Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Questions on the operational capabilities of the Vickers Vildebeest and Vincent

Discussion in 'Allied Aviation Of WWII' started by Fatboy Coxy, Oct 4, 2020.

  1. Fatboy Coxy

    Fatboy Coxy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2020
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi All

    I have a couple of questions on the operational capabilities of the Vickers Vildebeest and Vickers Vincent. The Vincent light bomber was derived from the Vildebeest torpedo bomber, but I’m unsure what the capability of each was.

    Looking at the Vildebeest entry on the BAE systems website, Vickers Vildebeest | BAE Systems | International the Mk III had carried either a 2000lb 18-inch torpedo or up to 1,100lb of bombs. It had an all-metal fuselage aircraft with single-bay. Its range was 1,125 miles (max)

    OK good so far, but the Vincent entry on the BAE systems website says, Vickers Vincent | BAE Systems | International it was derived from the Vildebeest, could carry eight 112 lb bombs and eight 20 lb bombs, for an underwing bomb load of 1,056 lb.

    OK the questions. A single bay is mentioned, am I to presume this is a bomb bay, if not, what is it?

    Also, the Vincent had a range of 625 miles, but by using a 100-gallon fuel tank, mounted between the undercarriage legs, in place of where the Vildebeest torpedo was carried, range was increased to 1,125 miles, spookily the same range as the Vildebeest. Therefore, do I conclude the Vildebeest only had a range of 625 miles when armed with a torpedo, or was an extra fuel tank added in the single bay. Or were both aircraft capable of a range of 1,125 miles when stripped of all munitions?

    Given the bomb carrying capabilities of the Vincent, am I safe to say the Vildebeest could carry eight 112 lb anti-submarine bombs, the earlier British WW2 aerial depth charge, replacing the torpedo.

    And lastly, how easy was it to change from one version to the other. You have the torpedo gear on the Vildebeest and desert survival gear carried on the Vincent.

    Regards
    Fatboy Coxy
     
  2. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,413
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    I am not a expert on the more obscure RAF/RAAF aircraft, but would conclude the lower figure for range is the combat loaded, strike range (to the target and back) and the larger range is ferry range (how far it can fly to then land) possibly without a combat load. As for the 8 112 ASW bombs it would depend if the Vildebeest had the proper hard points to attach, that there was a separate land bomber version injects some doubt. Since the first Vincent was a conversion and many were conversions of Vildebeest's it must have been fairly easy.
     
  3. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    The Shire
    They weren't field conversions but a modified design any conversion so called would be on the factory production line - a very different matter. Part of the mod was to increase the range by adding the tank and presumably the fuel system changes that went with that. The Vildebeest was a land based torpedo bomber and the Vincent a general purpose aircraft so they would have different bomb rack capabilities. The later Vildebeests had a different more powerful engine than the Vincent - they also had an extra crew member
     
  4. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,839
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    THESE ARE NOT BOMB BAYS(just wanted to make that clear).
    The "bay"(on a biplane) refers to the struts on the wings. A single bay biplane has struts on the outer edge of the wing. This creates one bay between the wing and the fuselage. A two bay biplane will have struts on the outer edge and in the middle of the wing. Thus creating two bays - outer strut to middle strut and middle strut to fuselage.

    If you look at the Vildebeest, you see the strut at the outer edge of the wing(one bay), and the Vincent has at the outer edge and in the middle(two bay).
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2020
    belasar likes this.
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,839
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    They might have forgotten to mention that the Vildebeest Mk III could carry a drop tank in place of the torpedo. There are more than a few photos of auxiliary tank(they were not drop tanks, they stayed attached to the aircraft) equipped Vildebeest to be found on the internet.

    Without more information that would be hard to determine
     
  6. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    The Shire
    Actually not completely correct - bays refer to the way in which the biplane's bracing is arranged. Usually this coincides with the strutting arrangement so there is no confusion but it is possible for an air craft with two pairs of struts per wing to be single bay braced and the middle struts to have no top/bottom lateral bracing wires, more to be found in WW1 period but always a design option.
     
    belasar likes this.
  7. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    The Shire
    The aircraft in service in 1941 were Vildebeest IV which had a substantially bigger Perseus engine than the Pegasus used on the Mk III and the Vincent and AFAIK did not have the tank facility
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,839
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    New Zealand Vildebeest Mk III
    [​IMG]

    Another New Zealand Vildebeest Mk III
    [​IMG]

    Source: NZDF-Serials Vildebeest
     
  9. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,413
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Lord a ugly looking beast, but then a late 1920's design so I guess streamlining was only a suggestion.
     
  10. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    The Shire
    It had wheel spats - what more do you want?
     
    George Patton likes this.
  11. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,413
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    perhaps a bow tie and walking stick might have been a improvement. :)
     
  12. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,839
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Can't forget the top hat.
     
  13. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    1,097
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I've been looking for 3 minutes and still can't tell where the tea cup holder and kettle is.... And they have the nerve to call that an English plane. Hmmmm!
     
  14. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,413
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    My guess its hidden by the wing at the end of that long pipe coming off the engine for the hot water, but where they store the biscuits has me stumped. :confused:
     
  15. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    The Shire
    Perhaps one of the ugliest of them all the Avro Bison which has been described as not so much flying as trundling round the sky. This had a capacious chart room for the navigator which contained tea making facilities!
    Category:Avro Bison - Wikimedia Commons
     

Share This Page