 years between order of the prototypes (when detail design work would have commenced) to the first production aircraft delivered.

And this was typical for most bomber designs?

I see no issue in adapting the Victory bomber to carry conventional bombs, so long as the instruction to do this came before, or in the early stages of, detail design work.

Makes sense

It was an unsolicited design proposal.

The Air Ministry weren't interested, so if it were to proceed it would have to be as a Private Venture. But Vickers dropped it.

Was it unsolicited only because it could carry one bomb or for other reasons?


BTW: When was the Wellington Mk.V & VI proposed and flown, and when was the Victory proposed?

[wuzak]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Bomber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Air_Ministry_specifications#1930.E2.80.931939

Yes, it took that long to design and build bombers.

It took a similar time for the B-29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Bomber

Proposed in 1940:  How long from when the proposal is made to when the design is made into something that would get the government to order prototypes -- if the government liked it?  And in this case, if it could carry ordinance ranging from standard bombs and incendiaries, to the cookies, to the Grand-Slam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Air_Ministry_specifications#1930.E2.80.931939

Was this supposed to go to the B.23/39 (Wellington V)?  If so, the specification appears to have been issued in 1939, but when did the plane actually fly?  It provides a basic timetable to work with.  I'm a person that tends to be better off with numbers and figures I can make sense of.

It took a similar time for the B-29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

Okay, I chronicled that and got the following

• April 1939: Charles Lindbergh convinces General Arnold to produce a new heavy-bomber to counter the Nazi's
  
• December 1939: USAAC issues specifications for a superbomber with the ability to deliver 20,000 pounds of bombs at 400 mph, a distance of 2667 miles: Time lapse is approximately 8 months from Charles Lindberg convincing Hap Arnold to develop new heavy bomber to the new specifications issued.
  
• Time Lapse: 8 months from when Lindbergh convinced General Arnold to adopt the first concept
  
• May 11, 1940: Boeing submits basic design for B-29: Time-lapse is now about 1 year, 1 month and change from when Lindberg made his proposal to General Arnold; approximately 6 months from when Boeing submits it's basic design
  
• August 24, 1940: Boeing receives order for two prototypes: Time-lapse is 1 year, 4-5 months from Lindberg proposing bomber to Arnold; approximately 8-9 months since the proposal was first issued; and 3 months, 13 days since Boeing submitted its design
  
• May, 1941: Boeing receives the go-ahead to build either 14-prototypes or pre-production models and 250 production aircraft: Time lapse is now 2 years, 1 month since Lindbergh made his suggestion; 1 year and 5 months from when the initial specifications were made; about a year since Boeing submitted it's baseline design; about 7-8 months since Boeing received the initial go-ahead for 2 prototypes
  
• September 21, 1942: Prototype makes its first flight: Time lapse is now 3 years, 5 or so months since Lindbergh convinced Hap Arnold of the need for a heavy-bomber; 2 years 9 months since the specification was issued; about 2 years since the go-ahead
  
• May 8, 1944: Aircraft enters service: Time lapse is now 1 year 7 months from when the plane made its first flight; 3 years 7 months since the go-ahead; 4 years 4 months since the specification was issued, and; 5 years, 1 month since Charles Lindbergh convinced Arnold to proceed.