Pictures of Cold War aircraft.

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

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.

 
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.



 
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