Author Topic: Wellington and Warwick  (Read 24028 times)

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Wellington and Warwick
« on: March 05, 2012, 06:27:23 AM »
Wellington GR Mk.XIV sporting Griffons.  Twin vertical tails with the classic criss-cross-applesauce pattern.    Armaments to vary.       
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 06:41:35 AM by jcf »
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2012, 04:01:57 PM »
Or maybe just replace that nose turret:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Maverick

  • Suffers from 'Fat Fingers' and accidentally locks his own thread...
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • The profile machine!
    • My Photobucket Thread
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2012, 08:33:01 PM »
Got a very Italian feel to it Greg.

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2012, 02:13:39 AM »
Got a very Italian feel to it Greg.

Regards,

John


It does doesn't it - the long lost cousin of the Savoia-Marchetti SM.82?



Regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2012, 03:42:10 AM »
The Mk. II prototype L4250 was fitted with a twin-tail during the tests of the 40mm turret system:


According to exchanges reproduced in 21st Profile Vol. 1, no. 5, Rolls-Royce suggested fitting the Griffon in place of the Bristol Hercules 7.S.M., the Ministry disagreed and Vickers sided with them. The max. speed increase would only have been 12 mph, from 248 to 260 mph, at the expense of 790 lbs increase in weight and a 110 gallon decrease in available fuel.
Range at max speed would drop from 1630 miles to 1150, and at a cruise speed of 180 mph (same for both engine types), from 1970 to 1620 miles.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2012, 11:15:27 AM »
My take on the unbuilt Vickers 'commercial monoplane' transport. Not really a Wellington (this design evolved alongside the  rather than being a direct derivative) but still 'model-able', I think.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2012, 02:18:30 AM »
Knowing virtually nothing about the Wellington, how did it compare to the Mitchell or Douglas Invader?    Reason being, could it be converted from a bomber into a gun nosed strafer like the B-25 and A-26? 
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2012, 02:50:57 AM »
The Wellington is dimensionally quite a bit larger than either the B-25 or A-26, 86' span versus @ 67 and 70 feet, respectively. Kinda big for the strafer role.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2012, 03:36:28 AM »
Though of course you could always do it as an anti-shipping Coastal Command version with a large cannon in the same vein as the B-25G or H:



All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Maverick

  • Suffers from 'Fat Fingers' and accidentally locks his own thread...
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • The profile machine!
    • My Photobucket Thread
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2012, 07:40:20 AM »
There was a Wellington proposed with two Vickers S guns in the nose as a Coastal Command aircraft.

Regards.

John
Regards,

John

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2012, 07:43:02 AM »
What I had in mind was anti shipping with more forward firepower than a Beaufighter.     
Clipping the wings of a Wellington would be detrimental presumably yes?   

Thanks for the info.
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2012, 02:52:37 PM »




“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2012, 09:39:47 PM »
What I had in mind was anti shipping with more forward firepower than a Beaufighter.     
Clipping the wings of a Wellington would be detrimental presumably yes?   

Thanks for the info.

Clipping might be a bit difficult with the Geodetic structure.  I think with the Wellington you could more than likely fit twin cannon of greater calibre than a 20mm and still have room over for a fairly large radar scanner.  Perhaps the 40mm Vickers of Rolls Royce cannon?  Even perhaps as big as 75mm.  It would have made it quite deadly for radar-guided attacks on U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay at night.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2012, 01:29:23 AM »
Shortening the wings on a Wellington would be relatively easy from a structural standpoint as the geodetic
structure is made up of standardized repeated small units.

Indeed, unlike the B.9/32 prototype, the production Wellington had large parts of its structure in common with
the Warwick, the Wellington Mk. 1 being basically a cut-down Warwick with seven fewer stations in each inner
wing and 12 fewer fuselage stations. The Warwick also had an additional five stations in the nose. Most of the
geodetic components were common to both airframes. Also the four-engine Windsor started as a Merlin-engined
stretch of the basic Warwick design.

So with the understanding that these were all built using the same basic small pieces ... what could one add
to the family?

BTW the post-war Viking, Valetta and Varsity monocoque fuselage family originated from the Wellington, the
first production Vikings having fabric-covered Wellington wings.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2012, 02:21:21 AM »
Maybe a 4 engined stretched version of the Warwick?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2012, 03:40:30 AM »
Quote
It would have made it quite deadly for radar-guided attacks on U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay at night.
Save for the geography, this is precisely what I had in mind with the aircraft flying an attack pattern similar to the Black Cats in the Pacific.   


Quote
Shortening the wings on a Wellington would be relatively easy from a structural standpoint as the geodetic
structure is made up of standardized repeated small units.
Conversely, this suggests lengthening the wings would also be possible to create a PR variant yes?


Quote
Indeed, unlike the B.9/32 prototype, the production Wellington had large parts of its structure in common with
the Warwick, the Wellington Mk. 1 being basically a cut-down Warwick with seven fewer stations in each inner
wing and 12 fewer fuselage stations. The Warwick also had an additional five stations in the nose. Most of the
geodetic components were common to both airframes.
There goes my idea of a Stretched Wellington.    Had hoped to do the same to the C-47 only to discover the Super DC-3.   ;D


Quote
So with the understanding that these were all built using the same basic small pieces ... what could one add
to the family?

But of course.   ;D



« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 03:53:04 AM by Daryl J. »
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline Maverick

  • Suffers from 'Fat Fingers' and accidentally locks his own thread...
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • The profile machine!
    • My Photobucket Thread
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2012, 06:45:02 AM »
Maybe a 4 engined stretched version of the Warwick?

That would be similar to the Windsor heavy bomber.  Four engines & geodetic airframe.

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2012, 10:57:21 AM »
Though of course you could always do it as an anti-shipping Coastal Command version with a large cannon in the same vein as the B-25G or H...


My take on that (in a slightly reduced-size airframe  ;)  )

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg12681#msg12681
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2012, 01:09:42 AM »
Wellington fire bomber for fighting forest fires and prairie fires.  Plenty of possible [plausible] schemes. 
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2012, 04:22:33 PM »
Floatplane version ala Can't Z.506

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2013, 04:49:57 PM »
What about the Wellington's big brother; the Warwick?



Speaking of which, does anyone know of a 1/48 kit thereof?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2013, 04:53:17 PM »
Nope.  1/72 are as rare as hen's teeth as well.   >:D

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2013, 12:05:27 AM »
And only in vacuform -- Contrail

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2013, 11:25:44 PM »
While Boeing knew they all had similar fuselage sections the model manufacturers never seemed to grasp that fact. You'd be amazed at the number of different sections they've managed to produce. I tried to do something like that years ago using a couple of Frog 707s and an Airfix 727-100 but would they fit? NO way! I still have the wreckage somewhere, maybe I should dig it out and try again.

Actually now I think about it, they may have been two Airfix 727s and a singular Frog 707 but you get the idea.

A while ago I had a similar experience, I had bought one of Unicraft's Wellington Mk.V/VI conversions and the plan was to use an old Airfix kit.  But the conversion just didn't fit it, it was way oversized.  I found out later Igor had based his conversion on a 'Not Released' Frog Wellington that the Frog Spawn crowd had got hold of.  As there was only one outfit (Maquette) that was producing a kit from these moulds I bought one, the conversion fits perfectly.

Here's a pic of just how out of whack the Frog kit was --- top pic is the conversion with the Airfix kit, middle pic is with the Matchbox kit and the last one with the Maquette kit

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2013, 11:28:50 PM »
Someone, somewhere has some very badly calibrated rulers!  :o
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2013, 10:42:28 AM »
Someone, somewhere has some very badly calibrated rulers!  :o

I wonder why we assume that the odd kit manufacturer is the one that is out?  In the example of Kitnut's Wimpey it may be the Airfix and Matchbox ones which are wrong and the Marquette one which is correct?  I wonder how the Italerie and Trumpeter ones compare to the Airfix and Matchbox and finally the Marquette one?

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2013, 11:54:34 PM »
The Trumperter one matches the Airfix and Matchbox kits Brian, got one in the stash which I bought to see if it could be used with the Unicraft conversion as I have a number of projects in the works which require the conversion.  They're all on hold until I can find a steady supply of suitable kits for the conversion.  To make the conversion work with all the other kits will be a lot of work ----    I don't have an Italeri one to check --

Besides, the clue should be that Frog did not release their kit of the Wellington after the moulds were made but then not long after they went out of business, the moulds all ending up in Eastern Europe including the Wellington ones.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 04:06:57 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2013, 03:57:25 AM »
Someone, somewhere has some very badly calibrated rulers!  :o

I wonder why we assume that the odd kit manufacturer is the one that is out?  In the example of Kitnut's Wimpey it may be the Airfix and Matchbox ones which are wrong and the Marquette one which is correct?  I wonder how the Italerie and Trumpeter ones compare to the Airfix and Matchbox and finally the Marquette one?

I'm not sure that we do, they may ALL be wrong and the real dimension is something else entirely.

I'm not too impressed by the knowledge that the Trumpeter Lightning was built without the makers EVER setting eyes on a real one! That's just taking all their customers for an (expensive) ride.
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2013, 04:05:50 AM »
Did some match-ups with 3-View drawings and found the Airfix fuselage shape matches most of them.  Interesting thing was though, the Frog kit could be a good base to start a Warwick as it matched the 3-View of that.  I should say the rear fuselage fits the rear and the front (from just in front of the wing) fits the front because where I've started my Wellington Mk.V conversion I've cut the fuselage in half and laid the parts over the 3-View, all it needs about 2" of extra fuselage in between the two cut parts --- wings though will not work for a Warwick.

I should mention I have an MPM kit too, and that isn't that far off the Airfix/Matchbox kits (somewhere in between the two)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 04:08:21 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2013, 08:21:10 AM »
Someone, somewhere has some very badly calibrated rulers!  :o

I wonder why we assume that the odd kit manufacturer is the one that is out?  In the example of Kitnut's Wimpey it may be the Airfix and Matchbox ones which are wrong and the Marquette one which is correct?  I wonder how the Italerie and Trumpeter ones compare to the Airfix and Matchbox and finally the Marquette one?

I'm not sure that we do, they may ALL be wrong and the real dimension is something else entirely.

Eggzactly!   They could all have copied one another and the oldest - the Airfix one could be drastically out!  Could be that the published dimensions are all wrong too!  The source of errors could be endless!

Quote
I'm not too impressed by the knowledge that the Trumpeter Lightning was built without the makers EVER setting eyes on a real one! That's just taking all their customers for an (expensive) ride.

Which explains why it's arse is so badly shaped.  It was more than likely done from angled photos.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2013, 09:54:13 AM »
Well to resolve this, all you have to do is write to the RAF Museum and ask them for the correct depth of the fuselage ---

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2013, 06:57:31 PM »
The only problem with that is that the original aircraft ITSELF is a rebuild! It was a bomber to start with, then they took the turrets off and made it into a trainer, and then they turned it back into a bomber again.

Having said that, there's a better chance that the RAF Museum rulers are better than anyone elses....
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2013, 09:49:13 PM »
And they're more than likely got the original production drawings, you should have seen the list of dwgs I got for a Spiteful, over a 1000  ---- and that was just for the fuselage ---  (each dwg was available for 2 pound 50)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 09:53:14 PM by kitnut617 »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2013, 02:59:46 AM »
Well to resolve this, all you have to do is write to the RAF Museum and ask them for the correct depth of the fuselage ---

That of course assumes all airframes were identical...something not really achieved in the real world until relatively recently. ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2013, 03:55:39 AM »
Well they were all built in a jig, so they would be built within a 1/4".  Even I could do that when I worked on the shop floor (actually I used to work to a 1/16")

Even though there were variations in turrets and windows etc, the basic shape would have stayed the same.  The difference between the Frog kit fuselage and all the others, would be in the region of 8-10" difference, you'd have to be a right clown to F*&k-*p that badly

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2013, 05:35:43 AM »
Well they were all built in a jig, so they would be built within a 1/4".  Even I could do that when I worked on the shop floor (actually I used to work to a 1/16")

Even though there were variations in turrets and windows etc, the basic shape would have stayed the same.  The difference between the Frog kit fuselage and all the others, would be in the region of 8-10" difference, you'd have to be a right clown to F*&k-*p that badly
Once upon a time, third shift at Cessna-Pawnee had some right clowns who put the filler neck holes and level transmitter holes in the wrong end of some L-shaped long range 172 fuel tanks.  It can happen but hopefully gets caught.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2013, 05:50:51 AM »
Once upon a time, third shift at Cessna-Pawnee had some right clowns who put the filler neck holes and level transmitter holes in the wrong end of some L-shaped long range 172 fuel tanks.  It can happen but hopefully gets caught.

 ;D ;D  I know what you mean Evan, sometime ago a project I had done some drawings for, got built completely in the opposite hand (mirror image) to what it was supposed to be.  It was done quite well to a 1mm tolerance though ----  :-X

Offline raafif

  • Is formally accused of doing nasty things to DC-3s...and officially our first whiffing zombie
  • Whiffing Insane
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2013, 06:47:46 AM »
That of course assumes all airframes were identical...something not really achieved in the real world until relatively recently. ;)

Well they were all built in a jig, so they would be built within a 1/4".

Geeze - within 1/4" tolerance in a jig ??  I can say that Beauforts built in Oz in 1943/44 were jig-built & a very early fuselage joins to a very late cockpit with less than 1/16th" tolerance - very often zero tolerance on rivet holes.

RAFM is helpful - the previous curator climbed inside one exhibit & got section serial numbers for me :) An interesting story emerged that would be decried by most modellers & "historians".

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #38 on: December 31, 2013, 07:43:50 AM »
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.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2013, 07:55:48 AM »
While I was working at Pressed Steel in the early 60s some guys in A Building managed to build a hybrid Austin Cambridge/Morris Oxford bodyshell, with one side as the Austin and the other as a the Morris. The darn thing got all the way across the road on the conveyor to the Morris Motors paintshop before anyone picked it up!

The result was that the supervisors built a REAL hybrid with an MG front and Riley rear with Morris, Austin and Wolseley sides and doors etc, and had all the bits painted different colours. Then they hung it above the assembly line as an example of what NOT to do.  :)
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2013, 08:05:20 AM »
Once upon a time, third shift at Cessna-Pawnee had some right clowns who put the filler neck holes and level transmitter holes in the wrong end of some L-shaped long range 172 fuel tanks.  It can happen but hopefully gets caught.

 ;D ;D  I know what you mean Evan, sometime ago a project I had done some drawings for, got built completely in the opposite hand (mirror image) to what it was supposed to be.  It was done quite well to a 1mm tolerance though ----  :-X
I've seen that, too, on a first article inspection.  The mirror-image parts would almost fit and you had to look carefully to realize what had happened.  Fortunately, I was on very good terms with the shop and with Manufacturing Engineering and we got it straightened out right promptly (it helped that I already had a rep with them as an engineer who'd seek their opinion before finishing the drawing and who'd work with them to get things right).

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2013, 09:42:53 AM »

Well they were all built in a jig, so they would be built within a 1/4".

Geeze - within 1/4" tolerance in a jig ??  I can say that Beauforts built in Oz in 1943/44 were jig-built & a very early fuselage joins to a very late cockpit with less than 1/16th" tolerance - very often zero tolerance on rivet holes.

I was just being generous raafif, I'd expect nothing less than 1/16".  To be a 1/4" out in a jig is definitely excessive

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2013, 10:53:25 PM »
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 --

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #43 on: January 01, 2014, 04:13:29 AM »
FWIW on the 1/96th Alf Granger Wellington I drawing the deepest cross-section measures out at 28 mm,
so 2688 mm/105.82677 inches full size.

The Warwick and Wellington are directly related, the production Wellington being for all intents and purposes
a reduced size Warwick. Many of the same geodetic components were used on both. The Wellington had seven
fewer inner wing stations and twelve fewer fuselage stations in comparison to the Warwick, which also had five
more forward fuselage stations giving a longer nose. This shows up as station numbering gaps on the Wellington
production drawings. - Vickers Aircraft since 1908, Anderson & Morgan, Putnam 1988
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #44 on: January 01, 2014, 04:21:20 AM »
Has anyone compared a Wellington drawing to that of a Warwick?  I wonder if it would be possible to scratch build (kind of) a Warwick from a Wellington kit?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #45 on: January 01, 2014, 05:31:34 AM »
ANYthing is possible with the modelling skills and talents we have here, and it'd be easier to start with a Wellington than with a 747 for instance. At least the cockpit's pretty much the same.  :)

I figure the main difficulty would be extending the geodetic fabric pattern onto the bits you had to add, both for the wings and the fuselage.
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2014, 06:13:22 AM »
Well I did overlay the Airfix wings and the Frog fuselage over the 3-View in Aircraft of the Fighting Powers.  See my post in reply #48

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #47 on: January 01, 2014, 07:56:38 AM »
Hmmm...plan hatching... :icon_punal:
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline raafif

  • Is formally accused of doing nasty things to DC-3s...and officially our first whiffing zombie
  • Whiffing Insane
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2014, 07:58:38 AM »
easier to start with a Wellington than with a 747 for instance :)

You sure Kit ? ... why don't you give it a try for us .....  ;D

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2014, 11:22:26 PM »
easier to start with a Wellington than with a 747 for instance :)

You sure Kit ? ... why don't you give it a try for us .....  ;D

Yeah, right. You must be mistaking me for some guy who likes longer wings........  :)

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.  :(
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #50 on: January 02, 2014, 12:44:40 AM »
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 ---

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #51 on: January 02, 2014, 06:45:17 AM »
The thread has been renamed to Wellington and Warwick due to the intimate relationship
between the Vickers siblings.
 :icon_fsm:

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.

“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #52 on: January 02, 2014, 10:20:56 AM »
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.


Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #53 on: January 02, 2014, 12:10:40 PM »
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).

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #54 on: January 02, 2014, 01:04:59 PM »
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.


“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #55 on: January 03, 2014, 08:22:30 AM »
Wallis 'windscreens' as promised.



“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #56 on: January 03, 2014, 09:09:02 AM »
Let's not forget the rarely seen ventral dustbin type turret:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #57 on: January 03, 2014, 09:10:12 AM »
The vickers type turrets are seen in this photo too:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2014, 03:46:24 AM »
Some of the odder looking Wellingtons for you:




All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2014, 03:47:54 AM »
Is it just me or does the Wellington prototypes have a vaguely Japanese look to them?


All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2014, 04:47:12 AM »
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.

“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #61 on: January 04, 2014, 06:53:29 AM »
To me it looks more like a bulked-up twin-engined Wellesley.

Which is probably how Barnes Wallis designed it.  :)
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #62 on: January 04, 2014, 08:16:16 AM »
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.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2014, 09:19:58 AM »
Fun to know!   Thanks.  :)
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Wellingtons
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2014, 11:18:13 PM »
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  --------
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 12:14:07 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2020, 02:47:53 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2020, 01:40:09 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2020, 05:21:18 AM »
The top one makes me wonder about a Rolls-Royce Vulture engined Wellington as well.


Oooh, that's a cool idea  :smiley:

Update: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg178811#msg178811
« Last Edit: November 10, 2020, 11:51:00 AM by apophenia »
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Geoff

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #67 on: November 11, 2020, 08:56:30 PM »
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 )

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Wellington and Warwick
« Reply #68 on: April 05, 2021, 02:44:03 AM »
Just a cool photo:



Click for bigger version.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.