Questions on the operational capabilities of the Vickers Vildebeest and Vincent

[Fatboy Coxy]

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

 

[cammerjeff]

Hello,

I can answer one of your questions.
The Single Bay you are asking about has nothing to do with how many bomb bays (if any) are installed in a plane. It has to do with Biplane (or any multi wing configuration were they are stacked one above the other) If you look at the interplane struts you will see there is only 1 set of struts on each wing. called Single Bay construction

If you look at other types such as the Heinkel 50 with 2 sets of interplane struts per wing would be called double bay constuction

As for the range question, any time I see the words "max range" used, to me it means little to any weapons load carried, and max fuel load.

Hopefully more knowledgeable members will be able to answer your other questions

 

[MikeMeech]

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

Hi

The max range of both Vildebeest and Vincent was only achieved with the under fuselage fuel tank, with torpedo the former would not achieve max range. The Vincent was a 'General Purpose' aeroplane supporting ground forces in the middle east for example, it is often seen with the fuel tank fitted and a message hook under the fuselage. However, a Vincent of No. 8 Sqn. based in Aden did cause the surrender of the Italian submarine 'Galileo Galilei' after dropping a 250 lb depth charge near it. In theory I suspect torpedo gear could be fitted as the prototype was converted from a Vildebeest 1 during production, but a bit pointless unless the pilot had been trained fully in torpedo bombing.

Mike

 

[buffnut453]

Just to add to the info, neither the Vildebeest nor the Vincent had a bomb bay. All stores were carried externally either under the fuselage or on underwing bomb racks.

The bottom of the fuselage contained a bomb aiming position. It was simply a hole in the fabric where the bomb aimer viewed the target using a bomb sight. When not in use, the opening was covered by a sliding slatted panel.

Both aircraft were made of metal construction but the wings, tail and most of the fuselage were fabric covered.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hello,

I can answer one of your questions.
The Single Bay you are asking about has nothing to do with how many bomb bays (if any) are installed in a plane. It has to do with Biplane (or any multi wing configuration were they are stacked one above the other) If you look at the interplane struts you will see there is only 1 set of struts on each wing. called Single Bay construction
View attachment 597099
If you look at other types such as the Heinkel 50 with 2 sets of interplane struts per wing would be called double bay constuction

View attachment 597100

As for the range question, any time I see the words "max range" used, to me it means little to any weapons load carried, and max fuel load.

Hopefully more knowledgeable members will be able to answer your other questions

I never knew that.

 

[nuuumannn]

Just a wee addition to this, the RNZAF operated both types (and by consequence is the only place in the world where examples of either type can be seen, albeit in a semi-complete state only), although the Vildebeests were never used as torpedo bombers owing to the fact that during the 1930s early 40s the RNZAF had no torpedoes. Both types were used for maritime patrol and their low speed and great endurance actually served them well once the war got a little closer to home. The RNZAF operated a total of 62 Vincents and 39 Vildebeests, the latter being significant as being the first RNZAF aircraft locally fitted with ASV radar. Both types operated from my local airfield and were stored in the hangar that I work in!

Airframe wise, they were both the same - based on the Vildebeest maintenance manual, the internal fuel tankage was two 761/2 gal fuel tanks in the upper wings gravity feeding the engine. The Vincent could carry a drop tank where the torpedo went on the Vildebeest. Quoting from the manual, "the bomb loads are carried on the bottom mainplanes, installation being the same for port and starboard. A group of Universal Carriers is shown as being arranged as in fig.65, the inboard carrier being a No.2 type for 50 - 550lb bombs and three outboard carriers being No.1 type for 50 - 250lb bombs. A light series Mk.1 carrier is arranged outboard of the group. Alternative loadings for the four universal carriers are - four bombs, 100lb, 112lb, 120lb, two bombs, 230lb or 250lb, one bomb 500lb, 520lb or 550lb. The light series carrier can be arranged to carry four 20lb Mk.I bombs or 8lb practice bombs alternatively... No bombs are carried when the aeroplane is used as a torpedo carrier."

No performance figures are supplied in the manual. The bomb aimer's position had the standard British course setting bomb sight in it.

This pic give an idea of the size of the type, the Vincent undergoing restoration here - mind the poor quality images, I only had a wee hand held camera at the dawn of the digital camera age.

Vincent and speakers

Vincent front

There's quite a bit of room in the fuselage looking forward, with the rear cockpit directly above and bomb aimer's position at the front.

Fuselage

The bomb aimer's position was a little more substantial than a hole in the fabric. The course setting bomb sight can be seen.

Bomb aimer's position

The bomb aimer's position from the outside, with weapon selection panel at centre and air data information on the forward panel.

Bomb aimer's station

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hi

The max range of both Vildebeest and Vincent was only achieved with the under fuselage fuel tank, with torpedo the former would not achieve max range. The Vincent was a 'General Purpose' aeroplane supporting ground forces in the middle east for example, it is often seen with the fuel tank fitted and a message hook under the fuselage.

In 2018 I was in Singapore visiting the Battle Box and Fort Siloso. I remember wondering if tanked to the max with the belly tank (shown below), whilst successfully evading interception by Japanese fighters how far a pair of pilots and a good navigator could escape in a Vilderbeest.

It's 2,650 km from Singapore to Ceylon. That might be doable. Darwin at 3350 km, maybe not. With a top speed of 230 kms, even with favourable winds it's at least 12-15 hours of flying.

 

[glennasher]

Yegads, it it were just a little bit uglier, it could be French...........................

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yegads, it it were just a little bit uglier, it could be French...........................

Vickers' design chief Rex Pierson wasn't known for elegant aircraft.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

Thank you Cammerjeff, like SaparotRob, I was completely ignorant of the use of the term 'bay' in wing design

And thank you MikeMeech and Buffnut453 for the technical answers

Also thanks to Nuuumannn, not just for the technical stuff but also the photos. You say big, and she was, but quite slim lined, there doesn't seem much room for the bomb aimer to crawl around in, doing that while in flight must have been a bit of a trial.

Also thanks to Admiral Beez for the older photo. Flying in open cockpits in the winter months around the UK, as the original torpedo sqns did, couldn't have been much of a joy, but flying out of Singapore must have been a great escape for the heat and humidity.

RAF 36 and 100 squadrons flew them in Singapore, and were slaughtered at Endau, while attacking in their torpedo role, being quite outdated, however, they did perform other sterling work, including night bombing and maritime reconnaissance in that period.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Man, that was a beast of an aircraft. I had no idea it was that large. Great info guys.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just a wee addition to this, the RNZAF operated both types (and by consequence is the only place in the world where examples of either type can be seen, albeit in a semi-complete state only), although the Vildebeests were never used as torpedo bombers owing to the fact that during the 1930s early 40s the RNZAF had no torpedoes. Both types were used for maritime patrol and their low speed and great endurance actually served them well once the war got a little closer to home. The RNZAF operated a total of 62 Vincents and 39 Vildebeests, the latter being significant as being the first RNZAF aircraft locally fitted with ASV radar. Both types operated from my local airfield and were stored in the hangar that I work in!

Airframe wise, they were both the same - based on the Vildebeest maintenance manual, the internal fuel tankage was two 761/2 gal fuel tanks in the upper wings gravity feeding the engine. The Vincent could carry a drop tank where the torpedo went on the Vildebeest. Quoting from the manual, "the bomb loads are carried on the bottom mainplanes, installation being the same for port and starboard. A group of Universal Carriers is shown as being arranged as in fig.65, the inboard carrier being a No.2 type for 50 - 550lb bombs and three outboard carriers being No.1 type for 50 - 250lb bombs. A light series Mk.1 carrier is arranged outboard of the group. Alternative loadings for the four universal carriers are - four bombs, 100lb, 112lb, 120lb, two bombs, 230lb or 250lb, one bomb 500lb, 520lb or 550lb. The light series carrier can be arranged to carry four 20lb Mk.I bombs or 8lb practice bombs alternatively... No bombs are carried when the aeroplane is used as a torpedo carrier."

No performance figures are supplied in the manual. The bomb aimer's position had the standard British course setting bomb sight in it.

This pic give an idea of the size of the type, the Vincent undergoing restoration here - mind the poor quality images, I only had a wee hand held camera at the dawn of the digital camera age.

View attachment 597149Vincent and speakers

View attachment 597150Vincent front

There's quite a bit of room in the fuselage looking forward, with the rear cockpit directly above and bomb aimer's position at the front.

View attachment 597151Fuselage

The bomb aimer's position was a little more substantial than a hole in the fabric. The course setting bomb sight can be seen.

View attachment 597152Bomb aimer's position

The bomb aimer's position from the outside, with weapon selection panel at centre and air data information on the forward panel.

View attachment 597153Bomb aimer's station

Jeez, mankind kept an example of the Vilderbeest but scrapped all the Westland Whirlwinds?

 

[tomo pauk]

Jeez, mankind kept and example of the Vilderbeest but scrapped all the Westland Whirlwinds?

And Hornet and Welkin.

 

[buffnut453]

Jeez, mankind kept and example of the Vilderbeest but scrapped all the Westland Whirlwinds?

"Kept" is something of an overstatement. "Resurrected" is more accurate.

There are 2 surviving Vincents in NZ. One is a composite of at least 3 airframes while a fair proportion of NZ311 was dug out of the ground and restored.

 

[nuuumannn]

Jeez, mankind kept an example of the Vilderbeest but scrapped all the Westland Whirlwinds?

Should'a sent them to New Zealand!

And Hornet and Welkin.

And a Hornet is going to be rebuilt in New Zealand! - Not a Welkin, a bit too esoteric...

There are 2 surviving Vincents in NZ. One is a composite of at least 3 airframes while a fair proportion of NZ311 was dug out of the ground and restored.

The Air Force Museum has Vildebeest Mk.III fuselage and it is nowhere near as substantial as the one I photographed, but the museum has quite a few bits and pieces and loaned the guy bits for his Vincent. The same guy also has three substantially complete Hawker Hinds and sections of Fairey Gordon, again, just bits and pieces, but allegedly a resto is going to be attempted, so I believe. A more recent find, literally in a barn was remains of a Blackburn Baffin, again bits and pieces. Not sure what's going to become of those. There is only one Blackburn carrier based aircraft from that era surviving - that is aside from Blackburn built Swordfish, that's a Ripon in Finland.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Should'a sent them to New Zealand!

You jest, but can you imagine trying to repeat the escape of the Vilderbeests and fly Whirlwinds from Singapore to NZ?Perhaps with auxillary tanks on the bomb racks the usual range of 800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) could be extended.

 

[buffnut453]

You jest, but can you imagine trying to repeat the escape of the Vilderbeests and fly Whirlwinds from Singapore to NZ?Perhaps with auxillary tanks on the bomb racks the usual range of 800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) could be extended.

The Vildebeest/Vincents in NZ didn't escape from Singapore. They were part of the RNZAF order of battle pre-war. The only Vildebeests to escape Singapore were flown to the Dutch East Indies where they were either destroyed or captured by the Japanese.