Dumb Yank Question of the Day...

[dahut]

Okay, you lot. I admit that I have been out of touch as far as aviation developments are concerned. I'm a recovering abstained modeler and more of a prop and cold war guy, to boot.

So today, while pirating away... er, sorry, getting bottom sores looking over the AWESOOOOOME foto collection here at BM, I ran across two birds I was dumbfounded by.

1. The sleek, rakish F-16/Gripen/Eurofighter sorta kinda looking Typhoon. I'm familiar with the Tornado and the Jag and Harriers, now retiring in one way or another. But where did this Tornado thingie come from? Whats the story there?

2. The other was a lumpy, dumpy kind of nightmarish bit called a Victor. I'll just be blunt if I may, and rely on you good folks for putting up with me yet again - that thing was ugly. By comparison, the Buccaneer was downright chic. What is the Victors deal?

[David Womby]

Okay, you lot. I admit that I have been out of touch as far as aviation developments are concerned. I'm a recovering abstained modeler and more of a prop and cold war guy, to boot.

So today, while pirating away... er, sorry, getting bottom sores looking over the AWESOOOOOME foto collection here at BM, I ran across two birds I was dumbfounded by.

1. The sleek, rakish F-16/Gripen/Eurofighter sorta kinda looking Typhoon. I'm familiar with the Tornado and the Jag and Harriers, now retiring in one way or another. But where did this Tornado thingie come from? Whats the story there?

2. The other was a lumpy, dumpy kind of nightmarish bit called a Victor. I'll just be blunt if I may, and rely on you good folks for putting up with me yet again - that thing was ugly. By comparison, the Buccaneer was downright chic. What is the Victors deal?

Best way to get up to speed on the Eurofighter Typhoon is to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon.

It's a joint UK, Germany, Spain, Italy fighter just entering service with those nations.

If you mean the Handley Page Victor - it was a cold war bomber that later was adapted to be a air to air refueling tanker and as such served in the Falklands and Gulf Wars. Retired sometime in the 90s.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

The Victor is a rare use of the crescent shaped wing. Pretty unique. Yes, it isn't pretty but I like it!!!

David W.

Edited January 3, 2008 by David Womby

['V']

NOT PRETTY - The hell it was ..........

A fantastic aircraft, when it broke the sound barrier test flying back in 1957? at that time it was the only 4 engined bomber to have done so.

It could carry 35 x 1000 lb bombs. When the RAF was in trouble with all the Valiant tankers being grounded it was the only, but also ideal machine to convert into a tanker. When working in the (1st) Gulf war didn't miss a single planned refuelling sortie. Perhaps the final and best aircraft the British manufacturers ever made. Thank you politicians !!

[dahut]

Okay I get it now. Typhoon and Eurofighter are one in the same. Is it odd that the Brits have gone in with the rest of the gang so heartily? I guess the trend was going there...

As for the Victor. I dont want to offendand I hope Im forgiven. But after further study: ugly. Record breaking? Okay. But still homely.

[hatchet]

Okay I get it now. Typhoon and Eurofighter are one in the same. Is it odd that the Brits have gone in with the rest of the gang so heartily? I guess the trend was going there...

They did the same, sort of, with the Tornado. And the Victor isn't ugly, it's purposeful-looking

[Test Graham]

The Victor is well-proportioned, shapely and (as said above) purposeful. You want that vintage ugly, look at a B-52.

[dahut]

The Victor is well-proportioned, shapely and (as said above) purposeful. You want that vintage ugly, look at a B-52.

Okay, Ill give you that, too. The B-52 was never a favorite of mine. Now the B-58; there was a fine piece of work.

[AnonymousDFB1]

The Victor is well-proportioned, shapely and (as said above) purposeful. You want that vintage ugly, look at a B-52.

Didn't call it BUFF for fun you know

[Roland Pulfrew]

"V" and dahut

It could carry 35 x 1000 lb bombs

Like this?

Edited January 4, 2008 by Roland Pulfrew

[AnonymousER99]

They did the same, sort of, with the Tornado. And the Victor isn't ugly, it's purposeful-looking

Hey isnt that a nice way of calling a fat guy or girl big boned or stocky??

[hatchet]

Hey isnt that a nice way of calling a fat guy or girl big boned or stocky??

Yup, just like you and me Mike!

[AnonymousER99]

Yup, just like you and me Mike!

Whoa now wait a tick there!!! Who said I was big boned or stocky??

[Richard M]

It might just be scuttlebut (but I wish it was true!), but apparently when the Victor first arrived at the airbases during Gulf War I, the young US groundcrew were mightily impressed by the new British wonder plane, and thought it must be some new secret weapon. Few realised it was probably older than their fathers!

Best

Rich

[hatchet]

Whoa now wait a tick there!!! Who said I was big boned or stocky??

Erm, me. Takes one to know one

[AnonymousER99]

Erm, me. Takes one to know one

Oh its on like Donkey Kong now Martin!!!

[Wolfpack]

Before you get all excited about the Eurofighter 2000, sorry Typhoon, read this:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

It's only twenty odd years late and could cost up to £175 million each when it finally gets a ground attack capability

which it so sadly lacks at present .

W

[dahut]

"V" and dahut

Like this?

That IS impressive. The whole gut-bottom opens up amd there're more bombs than plane!

But lets be honest, shall we, among friends? The HP Victor looked the part, now dinnit? We'll just say that Flash Gordon would have been proud to sport about in that thing, to be polite. 'Futuristic' in a weird way, all clunk and bumpies, odd angles sprouting out everywhere.

I do like the windows, however. Soooo 1950's, "Let's nuke the bad guys."

UPDATE: It's not a bad thing, all up. It's grown on me; "In fact, I rather like it," he said, quirkily. Besides, who but we few have even heard of it? I get so educated here.

Edited January 5, 2008 by dahut

[Phartycr0c]

Ugly V Bomber?

Has to be the Valiant! dated on take off

(I'll now just run along and hide behind this wall!)

[silverkite211]

I like Victors, I have a photo of kstater94 and me sitting in the cockpit of 'Lucky Lou' a Victor tanker that served with 55 Sqn.

Too bad the guy I handed my camera to didn't know how to focus better.

[kstater94]

Hey!

I recognize those guys!!!

Man those were the days eh Gregg?

Thanks for posting!

[Tim]

Okay, here's the deal; The Victor was a very impressive-looking aircraft and incredibly "futuristic" at the time when it first appeared. It was a very impressive aircraft in terms of performance too, and able to carry a bigger conventional bomb load than the other two V-Bombers (Vulcan and Valiant). Technically, it could fly a little faster and higher too. However, the design turned-out to be rather less-than ideal when (as is so often the case) the operational requirements changed.

Conventional bomb-carrying ability looks good on a photo (see above!) but of course the aircraft wasn't designed to drop dumb bombs (although it was an important secondary capability). The aircraft's primarly purpose was to carry a 10,000lb atomic bomb (and the later thermonuclear bombs that were developed), and it was this key requirement that dictated the Victor's overall size and shape. Unfortunately, by the time that the Victor entered service, the concept of high-flying free-fall bombing was starting to look risky, so the V-Force switched to low-level delivery of stand-off weapons. In this role the Victor was a bit of a nightmare, as the low-slung fuselage made it incredibly difficult to load a large and temperamental stand-off bomb. By contrast, the high-set undercarriage on the Vulcan made the job relatively simple. The other problem was that the Victor's wings (designed for high level) were not suitable for low level flying and although the wings flapped and twisted and made the ride comfortable for the crew, the fatigue on the airframe was way too high. Thus, the Victor's bombing career began to look bleak. However, when the Valiants (which had been converted into tankers) had to be replaced (thanks to the onset of metal fatigue, caused by the wrong choice of alloy), the Victor was an ideal replacement, so they became an equally valuable part of the RAF's order of battle, and ultimately became the last of the three V-Bomber types to leave RAF service.

So, the Victor was certainly a success by any standards, but more by accident than design. The Vulcan proved to be a much more versatile and sturdy aircraft, but with the benefit of hindsight, the RAF didn't need either the Vulcan or Victor; the Valiant B2 would have been an ideal aircraft for the low level strike role. But at the time nobody could have predicted that, which is why we ended-up with three (almost four) aircraft all designed to do the same job, such was its importance - vital in fact. Bear in mind that the V-Force would have hit the Soviet Union hard, long before SAC's bombers would have arrived.

I guess the Victor looks a little dated now in a Flash Gordon sort of way, but take away the Hemp paint, the fat external fuel tanks and the refuelling pods, and you still have a very sleek design. Compared to it's American stablemate the B-47 (which needed a runway the size of a small county to get airborne - in fact there was some doubt whether UK-based B-47's could have got airborne with a full war load), the Victor is quite a machine by any standards. Okay, it's no match for the super-sexy B-58 Hustler, but then the Hustlers spent most of their hidesously expensive SAC career in hangars! The Victor is a quirky machine too - if you take a close look, you find that they were all "hand built" and no two aircraft are the same. Ahh, they don't make 'em like that any more!

Edited January 7, 2008 by Tim

[dahut]

Okay, here's the deal; The Victor was a very impressive-looking aircraft and incredibly "futuristic" at the time when it first appeared. It was a very impressive aircraft in terms of performance too, and able to carry a bigger conventional bomb load than the other two V-Bombers (Vulcan and Valiant). Technically, it could fly a little faster and higher too. However, the design turned-out to be rather less-than ideal when (as is so often the case) the operational requirements changed.

Conventional bomb-carrying ability looks good on a photo (see above!) but of course the aircraft wasn't designed to drop dumb bombs (although it was an important secondary capability). The aircraft's primarly purpose was to carry a 10,000lb atomic bomb (and the later thermonuclear bombs that were developed), and it was this key requirement that dictated the Victor's overall size and shape. Unfortunately, by the time that the Victor entered service, the concept of high-flying free-fall bombing was starting to look risky, so the V-Force switched to low-level delivery of stand-off weapons. In this role the Victor was a bit of a nightmare, as the low-slung fuselage made it incredibly difficult to load a large and temperamental stand-off bomb. By contrast, the high-set undercarriage on the Vulcan made the job relatively simple. The other problem was that the Victor's wings (designed for high level) were not suitable for low level flying and although the wings flapped and twisted and made the ride comfortable for the crew, the fatigue on the airframe was way too high. Thus, the Victor's bombing career began to look bleak. However, when the Valiants (which had been converted into tankers) had to be replaced (thanks to the onset of metal fatigue, caused by the wrong choice of alloy), the Victor was an ideal replacement, so they became an equally valuable part of the RAF's order of battle, and ultimately became the last of the three V-Bomber types to leave RAF service.

So, the Victor was certainly a success by any standards, but more by accident than design. The Vulcan proved to be a much more versatile and sturdy aircraft, but with the benefit of hindsight, the RAF didn't need either the Vulcan or Victor; the Valiant B2 would have been an ideal aircraft for the low level strike role. But at the time nobody could have predicted that, which is why we ended-up with three (almost four) aircraft all designed to do the same job, such was its importance - vital in fact. Bear in mind that the V-Force would have hit the Soviet Union hard, long before SAC's bombers would have arrived.

I guess the Victor looks a little dated now in a Flash Gordon sort of way, but take away the Hemp paint, the fat external fuel tanks and the refuelling pods, and you still have a very sleek design. Compared to it's American stablemate the B-47 (which needed a runway the size of a small county to get airborne - in fact there was some doubt whether UK-based B-47's could have got airborne with a full war load), the Victor is quite a machine by any standards. Okay, it's no match for the super-sexy B-58 Hustler, but then the Hustlers spent most of their hidesously expensive SAC career in hangars! The Victor is a quirky machine too - if you take a close look, you find that they were all "hand built" and no two aircraft are the same. Ahh, they don't make 'em like that any more!

Very nicely done, Tim, and I thank you. You nailed it and that is just what was needed to turn the tide for the Victor - it is now officially 'cool'. That's cool as in 'futuristicool.' Bex, take note.

I did a similar write 'em up for my beloved F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger, when some wag declared it a "failure." Imagine the nerve?!

Thanks again

[silverkite211]

Man those were the days eh Gregg?

Yes, a long time ago, in a galaxy far away.

Let me also say, if I may be excused a little thread drift, the courtesy afforde to John and myself by the crew of that Victor that day, they were closing up the entry door of the aircraft when John and I walked up and asked some questions, and an offer to allow us up into the cockpit was made. They were unfailingly patient and friendly, answering any and all queries, never making us feel rushed in any way. We found out, when we had exited the aircraft, that they had been overdue to take a lunch break, yet they delayed their meal even further to satisfy two airplane nuts. I suppose that I really shouldn't be surprised by their professionalism, but when I think back on the brushoff that I was given, when I tried to engage a USAF A-10 pilot earlier in the day at the same airshow, their attitude was just that much more appreciated.

I did have to chuckle to myself, though, that as we were stepping back onto the ramp and thanking them for their time, they told a couple f people who walked up that they had a pressing engagement that had to get to, and closed up the entry door.