Vulcan news

Enzo Matrix wrote:

It's trickier to do from the stealth viewpoint; ideally you want as much of the wing to have a straight leading and trailing edge as possible, and match all leading and trailing edge angles into as few directions as you can, so that radar return is high when things line up exactly flat-edge on to the radar. Such a situation is pretty much instantaneous, and having it move even a degree or two off of a perfect parallel intercept angle to the radar signal reflects it away. But this isn't supposed to have B-2 style features like that, (I was shooting for a design using something along the lines of 1965-1975 technology in regards to stealth ideas) but rather radar-reduction smoothed edges like the A-12/SR-71 or D-21 drone; so unless the leading edge kink of the Vulcan wing needs be that abrupt (and if it did, you'd expect some sort of a upper wing fence in relation to it) a smoother transition should work as well in relation to critical Mach number of the airflow over the wing leading edge, and would indeed be more optimized in regards to smooth airflow over the whole wing leading edge along its length.

The "Super Vulcan" would have enough interior wing area area to allow uprated engines to be installed without major moldline changes, in much the same way the the XB-35 was converted to the YB-49 without much change to its wings, despite moving from piston to jet engines. Going to high-bypass turbofans for propulsion would mean moving the engines forward in the wing till the fan section itself was located in the thickest portion of the wing, leading to longer exhaust ducts behind the engines to the trailing edge; but that does allow better mixing of external air with the exhaust, leading to lower and more uniform exhaust temperatures as the exhaust exits the wide "platypus" nozzle over the trailing edge of the wing. Also, the Venturi effect as the high speed air traveling over the top of the wing enters the NACA intake exhaust cooling ducts located over and ahead of the long exhaust ducts results in increased exhaust mass flow via entrainment, while at the same time decreasing ambient air pressure over the top of the wing, and generates a smoother, more nearly laminar air flow over the wing roots - increasing lift and reducing overall wing wetted-surface airflow friction drag.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

But you don't want to move the engines *too* far forward, otherwise the first stage compressor becomes visible. Can you imagine the radar return from a head-on lock on a Harrier?
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enzo Matrix wrote:

Yeah, it's going to need some sort of intake goodies like the B-1B to hide the fan section. The Harrier's intakes always looked like the perfect thing for someone to get sucked into and sliced into luncheon meat. I once read something about a VTOL Vulcan derivative with a hoard of RR RB.108 engines in the bomb bay. About the time that engine was made, Britain went completely off its rocker over VTOL projects.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

The only VTOL bomber project of the period I've seen was the "low altitude bomber" which had six centrally mounted lift engines but only stub wings. It didn't look anything like a Vulcan and the whole project was dropped when STOL* was incorporated into the TSR2 spec causing all kinds of problems for the latter.
*STOL in this case was defined as the ability to use the same take-off distance as a DC3
Given the relatively large wing area of the Vulcan I would have thought a pair of huge lift fans in the wings was a more realistic approach la Mirage.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

I reckon that the only time VTOL with a usable payload will become feasible is after someone invents an anti-gravity engine.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here is one for you .......Its even in 1:72 scale (:>
http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/germ/fockevtol/fockevtol.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Count DeMoney wrote:

Unlike a lot of other German "Luft 46" projects, that was a serous proposal for a VTOL aircraft, not someone scribbling on a napkin down at the beer hall in early 1945. It would probably be very hard to make it stable without some sort of pretty involved autopilot that would constantly be moving the control vanes on the underside. That protective grill over the top of the lift props looks like it's a good idea, but it's not... not only is it going to generate a lot of drag on the incoming air, thereby decreasing the airflow to the lift props and reducing their efficiency...but as Short found out the hard way with their SC.1 VTOL aircraft the grills can become blocked by debris and cause the aircraft to lose lift. They had that happen at a airshow when the SC.1 came in to land (or was it taking off?) on freshly mowed grass; its lift engines stirred up the grass clippings which promptly stuck to the protective grills over the engines, causing the aircraft to "grow a haystack on its back".
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Helicopters do it all the time...
...or...
It's a lot less bovver in the hovver...
Wulf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

I'll see if I can dig up any info on it. Did you ever see the Short P.17D VTOL carrier for the P.17A attack bomber? It was intended to arise out of a forest clearing with the P.17A riding on its back, get going forward to lift-off speed, and launch the P.17A. That's a fairly odd idea, but who knows, maybe they could have made it work, although fuel consumption per minute on the P.17D would have been staggering. The P.17D was insane; 44 RB.108 engines aimed straight down, 16 RB.108s in swiveling mountings, and 10 RB.108 or RB.145 engines pushing it forward - grand total: 70 engines! Imagine for a second what that would sound like with all of its engines running. The whole forest would be shaking with dead birds and squirrels falling from the the trees, bleeding from their ears. Starting the engines would have been quite the operation; one assumes they were started in some sort of sequence rather than all at once, as otherwise the electrical power need to crank them all up at once would have been formidable indeed. Of course one could just fire 70 starter cartridges, and use the resulting huge smokescreen to hide the aircraft's ascent, assuming that all the engines don't just re-ingest the smoke and quit. But the really crazy part comes at the end of the P.17A's mission...again the P.17D would rise into the air, and the P-17A would alight on its back in mid-air! How exactly the P.17D was going to react to a 75,000 pound aircraft suddenly ending up atop it is a good question...I assume they flew as a biplane letting the P.17A's wings generate lift while slowing down and increasing lift thrust till once again they were hovering over the forest clearing.

Which Mirage? The VTOL Balzac and it follow-on Mirage III-V used lift engines in the body. We did a design with lift fans in the wings, the GE-Ryan XV-5A "Vertifan".
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

In theory, there should be plentiful spares available for the engines. Afterburning versions of the Olympus were used by Concorde and there are numerous ships in the Royal Navy which use marine turbine versions of the engine.

We look at a Vulcan, and we always hink that it is huge. Nowever, that's not so. During the final week of Vulcan Display Flight operations in 1992, XH558 toured pretty much ever RAF unit in the country, giving a display at each. It made the tour in company with a C-130 Hercules. On arrival, the two aircraft would fly past in formation. I was surprised to see that the C-130 dwarfed the Vulcan. Both aircraft are almost identical in length, but the Herc has a greater wingspan and is so much bulkier that it makes the Vulcan look like a toy in comparison.

The Vulcan actually had stealth features, although they were a purely inadvertant result of the design. When flying at altitide, the vertical tail was masked by the wing and the aircraft presented a surprisingly low RCS. The ECM systems were very effective as well. In October 1961, NORAD decided to test its air defences with Exercise Skyshield II. Nos 27 and 83 Sqn Vulcans took part, penetrating from Lossiemouth in the north and Kindley AFB, Bermuda from the south. The Vulcan forces caused consternation at NORAD. The northern force flew too high to be intercepted by the defending F-101s and even is the F-101s had been able to fly that high, they couldn't have locked on. The first Vulcan in the stream reported a transient lock but the remainder sailed through unscathed.
The southern wave played things sneaky. They penetrated on a broad front using full ECM jamming. Then just before contact with the defending F-102s, the southernmost aircraft turned north and flew along the East Coast. Having overflown Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Boston - all completely undetected - it eventually landed at Plattsburgh AFB.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enzo Matrix wrote:

I'd be more concerned about cockpit instrumentation, avionics, or hydraulics and what-not. A lot of the internal systems on the aircraft would no longer be in production, as they are obsolete by today's standards.

It's still a fairly large aircraft, not a B-52 by any means, but at least a B-58.

You'd think that given its "delta flying-wing" design. Though not as capable or stealthy, I've always had a soft spot for the HP Victor in my heart also, because it's fuselage has a "Flash Gordon" rocketship look about it, particularly the windscreen fairing into the fuselage. Ah, I remember those Lindberg models of both as a kid. One thing about the Lindberg kits; they may not have been the most detailed or accurate models you ever built, but boy did they go together well and easily, and always gave a good-looking model when finished. They also avoided the curse of the giant rivets in most cases, and were pretty consistent in quality....which is more than one could say about Aurora... In fact, I remember Lindberg having better fit and fewer sink marks than most kits of that vintage.

That's why SPECTRE wanted one in "Thunderball". That was the first time I ever saw one, and fell head-over-heels in love with the plane at first sight. The RAF never came up with the perfect plane in the looks department to escort the Vulcan. They should have bought Saab Drakens...those would have looked _great_ escorting Vulcans. That would have put the commies off on attacking Britain right from the get-go. "Comrade! Flying wings escorted by supersonic lifting bodies! These degenerate imperialists have stolen even more Nazi secrets than we did!" ;-)

Anyway, I'm having a ball turning one into a stealth bomber. I don't know if I'll build a model of one, but I've _got_ to do some plans of one just to see how the thing would look. Hell of a lot easier than the stealth B-52 version I came up with around two decades back on a very drunken night in regards to a bet. That thing looked _hideous_. That was one of the most horrible looking planes imaginable.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

The Victor was actually *more* capable than the Vulcan. It was faster and although its clean range was shorter, the huge slipper tanks on the B2 version gave it an equivalent range.
The weapons bay was cavernous. Conventional 1000lb bombs intended for use on the V-bombers were loaded to a Seven Store Carrier. The carrier was loaded in the bomb dump and shipped out to the aircraft as a unit, where it was winched into the weapons bay. The Vulcan could carry three seven-stores, giving a total of 21 one-thousand pounders. Impressive! But then, the Victor could carry *five* seven-stores! Thirty-five one-thousand pound bombs! There were fuel tanks that could be fitted in the weapons bay, so a Victor that carried three seven-stores would have the same striking power as a Vulcan but twice the range.
The Vulcan wing was stronger than that of the Victor and more suited to the low-level role where the immense range of the Victor wouldn't be a factor anyway. The huge fuel capacity of the Victor when the weapons bay was filled with fuel tanks made it ideal as a tanker.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enzo Matrix wrote:

Was there a maintenance requirement difference between the two that favored the Vulcan as the bomber, and the Victor as the tanker? It would seem that any range in excess of that to hit Moscow from Britain would be superfluous for the intended mission. In fact, that needed to be only a one-way mission, as there probably would be very little left of Britain to return to in that scenario. Certainly, a war off of the coast of Argentina probably didn't enter into the minds of the designers of the "V" bombers when they were drawing up their specs. Jorge Luis Borge had the best quote about that war I ever heard: "Two bald men fighting over a comb." :-D
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

The Victor was somewhat unsuited to the low-level role for the same reason that the Valiant was. The Vulcan wing structure was milled out of a solid chunk of metal and so was built like the proverbial brick ****house.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enzo Matrix wrote:

I was looking at a large large cutaway of one earlier today in my "Rand McNally Encyclopedia Of Military Aircraft" and the fuel tanks in the wing are unusual in design; five ovoid tubes rather than a "wet" wing. That wing has great deal of internal framework in it; it looks very strong, but also very time-consuming to build.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are both capable and look stunning.
The two best 1950s designed bombers
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

The most striking feature of the take-off was the immediate rendezvous with a waiting tanker. My dad was told they used half their fuel load just getting off the ground and I have no reason to doubt that.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

That sort of thing is an eduring characteristic of British aircraft. The first Tornados in squadron service used to empty their fin tank getting off the deck.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 4/18/2008 2:53 PM Enzo Matrix said the following:

That's also the way it's done on US Aircraft Carriers, to cut the weight down on the catapult launch.
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
willshak wrote:

...when we first took the T-45A to the boat, they had to design an new set of steam baffling for the cat in order to keep the stroke from ripping the thing apart, it's so light in comparison to anything else on the deck.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.