Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

Discussions on other historical eras.
South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#1

Post by South » 29 Oct 2011, 09:23

Good morning all,

Does anyone here have any experience or "war stories" about the 1950s era Handley Page Victor strategic bomber?

I'm more focused in interest to the aircraft's failed nuclear mission capability than its conversion status.

Any and all comments appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Warm regards,

Bob

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#2

Post by redcoat » 31 Oct 2011, 00:26

South wrote:I'm more focused in interest to the aircraft's failed nuclear mission capability than its conversion status.

Bob
In what way did it fail :?


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#3

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 Oct 2011, 00:56

Er, yes exactly; it had a longer service life in total as the Vulcan....and lasted in service longer. The last Victor was retired in 1993, that's a 35-year service life for the type, while the Vulcan's service life ended nearly a decade earlier in the mid-'80s, after 28 years.

Regarding it's "failed" nuclear role....it served for years successfully as a strategic bomber for delivering freefall nuclear ordnance; it like the Vulcan was let down by the decision to move to standoff missiles like the Blue Steel....officially dropped when the UK ordered Skybolt instead from the Americans....

Hmmm, whatever happened to THAT? :lol:

Anyway - both types had much longer careers than their US equivalent when designed, the B-47.... :wink: Now THAT was a failure...an aircraft to more than rival the Victor's fatigue problems! :D
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#4

Post by South » 31 Oct 2011, 08:48

Good morning Redcoat and Phylo,

Appreciate replies.

Redcoat;

It lost its capability as an overall delivery system when the escape capsule was removed from the overall development plans.

Phylo;

I needed the reminder; Yes, Blue Steel and Skybolt give the insight.

I believe PM Harold Macmillan accepted Polaris instead of Skybolt. Of course, this was the ideal excuse for the southern neighbor to veto British EEC membership.

Warm regards,

Bob

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#5

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 Oct 2011, 20:07

It lost its capability as an overall delivery system when the escape capsule was removed from the overall development plans.
Bob, that's hardly much of a disadvantage - show me another strategic nuclear bomber with that capacity?

P.S. if the "escpae pod" had been there and in wartime had ever had to be utilised....then that Victor's mission was over anyway! 8O It wasn't the USS Enterprise, the two sections weren't exactly going to make their way back to base independently... :D Nor was five flyers on the ground in Russia with fewer bruises and broken bones than otherwise going to do anything to further its mission.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#6

Post by South » 01 Nov 2011, 07:41

Good morning Phylo,

It's real difficult to "sell" something like the Victor when many competing sales reps are at the door step. Although Victor was the Brits' fastest aircraft of its category, crew excape systems get featured in the glossy sales literature.

It wasn't a bomber of the aeronautical variety, but after Francis Gary Powers got shot down in his U-2, the submariners (read: shipyards that make them) presented charts on crew safety and cancelled summits.

I can now see that Handley Page Victor was the end of the transition (less the Americans' B-52 replacement for the B-47 - although B52 was just more of the same of B47) of nuclear delivered ordnance by aircraft and into the new era of all means of delivery.


Warm regards,

Bob

siling
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 11:15
Location: Brisbane

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#7

Post by siling » 01 Nov 2011, 11:58

phylo_roadking wrote:
It lost its capability as an overall delivery system when the escape capsule was removed from the overall development plans.
Bob, that's hardly much of a disadvantage - show me another strategic nuclear bomber with that capacity?
F-111 (FB-111A)?

While the escape pod might have been in all the "glossy sales literature" that doesnt make it a great, or even a needed feature.

PMN1
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 11:11

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#8

Post by PMN1 » 11 Nov 2011, 23:16

South wrote:

I believe PM Harold Macmillan accepted Polaris instead of Skybolt. Of course, this was the ideal excuse for the southern neighbor to veto British EEC membership.
Polaris being more credible as a deterrent than the bomber or a missile in a silo.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#9

Post by phylo_roadking » 11 Nov 2011, 23:27

Polaris being more credible as a deterrent than the bomber or a missile in a silo
..except Polaris was decades away when the original specifications for the V-bombers were released in 1946 :wink: See James Hamilton-Paterson's excellent "The Empire of the Clouds" for a good read on all this.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#10

Post by phylo_roadking » 11 Nov 2011, 23:43

You'd need a REALLY detailed history of the development of both types set side by side....but it's possible that the "escape pod" idea for the Victor rose from issues with the Vulcan in development I.E. only the pilot and co-pilot of the Vulcan had ejector seats, the rest of the crew had to make do with a "conventional" exit...something that was to cause a loss of life on several occasions.

As we know, the Victor idea was dropped...but the need for ALL the crew to have ejector seats in the Vulcan was never addressed, and certainly not early enough in the design stage when the cockpit and crew area could have been redesigned to suit.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

PMN1
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 11:11

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#11

Post by PMN1 » 11 Nov 2011, 23:59

phylo_roadking wrote:
Polaris being more credible as a deterrent than the bomber or a missile in a silo
..except Polaris was decades away when the original specifications for the V-bombers were released in 1946 :wink: See James Hamilton-Paterson's excellent "The Empire of the Clouds" for a good read on all this.
So was Harold Macmillan as PM.... :D

However, when the choice was made, Polaris was far more credible than a bomber or a silo based missile , see 'Vulcan's Hammer: V-Force Projects and Weapons Since 1945' by Chris Gibson for some really weird stuff including VTOL Vulcans with lift engines in the bomb bay and deflected thrust Olympus able to carry a single wing mounted Skybolt for 3,000 miles.....what were they smoking!!!!

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#12

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 Nov 2011, 00:03

However, when the choice was made, Polaris was far more credible than a bomber or a silo based missile
But it's actual arrival in RN service was still years down the line IIRC...and until then the V-Bombers did what they had been intended to do - carry the UK's nuclear deterrant. They were never intended to do it forever...
see 'Vulcan's Hammer: V-Force Projects and Weapons Since 1945' by Chris Gibson for some really weird stuff including VTOL Vulcans with lift engines in the bomb bay and deflected thrust Olympus able to carry a single wing mounted Skybolt for 3,000 miles.....what were they smoking!!!!
The Vulcan would have been strong enough for it too; it had the strength of airframe the other two eventually lacked...although pilots preferred the Valiant. I would have to say it was the prettiest of the three; for the crew it was spacious, the pressurization worked perfectly and so did the heating LMAO three things that RAF aircrew of the day were NOT used to in ANY of the RAF's jets then! They were instead provided with a loing series of what Bill Waterson called "ergonomic slums".

But sadly it had one major defect....it was, unlike the other two, designed very specifically for it's 50,000 feet ceiling; and after Gary Powers poved that height gave no protection, and the V-Force was reconfigured for lowlevel groundhopping mission profiles....the Valiant's service life was twenty-five hours per aircraft! There had been ONE example built early in the Valiant's life of what was colloquially called the "Black Bomber", a Valiant strengthened/optimised for lowlevel ops...but by the time a SAM took out Power's U2, this was long consigned to history, and the conventional Valiants simply weren't strong enough for high-G manouvers in thick air :( Hence the airframe cracking that grounded them one by one.

Strangely enough, the "Black Bomber" Valiant REALLY grabbed the imagination of the British at a time when test pilots were the star footballers/rock stars of their day, and a new British aviation record was on the front pages every week...SO much so that the name lingered around in public consciousness to be used again -

The legendary Honda CB450 "Black Bomber" of the late '60s!

Image
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Dunash
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 11 Mar 2010, 16:41

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#13

Post by Dunash » 13 Sep 2012, 09:56

Re the escape capsule idea, according to Andrew Brooks' book on the Victor it was a requirement in the specification. Even so HP initially provided ejection seats for all crew members before switching to a capsule. The Air Ministry blew hot and cold on the idea before abandoning it in part due to pressure from Avro who were, apparently, getting nowhere with the idea.

Subsequently Martin-Baker came up with and tested a scheme for the rear crew to eject one at a time through a central hatch which was not adopted.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#14

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Sep 2012, 11:38

One might also look at the Canberra for escape problems.

I was told decades ago, when the Canberra was still in service, that although the pilot had an ejector seat, other crew did not and had to exit via a side hatch. However, air and wind pressure made it very difficult for them to get out and they had to rely on the pilot forcing them through the opening with his foot! Therefore, any crew had to be out before the pilot was ejected or they were liable to be trapped aboard.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Cheers,

Sid.

Dunash
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 11 Mar 2010, 16:41

Re: Handley Page Victor bomber aircraft

#15

Post by Dunash » 13 Sep 2012, 12:49

Sid Guttridge wrote:One might also look at the Canberra for escape problems.

I was told decades ago, when the Canberra was still in service, that although the pilot had an ejector seat, other crew did not and had to exit via a side hatch. However, air and wind pressure made it very difficult for them to get out and they had to rely on the pilot forcing them through the opening with his foot! Therefore, any crew had to be out before the pilot was ejected or they were liable to be trapped aboard.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Partially true. With one exception the crew all had ejector seats though if the bomb aimer was in the nose he had to nip back sharpish and strap in. The exception was the B(I)8 where the navigators station was moved in to the nose to accommodate the offset fighter style canopy for the pilot. The navigator had to exit through the entry door and as the B(I)8 spent it's time a low level his chances were not good even if he got out. Although the PR9 was similar the navigator there had an ejector seat and came out through a hatch in the top of the fuselage

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”