Reply to thread

Message

According to Wynn (P.486) the transferrable fuel load of a Victor Mk 1 tanker was 23.59 long tons. According to what's on the internet (which unfortunately is according to the Wikipedia entries).
23.59 long tons Victor K.1 - Transferrable load.
40.63 long tons Victor K.2 - This may be the maximum load rather than the transferrable load.
Furthermore, the Victor Mk 2 had more powerful engines which may account for some of the difference.
80.00 long tons VC.10 C.1K - Which is the same as when they were C.1 transports.
85.00 long tons VC.10 K.2 - Maximum load.
90.00 long tons VC.10 K.3 - Maximum load.
90.00 long tons VC.10 K.4 - Maximum load.
I couldn't find a figure for the K.4, but as it and the K.3 were converted Super VC.10s my guess is that the fuel load was the same. Although the maximum load of K.2-to-K.4 is more than a C.1K it's not a massive amount more and they couldn't carry the theoretical maximum anyway.

I repeat that if the RAF did buy new VC.10s in the 1960s instead of having 31 Victor B.1s converted to tankers it would want a one-for-one substitution regardless of the extra cost and double the fuel per aircraft.

<blockquote data-quote="NOMISYRRUC" data-source="post: 761534" data-attributes="member: 2134">According to Wynn (P.486) the transferrable fuel load of a Victor Mk 1 tanker was 23.59 long tons. According to what's on the internet (which unfortunately is according to the Wikipedia entries).<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">23.59 long tons Victor K.1 - Transferrable load.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">40.63 long tons Victor K.2 - This may be the maximum load rather than the transferrable load.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Furthermore, the Victor Mk 2 had more powerful engines which may account for some of the difference.</li>
</ul></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">80.00 long tons VC.10 C.1K - Which is the same as when they were C.1 transports.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">85.00 long tons VC.10 K.2 - Maximum load.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">90.00 long tons VC.10 K.3 - Maximum load.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">90.00 long tons VC.10 K.4 - Maximum load.</li>
</ul>I couldn't find a figure for the K.4, but as it and the K.3 were converted Super VC.10s my guess is that the fuel load was the same. Although the maximum load of K.2-to-K.4 is more than a C.1K it's not a massive amount more and they couldn't carry the theoretical maximum anyway.I repeat that if the RAF did buy new VC.10s in the 1960s instead of having 31 Victor B.1s converted to tankers it would want a one-for-one substitution regardless of the extra cost and double the fuel per aircraft.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NOMISYRRUC, post: 761534, member: 2134"] According to Wynn (P.486) the transferrable fuel load of a Victor Mk 1 tanker was 23.59 long tons. According to what's on the internet (which unfortunately is according to the Wikipedia entries). [LIST] [*]23.59 long tons Victor K.1 - Transferrable load. [*]40.63 long tons Victor K.2 - This may be the maximum load rather than the transferrable load. [LIST] [*]Furthermore, the Victor Mk 2 had more powerful engines which may account for some of the difference. [/LIST] [*]80.00 long tons VC.10 C.1K - Which is the same as when they were C.1 transports. [*]85.00 long tons VC.10 K.2 - Maximum load. [*]90.00 long tons VC.10 K.3 - Maximum load. [*]90.00 long tons VC.10 K.4 - Maximum load. [/LIST] I couldn't find a figure for the K.4, but as it and the K.3 were converted Super VC.10s my guess is that the fuel load was the same. Although the maximum load of K.2-to-K.4 is more than a C.1K it's not a massive amount more and they couldn't carry the theoretical maximum anyway. I repeat that if the RAF did buy new VC.10s in the 1960s instead of having 31 Victor B.1s converted to tankers it would want a one-for-one substitution regardless of the extra cost and double the fuel per aircraft. [/QUOTE]

Verification