I got two questions
1. Being that the Vickers Victory-Bomber and Windsor have some similarities in the form of an elliptical wing and speed: Were there any actual developments from the Victory bomber carried over to the Windsor?
2. Could the Victory-Bomber have been folded into the Windsor design provided provision for the normal arsenal of bombs, provision for either a greater top-speed or more defensive armament?
Having never heard of the Victory bomber, I looked it up. While Barnes Wallis did want to design this for one bomb only, as the bomb itself was very large, what was there to stop Vickers(after all, they did employ him), from considering the possibility of other munitions, say, a wider range than that employed by the Lanc?
Or am I being too simplistic?
And, were you referring to the conventionally appointed aircraft with the graceful elliptical wing, or did you also want to include the canard monster?
Get hold of BSP1. It's discussed there.
Quote from: pyro-manic on January 04, 2015, 04:16:55 AM
Get hold of BSP1. It's discussed there.
BSP3 actually pyro. ;)
I second his recommendation to track down
British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers 1935 - 1950.
The 'Victory' and other super-heavy projects are discussed and, in short, you have it back to front as to
what was used on what. ;D
Max W MillQuoteAnd, were you referring to the conventionally appointed aircraft with the graceful elliptical wing, or did you also want to include the canard monster?
I technically meant the elliptical winged design I suppose.
Jon Carr FarrellyQuoteI second his recommendation to track down British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers 1935 - 1950.
I'm reading through a couple of books right now, and I've spent a few hundred dollars on gifts for family as well. I'm not in the position to be buying more books.
QuoteThe 'Victory' and other super-heavy projects are discussed and, in short, you have it back to front as to what was used on what. ;D
You cannot give me a basic summary if the Victory-Bomber was an inspiration for the Windsor?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 04, 2015, 02:42:06 PM
QuoteThe 'Victory' and other super-heavy projects are discussed and, in short, you have it back to front as to what was used on what. ;D
You cannot give me a basic summary if the Victory-Bomber was an inspiration for the Windsor?
The Victory Bomber came after the Windsor is what jcf is saying, most of them were as big as a B-36, the Windsor was only a bit bigger than Lincoln size
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 04, 2015, 02:42:06 PM
I'm reading through a couple of books right now, and I've spent a few hundred dollars on gifts for family as well. I'm not in the position to be buying more books.
Use a library. That's what they're for.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 04, 2015, 11:53:40 AM
BSP3 actually pyro. ;)
Oops.
I knew what I meant! ;D
I sort out my copies of Secret Projects into country and date with fighters before bombers if the dates are the same.
Had to have a quick read of the relevant book last night as the subject intrigued me and I would never have gotten to sleep if I had not looked at the subject. Basically the Windsor was designed initially as a replacement for the Wellington. The design was then developed into a larger and heavier aircraft for use in the Pacific theatre but ended up not being an improvement over the Lancaster Mk IV which later became known as the Lincoln.
Other designs by Vickers for heavy bombers, I didn't read all of the info, covered several layouts nearly all of which were six engined aircraft and included both conventional layouts as well as canard layouts and a tail less design.
Hope this helps.
Gondor
Must admit if someone was to do one of those Vickers canard projects in 1/144th I would be seriously tempted
Quote from: kitnut617 on January 04, 2015, 04:52:09 PMThe Victory Bomber came after the Windsor is what jcf is saying
1. That would have been helpful if that would have been said
2. The Windsor was designed to Air Ministry specification B.5/41, than later to B.3/42: If I understand my terminology correctly, that means the specification was issued in 1941, then amended in 1942. The Vickers Victory Bomber was proposed at a date that is unclear, but it was rejected though in May 1941.
3. I'm curious if the 1942 Windsor specification could have been amended to include a design more like the Vickers Victory-Bomber with the exception of a more versatile armament.
4. There were various proposals (far as I know) for the various Victory-Bomber concepts: While some may very well have been similar in size to the B-36, some of them were similar to the B-29 in size (including a wooden wind-tunnel model which is on display at the Brooklands Museum) which reflects the following
............................-------..-.
Vickers Victory../
Boeing B-29
- Length: ......................97'0" ..........,,.....99'0"
- Wingspan: ..................172'0" .........-.....141'3"
- Wing-Area: .................2,675 ft^2.,........1,736 ft^2
- Aspect Ratio: ........,,..--11.0594 .............11.4928
- Loaded Weight: ....-....--104,000 lbs-........135,000 lbs
- Normal Payload: ...,,...-.22,400 lbs..........16,000 lbs
- Maximum Payload:--...--Same.................20,000 lbs
- Wing-Loading (Max): ....38.8785 lbs/ft^2..77.765 lbs/ft^2
- Wing-Loading (Normal): Same...............-75.4608 lbs/ft^2
Interesting stuff. Gotta save some cash and grab a few of these books !
Quote from: NARSES2 on January 05, 2015, 01:28:27 AM
Must admit if someone was to do one of those Vickers canard projects in 1/144th I would be seriously tempted
I'm going to attempt the one on the cover of BSP-Fighters and Bombers --- Vickers Type 'C' in 1/72. Got some donor wings and a fuselage already, figured out what u/c to use and what props will be needed.
Does anybody have any pictures of the Victory A/B as well as the C/D?
Only managed to find this drawing of the Type C with a quick search of Google
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi776.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy47%2FGondor44%2F111210_Vickers_Type-C_02_zps4e8b82fb.jpg&hash=42e72d939e6de8e930b3290704e08cb73f974273) (http://s776.photobucket.com/user/Gondor44/media/111210_Vickers_Type-C_02_zps4e8b82fb.jpg.html)
Gondor
Needs longer wings............. ;)
There's another somewhere where that Type 'C' has five 4-wheel trucks for u/c, one each under the four inner most nacelles, and one where the front u/c is. It's this one I'll try to have a go at.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 12, 2015, 04:58:48 AM
Needs longer wings............. ;)
Would need wingtip wheels then, Kit and a very, very, very, wide runway! ;D
GondorQuoteOnly managed to find this drawing of the Type C with a quick search of Google
Where would one find a picture of the B model
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 12, 2015, 03:15:09 PM
Gondor
QuoteOnly managed to find this drawing of the Type C with a quick search of Google
Where would one find a picture of the B model
How about here? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2F+vickers+victory)
That would be so cool to see in plastic. Keep at it Robert !
:cheers:
Quote from: rickshaw on January 12, 2015, 05:39:30 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 12, 2015, 03:15:09 PM
Gondor
QuoteOnly managed to find this drawing of the Type C with a quick search of Google
Where would one find a picture of the B model
How about here? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2F+vickers+victory)
:thumbsup:
That's a neat link ! Lots of discussion on those links, a lot seem dead as well. Hardly any pics either. But I'll keep looking ! Thanks for that one, never seen it done like that before...pretty cool !
:thumbsup: :cheers:
Quote from: Captain Canada on January 13, 2015, 04:55:26 AM
That's a neat link ! Lots of discussion on those links, a lot seem dead as well. Hardly any pics either. But I'll keep looking ! Thanks for that one, never seen it done like that before...pretty cool !
:thumbsup: :cheers:
You have to be a member on the Secret Project forum Todd, to see any pics.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on January 12, 2015, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on January 12, 2015, 05:39:30 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 12, 2015, 03:15:09 PM
Gondor
QuoteOnly managed to find this drawing of the Type C with a quick search of Google
Where would one find a picture of the B model
How about here? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2F+vickers+victory)
:thumbsup:
I think Kendra/Robyn wore out her welcome on that forum
OK cheers I'll see if I can sign up !
:cheers:
Rickshaw
I did do searches on Google before... I didn't enter that particular query though
kitnut617
Nope, I'm still a member.
Okay... I pulled up some drawings and this is a basic line drawing
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1368.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag181%2FConstellation1710%2FVickersVictory_zps8b694053.jpg&hash=c2f61fa37083fdac2297f32d9f4356a2a54aa00f)
Sure, it's a little off center and stuff but it's a pretty good illustration and close enough to scale for the time being.
That being said, I'm curious about a few things and I illustrated them in this modified image here
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1368.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag181%2FConstellation1710%2FVickersVictory2_zps4fc7b668.gif&hash=ea646139d59721224b5f5b2f5901d1faa220f531)
I'm not sure exactly which of the two protrusions up front are the cockpit (and what the other is for), if the lower rear-protrusion is a turret or something else, and if the bomb bay position is correct
I do find the lower fuselage shape to be rather odd (in addition to the double bubble, the flat belly), as it seems like it'd be easier to design a pressure hull as close to a tear-drop as possible: A shape that is also well suited to geodetic design.
BTW: As I understand it, the earlier Vicker's bombers (Wellington & Warwick) were made from a metal geodetic-frame with a doped-linen skin (the Victory might have been based on this too): The Windsor used a geodetic internal structure with a metallic wire-skin (think metal fabric) covered with PVC. Was there any thought as to just using a metal skin with a geodetic frame?
Tail wheel and observation blister ?
The design was an extension of this, the Wellington Mk.V.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FWellingtonMkV_zpsabb7f617.jpg&hash=7596be2dbdc7c49ffa6547740cc1f7ce5f5d5788) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Misc%20Photos/WellingtonMkV_zpsabb7f617.jpg.html)
It had a pressure chamber just for the crew which is the round shape with the streamlined nose, you can see the bubble canopy the pilot looked through. None of the rest of the bomber was pressurized.
You can see the pressure chamber in that 3-View only it's much bigger, and it has two round bubble canopies, forward one for the pilot, rear one could be for the gunner (turret at rear was a remote one) or for the navigator. The flat to the bottom of the fuselage was for ground clearance, the bomb bay was to be big enough to have a Grand Slam (22,000 lb bomb) completely enclosed. And it was a tail-dragger. It was to fly at extreme altitude, 40-50,000 feet
This was the Avro design along the same lines, a pressure chamber for the crew all up front. None of the rest of the fuselage was pressurized.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FAvro684_zpsee355b5d.gif&hash=9c66b6a4d568d559b2f6f0b4315249f526818095) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Misc%20Photos/Avro684_zpsee355b5d.gif.html)
The air intake at the front of the bomb bay is not for a jet engine, there was a fifth Merlin engine there who's sole purpose was to drive a large supercharger for all the other engines and for pressurizing the crew chamber,
Kitnut617QuoteThe design was an extension of this, the Wellington Mk.V.
When was this conceptualized and built?
QuoteIt had a pressure chamber just for the crew which is the round shape with the streamlined nose, you can see the bubble canopy the pilot looked through
Okay so the circular area is the pressure area, the rest is just to blend it in, the aft fuselage is slab-shaped: The Windsor seemed to better blend the upper and lower sections together aerodynamically interestingly.
While we're on the subject of structural and aerodynamic issues
- Is there any advantage to a slap-shape relative to an oval or circular cross-section from the standpoint of aerodynamics or internal volume
- Wouldn't a circular or oval shape be more conducive to a geodetic construction (as well as use a more liberal pressurization a'la the B-29)
Quoteit has two round bubble canopies, forward one for the pilot, rear one could be for the gunner (turret at rear was a remote one) or for the navigator.
Looking at the Avro Lancaster, the idea of the navigator sitting there would make the most sense. Are you sure, the turret is remotely controlled? I ask because most remotely controlled turrets are smaller than manned ones because of the lack of a need to shoe-horn a person in there.
QuoteThe flat to the bottom of the fuselage was for ground clearance, the bomb bay was to be big enough to have a Grand Slam (22,000 lb bomb) completely enclosed. And it was a tail-dragger. It was also to fly at extreme altitude, 40-50,000 feet
1. Bomb-Carriage Requirement: I sort of get that. Regardless, any of the following fix the problem
- Moving wings lower/fuselage higher: This was done on the Windsor
- Using a type of bomb-bay door similar to the B-24?
.
2. Regarding the tail-dragging configuration: Why didn't the RAF just use a retractible tail-wheel? We used that arrangement without major difficulty.
3. Extreme Altitude: What kind of supercharging arrangement was to be used for the Victory-Bomber's engines and crew-compartment?
The Victory bomber predated the Wellington V, or was at least concurrent.
The Wellington V was the airframe for which the Merlin 60 was originally developed, before Hives of Rolls-Royce suggested the 60 for the Spitfire. It was being developed around 1940/41, as was the Merlin 60.
The Wiki page for the Victory Bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Bomber) says 6 Merlins or Hercules. Maybe the Merlins would have been 60s, but I'm not sure what the Hercules would have done as no 2 stage versions were built. Maybe a turbo version.
The Vickers canard design was for a later specification, I believe the same one that the Bristol 100 ton bomber was designed for.
The Windsor wasn't pressurized
Quote from: wuzak on January 16, 2015, 01:11:47 AM
but I'm not sure what the Hercules would have done as no 2 stage versions were built. Maybe a turbo version.
The photo above of the Wellington Mk.V shows the turbo-charged Hercules engines, I'd assume the Victory Bomber would have the same
Basic high-altitude Wellington concept goes back to 1937 ~ 1938, first relatively complete proposal January 1939,
constructed in 1940.
First 'Victory' brochure January 1941.
Hercules VIII two-stage engine had supercharger fixed at Medium and an auxiliary mechanical supercharger, Hercules XVMT was similar but used a turbo-charger as the auxiliary. Hercules 38 as used on Wellington Mk.V
was the production version of the XVMT.
Wellington Mk. VI was created by re-engining the Hercules powered Mk.V with the Merlin 60.
The crew pressure chamber was like this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FVickers%2520Wellington%2FPage5_zpse3b71468.jpg&hash=b27252f86864f723b61eec3e717d12661fa0554b) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Vickers%20Wellington/Page5_zpse3b71468.jpg.html)
The geodetic framing was attached like this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FVickers%2520Wellington%2FPage4_zps66c576c3.jpg&hash=0ac88bde59c50c7a901852d278305ffe0379374f) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Vickers%20Wellington/Page4_zps66c576c3.jpg.html)
The Victory Bomber would have been the same construction.
I can't remember who sent me these at the moment ---
wuzakQuoteThe Victory bomber predated the Wellington V, or was at least concurrent.
Understood
kitnut617QuoteThe Windsor wasn't pressurized
According to what I'm reading here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Windsor), it would appear to be:
"The Windsor was designed to Air Ministry Specification B.5/41 (later modified to Spec. B.3/42) for a high-altitude heavy bomber with a pressurised crew compartment, and an ability to fly at 345 miles per hour (555 km/h) at 31,000 feet (9,400 m). Notable features of the Windsor included its pressurised crew compartment, four mainwheel struts (each extending from one of the engine nacelles and carrying a single balloon-tyred wheel), elliptical planform high aspect ratio wings, and guns mounted in barbettes at the rear of each (outboard) nacelle, which were to be remotely operated by a gunner in a pressurised compartment in the extreme tail."QuoteThe photo above of the Wellington Mk.V shows the turbo-charged Hercules engines, I'd assume the Victory Bomber would have the same
1. Wouldn't the radial require more creativity in the cowling design to keep drag low while allowing a higher top-speed?
2. Considering all the different variants of the Hercules, Merlin's and so on... what horsepower levels would have been used on the variants mentioned?
3. Would it have been acceptable to put a Napier Sabre on this design?
QuoteThe crew pressure chamber was like this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FVickers%2520Wellington%2FPage5_zpse3b71468.jpg&hash=b27252f86864f723b61eec3e717d12661fa0554b) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Vickers%20Wellington/Page5_zpse3b71468.jpg.html)
The geodetic framing was attached like this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FVickers%2520Wellington%2FPage4_zps66c576c3.jpg&hash=0ac88bde59c50c7a901852d278305ffe0379374f) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Vickers%20Wellington/Page4_zps66c576c3.jpg.html)
Firstly: I assume the small viewport up front is the bomb-aimer's position?
Secondly: I'm curious if it would have been a major technological hurdle, or a development issue
(concocting the design, and working out all the kinks in a timely manner) in going from the earlier concepts of the high-altitude Wellington
(which were dated from the late 1930's, and had a pressure-hull inside a largely non-pressurized frame) to going with a circular or ovalized fuselage which had the forward fuselage forming the front of the pressure hull which housed the crew-compartment
(like our B-307 and B-29)?
This would require the whole forward fuselage to be pressure-load bearing, but would better capitalize on the strengths of the geodetic design better and provide more options for the cockpit and bombardier arrangement: With the tail-gun being remote-controlled, there would be no need for a rear pressure-compartment as on the B-29.
joncarrfarrellyQuoteBasic high-altitude Wellington concept goes back to 1937 ~ 1938, first relatively complete proposal January 1939, constructed in 1940. First 'Victory' brochure January 1941.
With the Windsor coming last...
QuoteHercules VIII two-stage engine had supercharger fixed at Medium and an auxiliary mechanical supercharger, Hercules XVMT was similar but used a turbo-charger as the auxiliary. Hercules 38 as used on Wellington Mk.V was the production version of the XVMT.
So it was a turbocharged Hercules...
QuoteWellington Mk. VI was created by re-engining the Hercules powered Mk.V with the Merlin 60.
Gotcha...
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 16, 2015, 09:08:28 PM
QuoteThe Windsor wasn't pressurized
According to what I'm reading here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Windsor), it would appear to be: "The Windsor was designed to Air Ministry Specification B.5/41 (later modified to Spec. B.3/42) for a high-altitude heavy bomber with a pressurised crew compartment, and an ability to fly at 345 miles per hour (555 km/h) at 31,000 feet (9,400 m). Notable features of the Windsor included its pressurised crew compartment, four mainwheel struts (each extending from one of the engine nacelles and carrying a single balloon-tyred wheel), elliptical planform high aspect ratio wings, and guns mounted in barbettes at the rear of each (outboard) nacelle, which were to be remotely operated by a gunner in a pressurised compartment in the extreme tail."
The original spec was for a pressurized crew compartment, the spec was changed and the three Windsors that flew to the revised spec were not pressurized. I've read this in an article somewhere, one of my Air-Britain quarterlies but I see if I can find it but it all became moot because the whole project was abandoned after the war and then the RAF concentrated on jet bombers
kitnut617
QuoteThe original spec was for a pressurized crew compartment, the spec was changed and the three Windsors that flew to the revised spec were not pressurized.
Were external contours changed at all?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 17, 2015, 02:53:06 PM
kitnut617
QuoteThe original spec was for a pressurized crew compartment, the spec was changed and the three Windsors that flew to the revised spec were not pressurized.
Were external contours changed at all?
As you found in wiki', it says 'pressurized crew compartment', I would suspect it would have had the chamber as Vickers had been experimenting with it. What the contours would have been is anyone's guess as the spec was changed before they got that far.
Quote from: kitnut617 on January 17, 2015, 03:11:16 PMAs you found in wiki', it says 'pressurized crew compartment', I would suspect it would have had the chamber as Vickers had been experimenting with it. What the contours would have been is anyone's guess as the spec was changed before they got that far.
Which means there could have been changes.
Ironically, the shape does look kind of similar (just more blended)
Great stuff. Thanks for posting those pics Robert. I'll be saving those for sure. I think that would make an excellent diorama model, the wings finished and most of the fuselage, leaving the geodetic structure on the nose open with the pressure chamber visible.
:cheers:
Does anybody have any drawings of the early Windsor concepts?
Yeah, the pressurized Vickers 433 Warwick III (Spec. B.5/41) is in BSP3, by the time it became the Vickers 447 Windsor (B.3/42)
it looked pretty much like what was built.
No, I won't scan all the relevant info, too many pages.
There's a copy at bookshop in NY state:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1857801792/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used
Or see if you get it via an inter-library loan.
joncarrfarrellyQuoteYeah, the pressurized Vickers 433 Warwick III (Spec. B.5/41) is in BSP3, by the time it became the Vickers 447 Windsor (B.3/42) it looked pretty much like what was built.
Okay, thank you -- that really helped.
Does this look like a pretty good shape so far for a better blended nose?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1368.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag181%2FConstellation1710%2FVickersVictory2A_zpshjozdtpx.gif&hash=39703021943581c4f10e8a83de16021e8f609199)
EverybodyRegarding the turret: Why is it so big? One advantage of a remote controlled turret is that you don't have to have a person in there so you just need the guns, the ammo equipment, the enclosures and pivot mechanisms.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 21, 2015, 12:51:33 PM
Does this look like a pretty good shape so far for a better blended nose?
No, the shape that those designs were for, were to include a pressure chamber, from what I understand you're trying to do is make the whole fuselage pressurized, so really it would have something totally different, like the Vickers Type 'C' for instance (which would be quite like a B-52 style)
Quote from: kitnut617 on January 21, 2015, 03:32:02 PMNo, the shape that those designs were for, were to include a pressure chamber, from what I understand you're trying to do is make the whole fuselage pressurized
No, actually I'm basing it on the Windsor which had a blended lower fuselage with a pressure chamber up top. Cleaner lines that's all...
The Windsor was NOT pressurized. You've already been told that, anyhow the production Windsor was
to have a nose turret above a faceted-pane bomb-aimers position.
The Warwick III which was abandoned on the way to the Windsor looked like a four-engined Wellington V/VI.
joncarrfarrellyQuoteThe Windsor was NOT pressurized. You've already been told that
Yes, but you said the basic exterior lines were the same as the actual design? So I basically cleaned up the Victory to the Windsor type lines considering there was a pressure-hull inside all that...