# How high could...



## Zipper730 (Dec 20, 2017)

... or more accurately how high were the Vickers Valiant, Avro Vulcan, and Handley Page Victors to fly at if they were to penetrate heavily defended airspace from the mid/late 1950's with the bomb-loads used for this purpose?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2017)

NOE?


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2017)

Vulcan...Google search - .55 seconds Tech Specs
Valiant..._.68 seconds The Vickers Valiant
Victor...._.63 seconds The Handley Page Victor

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2017)

The V bombers were supposed to fly high enough to be difficult to intercept but that for me is a strange strategy because the V2 went much higher in 1944 and the problem was therefore only a guidance system. Once they had to go low under RADAR it wore out the airframes very quickly. The weapons they carried were specified to be dropped from 55,000ft.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 22, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> Vulcan...Google search - .55 seconds Tech Specs
> Valiant..._.68 seconds The Vickers Valiant
> Victor...._.63 seconds The Handley Page Victor


Thanks: I want to point out that I did searches but got conflicting information.

A video on YouTube implied the Valiant could get higher than the Vulcans early on
Thunder and Lightnings indicated the service ceiling of 65,000 feet for the Avro Vulcan B.2



pbehn said:


> The V bombers were supposed to fly high enough to be difficult to intercept but that for me is a strange strategy because the V2 went much higher in 1944 and the problem was therefore only a guidance system.


I wouldn't be surprised if the UK was looking into missiles as early as WWII ended; we were working on the ideas during 1944.


> Once they had to go low under RADAR it wore out the airframes very quickly. The weapons they carried were specified to be dropped from 55,000ft.


Okay, so 55,000 feet is a solid number to work with!

I remember various figures for the B-52's, and to some extent it probably varied with model as well as payload: For example in Vietnam, plans drawn up for going into Route Pack VI called for a 41,500 foot altitude (if this is evidenced by payload used in Vietnam: The typical internal loads were around 13500 to 25000 pounds internally; later payloads increased to 38000 to 42000 internally and 12000 to 18000 pounds externally); when used for nuclear warfare, they might very well have been able to reach 55,000 feet or so as they were carrying around 10,000 to 20,000 pounds (1xB41: ~10,700 lbs; 1xB53: 8900 lbs; 2xMk15: 15200 lbs; 2xMk39: 12800 lbs; 4xMk.28: 9200-10000; plus 2 x Quails which were around 2800 lbs apiece).


----------



## Graeme (Dec 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Okay, so 55,000 feet is a solid number to work with!



A lot of the figures mentioned here are service ceilings. Does this figure mean the aircraft is fully loaded/fueled/armed?

Ceiling (aeronautics) - Wikipedia

For example - see the 1957 description of the Vulcan B.1 below.
Despite what's printed there, it's unlikely it ever reached 55,000 ft - fully loaded and armed. Lightly loaded at 95,000 lb it could just reach 53,000 ft but as one pilot reported even trying to maintain the B.1 at around this altitude was like "milking a mouse". According to a Boscombe Down report for that period, with a 10,000 lb bomb-load it could barely maintain 43,000 ft. "By present day standards", concluded Boscombe, "this height is too low for an unarmed bomber and must be improved as soon as possible."










Zipper730 said:


> Thunder and Lightnings indicated the service ceiling of 65,000 feet for the Avro Vulcan B.2



Quite possibly true as the B.2 was a much more capable version, considering a pre-production machine reached 61,500 ft in 1959. But unlikely at a war weight.
The B.2 was dropping the 15,897 lb Blue Steel from 50,000ft at 0.95M.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2017)

The V bombers had different bomb bays and couldn't always carry the same pay load plus at times part of the bomb bay was used forextra fuel/


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 23, 2017)

Graeme said:


> A lot of the figures mentioned here are service ceilings.


That's a good point, however I used it as a starting point because of the fact that the weapon was specified for a 55000 foot release. I'm not sure if that was the maximum expected release altitude or the typical expected.


> For example - see the 1957 description of the Vulcan B.1 below.


Where is this data from?


> Despite what's printed there, it's unlikely it ever reached 55,000 ft - fully loaded and armed. Lightly loaded at 95,000 lb it could just reach 53,000 ft but as one pilot reported even trying to maintain the B.1 at around this altitude was like "milking a mouse".


Possibly true, however I should point out that national security requirements/secrecy laws extend for enormous periods of time (60-70 years for the UK, around 12-25 for the U.S.), and I've heard numerous statements by pilots that were greatly low-balled (only to be contradicted years later by another statement, or actual evidence of some sort), though some pilots have bragged and over inflated figures for their own amusement. 


> According to a Boscombe Down report for that period, with a 10,000 lb bomb-load it could barely maintain 43,000 ft. "By present day standards", concluded Boscombe, "this height is too low for an unarmed bomber and must be improved as soon as possible."


Was this the B.1 or the prototype? The original wing was very very different than later on...


> The B.2 was dropping the 15,897 lb Blue Steel from 50,000ft at 0.95M.


So, while carrying almost 16000 pounds of weight it was capable of reaching 50000 feet...


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2017)

You rapidly run into things like; 

Ceiling as specified in the requirement
Projected ceiling 
Ceiling as put out for public consumption ( read as propaganda if you like).
Actual ceiling

This last was affected such things (but not limited to)
Lack of experience in designing aircraft to fly at high altitudes.
Slower than anticipated development of engines leading to less than anticipated power. See the 4 years and multiple engine changes in the Vulcan I entry above. 

There was a certain amount of "head in the sand" thinking going on at the time. The major powers (and even one or two minor ones) were all working on anti-aircraft missiles at the time. As some of these missiles went into service, imperfect as they were at the time, some air forces continued in the belief that all they needed to do to insure safe penetration of enemy airspace was fly just little bit faster and a little bit higher. However the anti-aircraft missile is a simpler proposition to design from an airframe/engine point of view. No crew/pilot means no cockpit/life support system needed. While the guidance problem took a while to solve the speed and altitude of the missles was improving at a much faster rate than the speed and altitude of the manned bombers.
This should not have been a real surprise considering the AA missiles did not use air breathing engines (for the most part)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 24, 2017)

And then there was BOMARC.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 24, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And then there was BOMARC.


Which, if I recall, reduced the guidance problem with nuclear warheads.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 24, 2017)

If you can't hit 'em, zap 'em with neutrons from a proximity burst! Drive their onboard weapons critical and they'll evaporate.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Graeme (Dec 24, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> That's a good point, however I used it as a starting point because of the fact that the weapon was specified for a 55000 foot release.



What weapon? Blue Steel?
Have I misinterpreted your question? To me you're asking at what height the *early *versions of the V- bombers would've hit the "enemy".
I immediately thought of the Vulcan and concentrated on the B.Mk.1 because I consider the B.Mk.2 and Blue Steel operational only in the early 60's.
I'm maintaining this was around 40,000 ft for the B.Mk.1 based on Boscombe Down reports. And I guess that these reports helped to encourage the development of a more powerful version of the Vulcan. As SR6 beautifully described it - I believe those ceiling figures are for "public consumption" and are in no way indicative of what height a fully loaded Avro Vulcan B.Mk.1 would be approaching the USSR -* IF* they were the enemy. 

Avro Vulcan B.Mk.1 with 10,000 lb bomb load....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 24, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> You rapidly run into things like;
> 
> Ceiling as specified in the requirement
> Projected ceiling
> ...


That's about right


> This last was affected such things (but not limited to)
> Lack of experience in designing aircraft to fly at high altitudes.
> Slower than anticipated development of engines leading to less than anticipated power.


Yes, in some cases the aerodynamics allowed more altitude than the engines. The B-47B/E were heavier than the B-47A, but the maximum altitude of the later B-47's could fly higher.


> There was a certain amount of "head in the sand" thinking going on at the time. The major powers (and even one or two minor ones) were all working on anti-aircraft missiles at the time. As some of these missiles went into service, imperfect as they were at the time, some air forces continued in the belief that all they needed to do to insure safe penetration of enemy airspace was fly just little bit faster and a little bit higher.


Which sometimes worked, but it depended on how much faster, how much higher, and how well you can maneuver. Jamming helped a lot too...


> However the anti-aircraft missile is a simpler proposition to design from an airframe/engine point of view.


The most basic is physics: It's easy to build a small fast object than a big fast object, particularly if it's range isn't that much, and no need for a person on-board. Sure it's one use, but the idea was if nobody was on-board, as long as the coast of the missiles cost less than the bombers they blew up, it was worth it.



XBe02Drvr said:


> And then there was BOMARC.


Indeed: Powered by a rocket to get it up to speed, it cruised on ramjet power most of the way, and was remote-controlled for most of the flight with the final run to target done by an active radar.

Though closure rates would often produce misses (even with proximity fuses), a nuclear warhead fixed this. You don't have to get that close with a nuclear warhead.


> If you can't hit 'em, zap 'em with neutrons from a proximity burst! Drive their onboard weapons critical and they'll evaporate.


Depends on the amount of neutrons, but it'd at least deform the weapon and that would prevent it from going off.



Graeme said:


> What weapon? Blue Steel?


The free-fall nukes...


----------



## Graeme (Dec 26, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The B-47B/E were heavier than the B-47A, but the maximum altitude of the later B-47's could fly higher..



Not according to one source I have. The service ceiling drops as the weights rise...

B-47A - 38,100 ft at 157,000 lbs
B-47B - 33,900 ft at 185,000 lbs
B-47E - 29,500 ft at 230,000 lbs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2017)

As with all big bombers (and big is relative) the service ceiling changes considerably with weight, as shown by the figures provided by Graeme.
Later versions of bombers usually have more powerful engines and can fly higher than low powered early versions *at similar weights.*
However the increased power was almost always used up by increasing the operational load. 
The "Ceiling" of the B-47 was all over the place depending on weight,
right after take-off a B-47B at 181,440lbs could have ceiling of of 33,500ft, burn off enough fuel to get down to 121,800lbs and the ceiling rises to 43,000ft. 
Drop the bomb/s and the run home could be at 44,500ft. From
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-47B_Stratojet_SAC_-_9_February_1951.pdf
other sources may differ. 

Some bombers did receive _much_ more powerful engines in later versions which did change things somewhat. The British "V" bombers being prime examples. Disregarding prototypes the first 15 got 11,000lb thrust engines, the last ones got 20,000lb thrust engines.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 27, 2017)

How high could the V-bombers fly?

The Handley Page Victor could fly high enough that it was used by the British to install satellites into geosynchronous orbit.

And Neil Armstrong wasn't the first man to walk on the moon. That honour goes to the crew delivered by an Avro Vulcan who filmed the moon landing.

Obviously bombing from such altitudes wasn't very successful, so they tended to keep the aircraft in the atmosphere.

btw, the Vickers Valiant is too boring to make up shit.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 27, 2017)

wuzak said:


> btw, the Vickers Valiant is too boring to make up shit.


No it wasn't, the early Valiants didn't have any engines, engines were only added later to pacify superstitious RAF crews. That was a joke played on me by my brother when I was about six, there are photos of Valiants where the intakes and exhausts are not visible.

A bit like this

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 29, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Not according to one source I have.


What source?


> The service ceiling drops as the weights rise...
> 
> B-47A - 38,100 ft at 157,000 lbs
> B-47B - 33,900 ft at 185,000 lbs
> B-47E - 29,500 ft at 230,000 lbs.


That isn't what I meant: What I meant was the service ceiling over the target area. Some early jet-engines had trouble performing at higher altitudes. 



Shortround6 said:


> As with all big bombers (and big is relative) the service ceiling changes considerably with weight, as shown by the figures provided by Graeme.


Is there any basic way to calculate this? I say basic because rules of thumb are good for a start before one delves into the more sophisticated methods (start simple, then go big).


> However the increased power was almost always used up by increasing the operational load.
> The "Ceiling" of the B-47 was all over the place depending on weight,
> right after take-off a B-47B at 181,440lbs could have ceiling of of 33,500ft, burn off enough fuel to get down to 121,800lbs and the ceiling rises to 43,000ft.


I'd almost swear I was told by somebody that the B-47's under some conditions were able to maneuver well enough to turn inside a MiG-15 at 51,000 feet. Now, I'm not sure if that's in a photo-reconnaissance set-up, or nonsense.


> Drop the bomb/s and the run home could be at 44,500ft. From
> http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-47B_Stratojet_SAC_-_9_February_1951.pdf
> other sources may differ.


I'm curious how accurate the SAC sheet is... it sounds strange, but some of the data seems very accurate (particularly early jet-fighters), but some data seems dubious.


> Some bombers did receive _much_ more powerful engines in later versions which did change things somewhat. The British "V" bombers being prime examples. Disregarding prototypes the first 15 got 11,000lb thrust engines, the last ones got 20,000lb thrust engines.


How much of a difference was there between the early Olympus and later versions?


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 29, 2017)

A start would be something like Hale's _Introduction to Aircraft Performance, Selection and Design_. Of course, any method of analysis requires information about the engine's performance vs Mach number and altitude and the aircraft's polars and the parasitic loads on the engine.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 29, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> A start would be something like Hale's _Introduction to Aircraft Performance, Selection and Design_.


That does look like a good book. Price is steep even if used, so I'll have to save for it.


> Of course, any method of analysis requires information about the engine's performance vs Mach number


This might sound simplistic, but is there any generalized rules of thumb for the effect of ram compression on thrust, altitude on thrust and so on?


> and altitude and the aircraft's polars and the parasitic loads on the engine.


Parasitic loads on the engine? Is that at all like parasitic drag (drag is drag that doesn't come out of lift)


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 29, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> This might sound simplistic, but is there any generalized rules of thumb for the effect of ram compression on thrust, altitude on thrust and so on?



Try Jack Mattingly's website and look for ON/OFF. I _think_ that he's got some downloadable tools that may help.



> Parasitic loads on the engine? Is that at all like parasitic drag (drag is drag that doesn't come out of lift)



Generators, air bleed for pressurization and anti-ice, hydraulic pumps, etc. Early B-52s probably had the worse system, in that they used bleed air to drive turbogenerators.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 30, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Try Jack Mattingly's website and look for ON/OFF.


I found the site.


> I _think_ that he's got some downloadable tools that may help.


No, I was just thinking if there was some generalized math formula -- you know the kind I can write down, that generalize ram compression on thrust, and thrust on altitude?


> Generators, air bleed for pressurization and anti-ice, hydraulic pumps, etc.


Ok


----------

