Wellington and Warwick

[kitnut617]

The only problem with using AFP as a reference is that their plans are notoriously unreliable Robert. I'd put more strength on the appropriate Aviation News plans, which I must have somewhere but goodness knows where. 

Yes, I realise that Kit, but the Vol VI & VII plans are actually quite good.  However out of the four 3-Views of Wellingtons in the set, the plans in Vol II of the Wellington Mk.II & III are really weird --- the fuselage is about 1/2" longer than all the others. But the depth in all the drawings are the same ---

[jcf]

The thread has been renamed to Wellington and Warwick due to the intimate relationship
between the Vickers siblings.
 

I have scanned the 1/96 Alf Granger Welllington I drawings as a 600dpi PDF if anyone wants
a copy. It is a fairly large file so drop me a PM if you want a copy.

[kitnut617]

Jon has very kindly sent me a copy of the pdf file, I've printed it off as accurately to 1/72 as possible.

I've found that the Airfix kit matches it almost exactly, I say almost because the dwg is of a Mk.I with hand-operated MG's back & front whereas the MK.III had power operated turrets so the front and rear have slightly different profiles to accommodate the turrets.  However the Airfix fuselage top-line from the rear aerial mast to the front of the rear turret has an odd tapering down where it should really be straight horizontal.  That's the only differences I could find.

Jon has told me that these Granger dwgs are about as accurate as you can get so there's your answer.  The Airfix, Matchbox, MPM kits are a very good representation of a Wellington.  Out of interest, three of the four 3-Views in the A of the FP books are almost exactly the same as the Granger dwg.

[Rickshaw]

Part of that would come down to the Australian inferiority complex.

We are so sure that we are no good at doing technical stuff that we over do it on the quality and workmanship side (often on poorly engineering foreign designs) and end up with the best finished highest quality piece of new built obsolescent gear you could imagine.  It also usually ends up being late and costing a mint.

Going back to this, as an aside I've often wondered how well the Pakistani Air Force did with the Mirage IIIOs they purchased from us.  I have heard rumours that they couldn't use French built Mirage III body panels on ours because the French ones were less accurate to the plan than ours were (which were converted from Metric to Imperial measurements).

[jcf]

The Wellington I had power-operated guns, the turret was a Barnes-Wallis design, he referred to
his designs for the B.9/32 and Wellington I turrets as 'windscreens'. The power control-unit was
supplied by Fraser-Nash, but everything else was Vickers.

I'll post some drawings later.

[jcf]

Wallis 'windscreens' as promised.

[GTX_Admin]

Let's not forget the rarely seen ventral dustbin type turret:

[GTX_Admin]

The vickers type turrets are seen in this photo too:

[GTX_Admin]

Some of the odder looking Wellingtons for you:

[GTX_Admin]

Is it just me or does the Wellington prototypes have a vaguely Japanese look to them?

[jcf]

It rather than them. 
K4049 was the singular B.9/32 prototype and was referred to as the 'Crecy',
crashed and totally destroyed in April, 1937.
Not much of it remained after the redesign that produced the Wellington.

As to it looking Japanese, well from the front angles it is sort of reminiscent
of the Mitsubishi G3M, but I'd say that's down to the nose shape more than
anything else. To me it looks more like a bulked-up twin-engined Wellesley.

[PR19_Kit]

To me it looks more like a bulked-up twin-engined Wellesley.

Which is probably how Barnes Wallis designed it.  :)

[jcf]

Designed by R.K. Pierson and Wallis together, they had teamed on the G.4/31 biplane and
monoplane (the Wellesley) and in Wallis's words "Pierson decides on the design. All I then
have to do is apply the geodetics to it." All he says.

Interestingly, the pair had worked out the engineering of the geodetics for a twin-engined
monoplane before B.9/32 was issued.
Another bit of trivia is that while always associated to B.9/32, K4049 was actually designed
and built to specification B.3/34. The Air Ministry had wanted Goshawks, the Vickers team
preferred the Pegasus. Thankfully, Pierson and Wallis got their way.

The ins and outs are detailed in 21st Profile Vol.1 No.1, "A Beautiful Thing". The Wellington
History, Part One. Vickers Aircraft since 1908 also has an excellent history of the type.

[Daryl J.]

Fun to know!   Thanks.  :)

[kitnut617]

I've made an enquiry at the RAF Museum, the reply I got today was to say my request has been forwarded to the restoration crew and they will respond in the New Year --

I got a reply from the guys at the RAF Museum who are actually working on the one they're restoring.  Fuselage at it's deepest is 9'-0" and it's 5'-6" wide.  The Airfix kit measures 9 feet almost exactly  --------

[GTX_Admin]

A couple of cool Warwick pics (click to see bigger versions):




The top one makes me wonder about a Rolls-Royce Vulture engined Wellington as well.

[apophenia]

The top one makes me wonder about a Rolls-Royce Vulture engined Wellington as well.

Oooh, that's a cool idea 

Update: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg178811#msg178811

[Geoff]

I did think of backdating a Wimpy with open cockpits and gunner positions, fixed under carriage and no nacelles over the engines (sorry complete non sequita )

[GTX_Admin]

Just a cool photo:



Click for bigger version.