How about all the Manchesters get re-engined with better engines? Maybe RR Rriffon or Bristol Centaurus or PW R2800...
How about all the Manchesters get re-engined with better engines? Maybe RR Rriffon or Bristol Centaurus or PW R2800...
Great stuff Jon, thanks! I had no ideal that the Manchester II had actually been built.
kit': Love the Nottingham :)
Just for argument's sake, how would the Manchester have looked and faired with two W3420's installed? I'm thinking that they would've made a distinct difference (I can also see RR doing everything they could to prevent such).
On my Twin-Manchester I'm thinking three of these with 16 foot contra-props and the Nottingham is powered by four of them with Wyvern contra-props.
Just for argument's sake, how would the Manchester have looked and faired with two W3420's installed? I'm thinking that they would've made a distinct difference (I can also see RR doing everything they could to prevent such).
Vietnam?
To fight the last war more effectively, and to control the airspace over the trenches, the Avro Avatar was developed. The four-gun turret below would be able to shoot down into the trenches as the four-gun turret above defended against enemy aircraft. The "Defiant" idea was also envisioned, whereas the Avatar would fly between enemy two bombers, raking them both broadside. Someone got the idea that such an Avatar, or especially a trio of them, could bank in a circle and spray bullets inward and downward---the first "gunship" was invented! When Britain was threatened by Sealion Invasion, the Invasion Defence Command (you can only see the "ID_", not the "C" of the special markings) commandeered every Avatar for strafing the beaches, including a New Zealander squadron (subject of the model).
For this ostensibly 1/72 aircraft, FROG's 1/96 Lancaster (actually two of them) formed the basis . Wellesley engine, B-24 ball turret, Halifax top turret, and other "subtle" modifications.
([url]http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv173/sequoiaranger/Avro-Avatar004-m.jpg[/url])
Speaking about FROG's 1/96 Lancaster, can any of you suggest me which engine can be/look if I scalorame one of those 1/96 nacelles to 1/72?
This is to say a 75% of a RR Merlin in each dimension.
BTW, ysi_maniac....I *THINK* I have the spare 1/96 "Merlins" from the Avatar build---are you interested?Thanks a lot for your offer. But I already have that 1/96 Lancaster.
The build so far is divided into part one ([url]http://tedtaylor.hobbyvista.com/157-big-lancaster/page-157-lancaster.html[/url]) and part two ([url]http://tedtaylor.hobbyvista.com/158-big-lancaster-2/page-158-lancaster-part-2.html[/url]) and I am impressed with the amount of detail crammed into this model that for all intents and purposes is built like the real aircraft.
Were there any airliner derivative of Shackleton?
My proposal is more based in Mk 4 than in Avro Tudor
Proposed Mk 4 [url]http://avroshackleton.com/mark4.html[/url] ([url]http://avroshackleton.com/mark4.html[/url])
My proposal is more based in Mk 4 than in Avro Tudor
.....I've been trying to find pictures of the Nomad installation as I wouldn't ming doing it that way.
No, I was wrong, according to this (see Nomad II), the cowlings were fitted very tightly around the engine and had blisters over the cylinder heads ---
[url]http://avroshackleton.com/nomad.html[/url] ([url]http://avroshackleton.com/nomad.html[/url])
It looks to me like a simple circular cowl with cutouts for the exhausts, with an annular intake behind the spinner would work quite well as a representative Nomad installation.
More re the Nomad fit for the Shackleton:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/V-22/shacknomad.jpg[/url])
It looks to me like a simple circular cowl with cutouts for the exhausts, with an annular intake behind the spinner would work quite well as a representative Nomad installation.
The exhaust manifolds were plumbed straight into the exhaust turbine situated under the engine which was actually part of the engine Brian, they wouldn't have to have any cutouts -- see my post in Reply #56. In my Nottingham, the engines are RR H24 cylinder Eagles, the Nomad is similar in layout.
It looks to me like a simple circular cowl with cutouts for the exhausts, with an annular intake behind the spinner would work quite well as a representative Nomad installation.
The exhaust manifolds were plumbed straight into the exhaust turbine situated under the engine which was actually part of the engine Brian, they wouldn't have to have any cutouts -- see my post in Reply #56. In my Nottingham, the engines are RR H24 cylinder Eagles, the Nomad is similar in layout.
So, just a simple circular cowl with an annular intake...
The cowling on the Lincoln would hardly be typical of the Shackleton MR4 installation though,
BTW, if you look closely you will see two intakes (one on either side) of the Lincoln nose.
How about adding 4 x Griffons, just to ensure it stays airborne?
Take the same fuselage but lose the guns and turrets and H2S radar but add in refuelling hose...result: AAR Lanc!
Take the same fuselage but lose the guns and turrets and H2S radar but add in refuelling hose...result: AAR Lanc!
Yeah, that'd be interesting! Maybe some Spits or Mossies with some sort of fueling probe ...... wonder how that would look/work.
It'd also look good in a Maritime scheme ....... or maybe it could carry a Tallboy internally? Modified airlaunched Bloodhound even ....
Take the same fuselage but lose the guns and turrets and H2S radar but add in refuelling hose...result: AAR Lanc!
The Lanc' did carry the Tallboy internally ---
I think if I was going to do something like your profile, I would go half above the wing (level with the top of the original canopy) and half below it (smooth out the bottom of a bulged bomb bay) then maybe you could carry a Grand Slam internally
I might try a mid or high wing to see what it looks like. The low wing looks racy imo, about as racy as a thing this size can be, sort of Orion precursor but without the sleek looks. I thought tricycle undercarriage too .......
What about an AVRO Lancastrian or York with the wings and engines of an AVRO Lincoln or Shackleton ...possibly even going to the tricycle undercarriage of later Shack's?
I wonder how well a Shackleton wing would go on a Sunderland-esque flying boat hull?
1. Replace Griffons with R-3350s. Flown by the USN as the PA-1S
I'll start with:
1. Replace Griffons with R-3350s. Flown by the USN as the PA-1S
2. Replace twin tails with a large single fin
3. Tanker version with drogues
swept wing turboprop?
I remember the talk of a search for a suitable aircraft while I was at school, before I joined the BES in '64, there was talk of trying to find a flying boat as well as the C-130, I think even the Shackelton was mentioned. A maritime Herc today would be a different bird than 50 years ago.
There's a lot of chatter among Kiwi enthusiasts about the Hercules and Orion possibly being replaced (moreso the Orion). Relevant to this thread is this post by one of the Wings Over New Zealand forum members:QuoteI remember the talk of a search for a suitable aircraft while I was at school, before I joined the BES in '64, there was talk of trying to find a flying boat as well as the C-130, I think even the Shackelton was mentioned. A maritime Herc today would be a different bird than 50 years ago.
An RNZAF Shackleton, replacing the Sunderland instead of the Orion. I really, really like this idea, even though the type would be considered obsolete by 1966 (real-world Orion acquisition). Maybe we buy them ten years earlier, and they end up in Orion-style white-over-grey later on...
I was already going to buy at least one Airfix Shack. Make that two.
Anyone have any thoughts on this idea?
YOU'RE a retrograde step! *runs to bedroom and slams door*;D
Or zero lifed, re-engined turbo Sunderlands...
Or zero lifed, re-engined turbo Sunderlands...
Does anyone know if any squadron's Lancasters besides those of 617 Squadron were fitted out to carry Tallboy bombs? Gregory Benford's The Berlin Project has an RAF Lancaster so fitted out, and with a mixed RAF - USAAF crew, dropping a "Little Boy" on Berlin early on the morning of June 6, 1944. They miss the "amateur painter" but severe enough other connections that the landings and initial moves inland go quite successfully; then things get nasty.
I ask because the US bomb was designed for the same shackles and spacing (found that out at Silver Hill when we visited the Enola gay restoration) as Tallboy.
Does anyone know if any squadron's Lancasters besides those of 617 Squadron were fitted out to carry Tallboy bombs? Gregory Benford's The Berlin Project has an RAF Lancaster so fitted out, and with a mixed RAF - USAAF crew, dropping a "Little Boy" on Berlin early on the morning of June 6, 1944. They miss the "amateur painter" but severe enough other connections that the landings and initial moves inland go quite successfully; then things get nasty.
I ask because the US bomb was designed for the same shackles and spacing (found that out at Silver Hill when we visited the Enola gay restoration) as Tallboy.
9 Squadron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._9_Squadron_RAF#Second_World_War) was also equipped to carry Tallboys. An aircraft from 9 Squadron is attributed with the sinking of the Tirpitz in Norway.
Kitnut, are you re-inventing the AVRO Tudor?
So, on tri-gear but still un pressurized?Kitnut, are you re-inventing the AVRO Tudor?
Nothing of the sort, it will look like a stretched York on tri-gear
So, on tri-gear but still un pressurized?Kitnut, are you re-inventing the AVRO Tudor?
Nothing of the sort, it will look like a stretched York on tri-gear
So, on tri-gear but still un pressurized?Kitnut, are you re-inventing the AVRO Tudor?
Nothing of the sort, it will look like a stretched York on tri-gear
Yup!, basically the idea is if the York was on tri-gear, the underside of the rear fuselage could then be made to have a loading ramp. The profile of it just begs for something like this. The fuselage being stretched would then allow for more freight. I'm thinking of Shackleton style main gear, but then maybe they used a B-24 nose gear or something similar (plenty of those around at the time). What I'd do is have a new fuselage section right where the wing is that was straight, then where the curving up underside of the fuselage starts going forward and backward would then be added to the front and back of the new straight section.
Spats like the Miles M.40/41. ;D
(https://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-LB46m2v/0/b0b6d5e4/O/MILES_M40_M41_01.png)
Interesting idea, however it's way too small. Take a look at what was done to convert the B-24/PB4Y-1 to the PB4Y-2,
the Lancaster would require a similar approach.
I assume the PAT-1 is fictional? BTW, it should probably be Air-to-Surface...
What about a bigger brother to the Avro Lancaster B Mark II - namely a later model Lancaster or even Lincoln but with more powerful Bristol Centaurus engines?
Blackbird models has in 1/72 a conversion kit for the MK.VI. It has chin radiator so you could make a Griffon.
Some interesting info on the rarely seen lower turret:Cool images that I certainly hadn't seen before, Thanks.
Some interesting info on the rarely seen lower turret:Cool images that I certainly hadn't seen before, Thanks.
All that trouble to design such a system and than to stick it with two pissant .303 Brownings.
I to have never comprehend the RAF's unwillingness to adopt a heavier and more effective 12.7mm over that of .303.
M.A.D
The Sperry belly turret on early model B-17Es had the same limitations, that's whyAll very true, but the B-29 and A-26 managed to make their systems work, I thought? And several late-war new designs also fitted remote ventral turrets. Wonder what changed or if it did at all.
the US went to the ball turret. A Bendix retractable remote control turret was used
on the B-25B through G, but it was most often removed in the field because it was
next to useless.
All very true, but the B-29 and A-26 managed to make their systems work, I thought? And several late-war new designs also fitted remote ventral turrets. Wonder what changed or if it did at all.
They were true remote systems, the gunner(s) sat upright with proper sighting and control systems,I was thinking more specifically about the ventral turrets.The gunners sat upright but were looking below them. Granting that it wasn't through a periscope, which might have made the difference. Computing gunsights would make a big difference in performance, but wouldn't necessarily change the potential for operator disorientation and nausea.
they also used an early form of computerized gun laying.
What company built the lifeboat that was carried by the SAR Lancaster?
I am awfully tempted to do a Manchester with Napier Sabres
Has anyone ever seen a photo of the built (but unflown) Manchester IC with Centaurus?
I assume the Centaurus-powered project drawing above depicts the long-span Manchester IIC. Has anyone ever seen a photo of the built (but unflown) Manchester IC with Centaurus?
One I don't recall seeing before - Avro 694 Lincoln Freighter:Are there Lincoln conversions to go along with a Lancastrian conversion to produce this one?
(https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/abpic-media-eu-production/pictures/full_size_0118/1178731-large.jpg)
Hercules VI Power: 1,650 hp (1,230 kW) Length: 53.15 in (1,350 mm) Diameter: 55 in (1,397 mm) Dry weight: 1890lb. (857.3kg) | P&W R2800 Power: 2000+ Length: 81.4 in (2,068 mm) Diameter: 52.8 in (1,342 mm) Dry weight: 2,360 lb (1,073 kg) |
Supposedly the AVRO Manchester was designed to be able to carry two 18 in (457 mm) torpedoes internally. Has anyone seen a photo with this fit?
More importantly, how about an AVRO Manchester or better yet a Lancaster in Coastal Command garb in a low level torpedo run...
Supposedly the AVRO Manchester was designed to be able to carry two 18 in (457 mm) torpedoes internally. Has anyone seen a photo with this fit?
More importantly, how about an AVRO Manchester or better yet a Lancaster in Coastal Command garb in a low level torpedo run...
Not a photo but a drawing at least:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/27F5FA17_3CD7_4B79_AB65_2F6FD205AD72_4_5005_c.jpeg)
Hmmm, never knew about these ones: Coastal Command Lancasters with 2 - 4 fixed 20mm cannon in the nose:
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/lancasterjpg.jpg)
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/lancaster2jpg.jpg)
See here (https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/04/19/avro-lancaster-coastal-command/)
Hmmm, never knew about these ones: Coastal Command Lancasters with 2 - 4 fixed 20mm cannon in the nose:
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/lancasterjpg.jpg)
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/lancaster2jpg.jpg)
See here (https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/04/19/avro-lancaster-coastal-command/)
Bulged bombay Lancs with six 20mm or 3 40mm mounted in the fwd section.
Fellow photo reconnaissance experts!
I am looking any photos of the F49 Camera installation in the Avro Lancaster PR1. I suspect it was installed aft of the bomb bay as photos show the bomb bay doors open on the ground.
Even before the war ended some of the RAF’s strategic photo-reconnaissance aircraft began survey operations on behalf of the Colonial Office. Six Lancaster bombers were converted into Lancaster PR1 photo-reconnaissance aircraft by having their gun turrets removed and fared over. The converted aircraft were fitted with the F49 camera, designed for air survey work of fine definition. The large F49 camera had a 20-inch lens and when loaded with film weighed almost 87 pounds. The camera could be operated electrically or manually and the magazine held 200 exposures of 9 inch by 9 inch film.
Source: https://spyflight.co.uk/aircraft/#Avro
I also saw references to F17 and F24 cameras being carried.
Note the BBMF Lancaster PA474 was at one time a PR1.
I presume it would have been similar to that used here: [url]http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc_equipment_details_other_variants.html[/url] ([url]http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc_equipment_details_other_variants.html[/url])
What was really interesting was his follow up suggestion, that after 100 two stage Merlin Lancasters were built, production should switch to a higher powered version using a license manufactured version of the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp. Now just imagine that a late war RAAF Lancaster III with three or four twin .50" cal turrets and four massive Double Wasp radials, that would be an interesting wiff build.
What was really interesting was his follow up suggestion, that after 100 two stage Merlin Lancasters were built, production should switch to a higher powered version using a license manufactured version of the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp. Now just imagine that a late war RAAF Lancaster III with three or four twin .50" cal turrets and four massive Double Wasp radials, that would be an interesting wiff build.
I have read a bit on this as well. The plan was definitely for the DAP Lancasters/Lincolns to be R-2800 powered. It is very tempting to model one.
Interestingly, there were also pushes from the USAAF for Australia to produce the P-47 using the same engine. A RAAF P-47 in P-51 scheme would also be interesting.
Looking at the specs on wiki, a R-2800 is 700lb heavier than a Merlin (dry weight). I'm thinking you'd have to make it like a Lincoln with the extended rear fuselage just to counter the weight difference. So if I was to build a Lanc with R-2800's, I might as well build it as a Lincoln. That way I can use the increased AUW for a decent bomb load. A Lancaster could carry fifteen 1000lbers, I've been thinking what if the 5-bomb clips (found in the Vickers Valiant) were developed earlier then the bomb load could be twenty-five 1000lbers, well within the Lincoln's AUW limit.
I don't believe they were talking about turbocharged R-2800s in this proposal....
...mind you, in the whiff verse, such could be an interesting development...
... I remember someone posting a link for a 1/32 Spitfire float plane conversion, which I think would be better to use than the 1/24 ones I used on the Nottingham. I can't remember the outfit that made it though.
... I remember someone posting a link for a 1/32 Spitfire float plane conversion, which I think would be better to use than the 1/24 ones I used on the Nottingham. I can't remember the outfit that made it though.
Was it Grey Matter Figures aka Grey Matter Aviation? If so, the resin conversion set is £55!
-- https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224105431138?epid=1312933571&hash=item342db98062:g:bYMAAMXQd2hRY6lK (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224105431138?epid=1312933571&hash=item342db98062:g:bYMAAMXQd2hRY6lK)
... But, RW got in the way ----
What was really interesting was his follow up suggestion, that after 100 two stage Merlin Lancasters were built, production should switch to a higher powered version using a license manufactured version of the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp. Now just imagine that a late war RAAF Lancaster III with three or four twin .50" cal turrets and four massive Double Wasp radials, that would be an interesting wiff build.
I have read a bit on this as well. The plan was definitely for the DAP Lancasters/Lincolns to be R-2800 powered. It is very tempting to model one.
Interestingly, there were also pushes from the USAAF for Australia to produce the P-47 using the same engine. A RAAF P-47 in P-51 scheme would also be interesting.
And right now I have four R-2800 resin nacelles/engines winging it's way over to here to do just that. I've been contemplating what the nacelles would have looked like, I'm leaning towards nacelles like what Tudors had ----
model built by tc2324 on Fighter Control .co.uk - (pics no longer there).
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lancaster-high-performance-derivatives.642/ (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lancaster-high-performance-derivatives.642/)