Vickers Valiant B.2 vs. BAC TSR-2

Delta Force

Banned
I could dispute the idea that the B.2 would have the same wings-falling-off problem. It did have vastly revised structure, and I postulate that it would have a different wings-falling-off problem. The fatigue problem wasn't known at the time of manufacture of the prototype, but became known largely in the period 1955 to 1957. It was largely denied or overlooked because rectification would require substantial cost and grounding a major portion of the V-bomber fleet, as well as admitting that lives were put at risk, and lost, knowingly, and that thermo-nuclear devices were carried with that same known risk. Such shortcomings were not totally unknown in the industry. Only the action taken, or not taken, may call for some conclusions to be drawn.

Since the wings were the major issue and they were being revised for the Valiant B.2 anyways, could they be further revised to have wings that are fail-safe for spar failure and more resilient?
 
Since the wings were the major issue and they were being revised for the Valiant B.2 anyways, could they be further revised to have wings that are fail-safe for spar failure and more resilient?

The B.2 was designed with a stronger wing, allowed by the revised "speed pod" fitment, in the popular Soviet style. What could have been done to adopt fail-safe techniques depends on the timing of production and the timing of the development of relevant techniques, and is separate from replacing the brackets made from the faulty alloy, which was written up in 1955. Vickers wasn't the only one to use the alloy for its purpose, and other aircraft were cycled in for repair and replace work, having the parts made from alternative materials. Compared to the C-5 Galaxy, the fix for Valiant was a snap.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The B.2 was designed with a stronger wing, allowed by the revised "speed pod" fitment, in the popular Soviet style. What could have been done to adopt fail-safe techniques depends on the timing of production and the timing of the development of relevant techniques, and is separate from replacing the brackets made from the faulty alloy, which was written up in 1955. Vickers wasn't the only one to use the alloy for its purpose, and other aircraft were cycled in for repair and replace work, having the parts made from alternative materials. Compared to the C-5 Galaxy, the fix for Valiant was a snap.

Are you sure they aren't anti-shock bodies for transonic flight? The Convair 990 had those equipped when the aircraft was trying to get more top speed to avoid contract penalties. If the Wikipedia article is correct, they were even developed in the United Kingdom.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Why did the Valiant have safe-life design anyways? The Comet was given the most extensive testing of any aircraft in history up to that point (although it didn't detect the window design flaw) and the Yellow Sun was given a blunt nose to eliminate the risk of parachute failure, but when it came time to design the conservative V-Bomber they just hoped a wing spar would never fail?
 
Are you sure they aren't anti-shock bodies for transonic flight? The Convair 990 had those equipped when the aircraft was trying to get more top speed to avoid contract penalties. If the Wikipedia article is correct, they were even developed in the United Kingdom.

I'm sure it's a matter of semantics, or nomenklatura, or something. On the Convair, they were limited to above the wing, contained no gear, and were called anti-shock bodies, or Kuchemann's Carrots. As developed at TsAGI for Tupolev's benefit, they provided ample room for a generous undercarriage, and could be called undercarriage pods. They were said to also enhance performance, or speed, and thus the simple name speed pods, which I heard at one time long ago. The purpose of the pods on the B.2 was to remove the undercarriage from the wing spar area, allowing for a stronger construction, without impairing, or perhaps improving performance. The move altered the CG and required the installation of a 4 foot plug in the forward fuselage to counter the aft shift of the heavy gear. You can call them anti-shock bodies if you like, and I'll stick with speed pods, Okay?
 
In UK terminology I've always heard them referred to (by my aerodynamics lecturers) as Küchemann carrots - to go along with the Küchemann tips on the wings and tail.
 
Why did the Valiant have safe-life design anyways? The Comet was given the most extensive testing of any aircraft in history up to that point (although it didn't detect the window design flaw) and the Yellow Sun was given a blunt nose to eliminate the risk of parachute failure, but when it came time to design the conservative V-Bomber they just hoped a wing spar would never fail?

Check your chronology.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I'm sure it's a matter of semantics, or nomenklatura, or something. On the Convair, they were limited to above the wing, contained no gear, and were called anti-shock bodies, or Kuchemann's Carrots. As developed at TsAGI for Tupolev's benefit, they provided ample room for a generous undercarriage, and could be called undercarriage pods. They were said to also enhance performance, or speed, and thus the simple name speed pods, which I heard at one time long ago. The purpose of the pods on the B.2 was to remove the undercarriage from the wing spar area, allowing for a stronger construction, without impairing, or perhaps improving performance. The move altered the CG and required the installation of a 4 foot plug in the forward fuselage to counter the aft shift of the heavy gear. You can call them anti-shock bodies if you like, and I'll stick with speed pods, Okay?

Were anti-shock bodies ever used to hold fuel or water for injection systems? That could free up wing pylons, although it seems the anti-shock bodies impacted center of gravity (or the landing gear relocation).

Check your chronology.

Yellow Sun is almost a decade later. Still though, safe-life isn't consistent with other British practice of the time and makes no sense for aircraft use anyways.
 
Were anti-shock bodies ever used to hold fuel or water for injection systems? That could free up wing pylons, although it seems the anti-shock bodies impacted center of gravity (or the landing gear relocation).



Yellow Sun is almost a decade later. Still though, safe-life isn't consistent with other British practice of the time and makes no sense for aircraft use anyways.

You know the Convair stored fuel and used the pods as a location for the fuel dump.

Again, chronology. What was the standard British design practice of the time? Fail-safe was developed later, and damage tolerance later still. I know that Edgar Schmued was not particularly impressed with British wartime methods of stress calculations, but even he wasn't a know-it-all in the field of fatigue studies. Who was? Well, Marshal of the RAF Lord Tedder was president of the Institute of Metals whose journal wrote an article, in 1956, from a 1955 study specifying the poor fatigue resistance of the alloy, exacerbated tenfold in the presence of water or water vapor. In 1960, Valiant XD864 crashed and a board of inquiry blamed the crew, while finding evidence of a spar failure. Five long years later, the Valiant was canned. Unlike other examples where the alloy parts were replaced, no action was taken to rectify the Valiant's condition while in RAF service, neither by the MoD nor the RAF. Still, none of this relates to the B.2, because funding problems caused its cancellation. When the wings fell of an F-111, an investigation found a problem and brought about procedures to rectify and replace the faulty component. No such action was taken with the Valiant. The problem was identified in 1955, with a glaring example of failure in 1960, with removal from service in 1965. You can't blame George Edwards. He'd moved on to bigger things.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Would it have been possible to rebuild existing Vickers Valiant aircraft into something approaching the B.2 by giving them new wings, engines, and other modifications later? They would have required new wings anyways if they had continued in service, and if the fuselage wasn't a limiting factor the work already done for the B.2 could be used to lower development costs.

Also, how would the Valiant B.2 have compared to the Handley Page Victor in the low-level role?
 
Would it have been possible to rebuild existing Vickers Valiant aircraft into something approaching the B.2 by giving them new wings, engines, and other modifications later? They would have required new wings anyways if they had continued in service, and if the fuselage wasn't a limiting factor the work already done for the B.2 could be used to lower development costs.

Also, how would the Valiant B.2 have compared to the Handley Page Victor in the low-level role?

As has been remarked upon, the B.2 was designed and slightly tested at low level, and also proved to be faster at high level. I don't know what a pundit is, but there were some who had suggested B.2s should replace B.1s in production. Since it would have been unquestionably serendipitous do do so, it wasn't. Having so many responses to the same essential specification manufactured would have made the people responsible seem like blithering idiots!
 

Delta Force

Banned
As has been remarked upon, the B.2 was designed and slightly tested at low level, and also proved to be faster at high level. I don't know what a pundit is, but there were some who had suggested B.2s should replace B.1s in production. Since it would have been unquestionably serendipitous do do so, it wasn't. Having so many responses to the same essential specification manufactured would have made the people responsible seem like blithering idiots!

So it the Valiant B.2 went the way of the F110 powered F-14s, something that was known to be possible, offer significantly improved performance, and that could be done without too much expenditure, but that wasn't pursued to save a little bit of money due to tight budgets? Then when it became obvious that the old plans would offer a large upgrade, it was decided to use funds to purchase new aircraft rather than refurbish existing ones.
 
Top