Vickers 'Victory' & 'Jet' Bombers

D

danielgrimes

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
8 October 2007
Messages
57
Reaction score
9
Hi, I'm looking for some info (line drawings, specifications) on the Vickers Victory and jet bomber designs of late WW2. The victory was a 6 engined evolution of the Wellington and the 'Jet Bomber' was the intermediate stage on getting to the Valiant. I already have some very high level info, but some of it contradicts itself, so any more info would be appreciated.

thanks
 
The Victory bomber (if the accounts by Paul Brickhill in The Dam Busters are to be believed) was a parametric study by Barnes Wallis aimed at creating a bomber that could drop a 10-ton Grand Slam from 40,000 feet.
If I was to guess, I would say that the technology from the study probably emerged in the Vickers 432 high-altitude fighter (two Merlin 60s) and the Windsor bomber (four Merlin 60s), which would suggest that the Victory was designed around six Merlin 60s. That would make sense since the Merlin 60 was studied from early 1940 onwards as a high-altitude engine, only later being used as a performance booster for the Spitfire IX and P-51B.
 
Info and a model here

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=639&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=Victory%2CBomber
 
"75/100-ton" bombers 3-views: Andrews/Morgan,Vickers A/C,Putnam, P.563; Buttler/BSP III, P.125 - Merlin 60, early-1942, morphing late-1942 into Centaurus.
.
PMN1 thanks for link to Canadian nuclear timeline. No conspiracy over Windsor, initiated July,1942, 300 ordered June,1943 for Tiger Force, SE.Asia. V-A, favoured with this project, over the 3 Heavy firms, stuffed what had been sought since 1938 as the "Ideal Bomber", embarrassing Portal and Churchill. He had pressed for RAF participation v.Japan, unwanted by MacArthur, militarily (trouble enough co-ordinating USMC/USN/USArmy; Limeys and their ilk = distraction), or FDR politically ("US not fighting to restore colonialism"). Lincoln scrabbled as second-best. Windsor funding continued after VJ Day, Clyde/Theseus and Brabazon Type III, until all chopped Jan.1946. No link beween MAP (or USAAF) procurers and Manhattan team, who had to package their product into B-29/B-32.
 
British Secret Projects notes 'In 1937 Vickers produced a scheme for an aircraft of 180,000lb, (80,648kg) all-up-weight and fitted with wings 7ft (2.1m) deep which carried all of its load in the wings. It was primarily intended to be a passenger carrier operating at 'normal' altitudes but a bomber variant was also shown. By July 1940 the scheme had become a high-altitude aircraft which had wings of normal depth with the bomb load transferred to the fuselage, and in November the proposals were submitted to Lord Beaverbrook. The first descriptive brochure was completed in January 1941 and forwarded to MAP and other officials'.

Does anyone have any details on the first design with 7ft deep wings?

How close to the 'Victory bomber' was the July 1940 design?
 
The aircraft was six engined (Merlins), if there had been a reliable Sabre, Vulture or other engine in their class, could the 6 Merlins have been replaced by 4 of the larger engines and if so would there be any benefit apart from less maintenance (assuming the replacement engines are reliable).
 
Haven't seen anyone point this out - but a rather nice wind tunnel model of the Vickers 'Victory Bomber'
seems to have turned up at Brooklands

Can see it on the web at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BrooklandsVictoryBomber.jpg

It seems to have been there a while so this may be old news.

Regards

Fred
 
Please correct me if I am wrong but didnt the Windsor have structural issues?
 
Please correct me if I am wrong but didnt the Windsor have structural issues?

Yes. It was a continuation of the Wellington/Warwick geoditic structure, with the usual fabric cover. This disn't work well at the high speeds the Windsor flew at, and they experimented with different types of fabric, included metal reinforced (imagine a radial tire ) fabric. With the end of the war and much superior aircraft on the horizon, it just sort of faded away.
 
Can anyone have the 3 views or sketch of the Victory bomber?I just know that It was made by the British designer Barnes Wallis used to drop the earth quake bomb on Germany but it wasn't go further than windtunnel model.
 

Attachments

  • 800px-BrooklandsVictoryBomber.jpg
    800px-BrooklandsVictoryBomber.jpg
    141.6 KB · Views: 878
Had to go to the UK on a (automotive) research project and looked in at Brooklands. Here are updated pix of the display, new info, and the 3-View they have added.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3706 VBomb1LoRes.jpg
    IMG_3706 VBomb1LoRes.jpg
    101.7 KB · Views: 648
  • IMG_3707 VBomb2LoRes.jpg
    IMG_3707 VBomb2LoRes.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 594
  • IMG_3708 VBomb3LoRes.jpg
    IMG_3708 VBomb3LoRes.jpg
    115.2 KB · Views: 623
PMN1 said:
British Secret Projects notes 'In 1937 Vickers produced a scheme for an aircraft of 180,000lb, (80,648kg) all-up-weight and fitted with wings 7ft (2.1m) deep which carried all of its load in the wings. It was primarily intended to be a passenger carrier operating at 'normal' altitudes but a bomber variant was also shown. By July 1940 the scheme had become a high-altitude aircraft which had wings of normal depth with the bomb load transferred to the fuselage, and in November the proposals were submitted to Lord Beaverbrook. The first descriptive brochure was completed in January 1941 and forwarded to MAP and other officials'.

Does anyone have any details on the first design with 7ft deep wings?

How close to the 'Victory bomber' was the July 1940 design?
Click to expand...
Actually, I'd read that in the book myself and was trying to find pictures of the design with the 7-foot thick wings. Pretty interesting design.

I figure by the July 1940, the design had been reworked into a design that was designed essentially as a bomber. I don't know how similar it would have been to the Victory bomber, but looking at the high-altitude Warwick designs (particularly the Warwick III) and their elliptical wings: It wouldn't be hugely shocking to see a design that would have a familiar resemblance to the Victory (save scale).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom