Wellington and Warwick

[Rickshaw]

Someone, somewhere has some very badly calibrated rulers! 

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?

[kitnut617]

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.

[PR19_Kit]

Someone, somewhere has some very badly calibrated rulers! 

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.

[kitnut617]

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)

[Rickshaw]

Someone, somewhere has some very badly calibrated rulers! 

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!

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.

[kitnut617]

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 ---

[PR19_Kit]

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....

[kitnut617]

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)

[GTX_Admin]

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.

[kitnut617]

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

[elmayerle]

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.

[kitnut617]

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.

    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 ---- 

[raafif]

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".

[Volkodav]

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.

[PR19_Kit]

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.  :)

[elmayerle]

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.

    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 ---- 

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).

[kitnut617]

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

[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 --

[jcf]

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

[GTX_Admin]

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?

[PR19_Kit]

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.

[kitnut617]

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

[GTX_Admin]

Hmmm...plan hatching...

[raafif]

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 ..... 

[PR19_Kit]

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 ..... 

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.