Pictures of Cold War aircraft. (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

British TSR-2 taking off at an airfield in Boscombe in Hampshire, UK, 12th September 1964.

the-british-tsr-2-taking-off-at-an-airfield-in-boscombe-in-hampshire-uk-12th-september-1964.jpg
 
The loading procedure for the HP Victor was wild: Basically there was a hole in the top of the fuselage through which a connection was made for a crane to lift up a bomb (typically nuclear). The guys operating the crane couldn't directly see the bomb either., which if you have ever operated a crane, is quite extraordinary and nerve racking.

IWM-RAF-T-4141.jpg
 
And finally, I've read that the Victor had structural provision to carry an additional 28 1000lb bombs in underwing containers. Interestingly, this could have given the Victor a potential conventional bomb load of around 63,000 - 72,000 lb (depending upon how many bombs were carried internally - typical max load being 35 x 1000 lb, though this was apparently a RAF operational limit not the max possible loadout for the bay which was 48 x 1000 lb)! This is I believe even more than the B-52D "Big Belly" which held 60,000lb IIRC.

bc6a04a3.jpg

f7b35483.jpg

22e8d3d5.jpg
 
Hard to say - the engines are high up. And in any case, the C-130s be they T-56 models or AE2100 models still have turbines.
So is it your position that that vortex of water being sucked from the wet taxiway into those "high-up engines" would NOT be duplicated with sand from an inimproved desert landing area?

As for the C-130s, the turbines pull in far less air than that large turbofan, and thus create far less suction at ground level.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back