How high could...
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fubar57
General
Vulcan...Google search - .55 seconds Tech Specs
Valiant..._.68 seconds The Vickers Valiant
Victor...._.63 seconds The Handley Page Victor
Valiant..._.68 seconds The Vickers Valiant
Victor...._.63 seconds The Handley Page Victor
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.
- Thread starter
- #5
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
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.
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).
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."
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.
- Thread starter
- #8
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.
Where is this data from?
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.
Was this the B.1 or the prototype? The original wing was very very different than later on...
So, while carrying almost 16000 pounds of weight it was capable of reaching 50000 feet...
Shortround6
Major General
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)
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)
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Which, if I recall, reduced the guidance problem with nuclear warheads.
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....
- Thread starter
- #14
That's about right
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.
Which sometimes worked, but it depended on how much faster, how much higher, and how well you can maneuver. Jamming helped a lot too...
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.
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.
Depends on the amount of neutrons, but it'd at least deform the weapon and that would prevent it from going off.
The free-fall nukes...
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
Major General
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.
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
Captain
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #19
What source?
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.
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).
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.
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.
How much of a difference was there between the early Olympus and later versions?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
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.
