Vickers Wellington

[jcf]

A few notes on the Wellington, Warwick and Windsor:

1. The geodetic structure was not developed from the structural design for the R-100, it was based on the
design for the 'netting' that held the gas bags within the airship structure. (Note that rigid airships are not 'filled' with lifting gas, the gas is contained within gas bags or ballonets that are suspended within the outer structure).The fuselage of the Type 253 biplane tendered to Spec. G.4/31 used one of Wallis' earliest concepts, the private venture monoplane design that Vickers also tendered to G.4/31 was completely of a more advanced geodetic design and entered service as the Wellesley. The geodetic design was further refined in the B.9/32 Wellington prototype.

2. The structure was not only easy to repair, it was also engineered to be fast and easy to build. The curved channel geodetic components for the structure were mass produced by powered machinery that quickly produced the necessary components at a rate that easily supported mass production. (More developed versions of the basic machinery were used to produce components for Vickers aircraft up to and including the VC-10.) To answer critics who claimed it was overly complex Vickers announced, and met, a target of one airframe a day, and in 1937, actually performed an exercise whereby an entire Wellington airframe was assembled within 24 hours. This was first time such a feat had been attempted with a metal airframe by a British manufacturer. The Wellington was the most produced British bomber (11,461) and the majority (8,946) were built by Vickers shadow factories at Blackpool and Chester by semi-skilled labour new to aircraft.  With the Wellington III the reserve weight limit of the original structural design was at its maximum, however the substitution of new stronger aluminum alloys enabled development to continue with only minor changes, the new alloy components being produced on the same machinery.

3. The Warwick was not a 'scaled-up follow-on' to the Wellington. They were parallel developments to, respectively, the heavy (B.1/35) and medium bomber (B.9/32) specification requirements. In fact the Wellington I is in its essentials a cut-down Warwick. The production Wellington I was a complete redesign of the B.9/32 prototype and the design work was done at the same time as the work on the twin-engine heavy to Spec. B.1/35 (Warwick). The airframes were basically similar, the Wellington having seven fewer stations in the inner wing sections and twelve fewer fuselage stations. The Warwick nose was longer by five stations.  The majority of the geodetic components were common to both airframes. Being conceived to the same specification that produced the Manchester, the Warwick suffered the same engine problems, and it was the engine problems that kept the Warwick from wider service. The first prototype flew with R-R Vultures, production aircraft used P & W R-2800 Double Wasp and Bristol Centaurus. The Napier Sabre was proposed, however, it was later dropped.

4. The Windsor was the ultimate development of the family and its origins go back to four-engine concepts dating to the mid-30s.
The Type 447 Windsor was developed from early 1941 proposals for the four Merlin powered Type 433 Warwick III high-altitude bomber. At one point a pressure cabin similar to that of the Wellington Mk V and VI was considered for the Windsor.

5. The higher performance of the Warwick and Windsor revealed problems with the fabric covering. Various techniques were tried to find a solution including using glass-fibre backed cloth. Geosteel covering was also proposed for an airliner development of the Windsor, this was a sheet material woven from .001 by 2 in strips of thin steel.

6. Wimpy testbeds were numerous and included a T Mk X converted to test R-R Darts as part of the Viscount program.
The turbo-jet testbeds were:
Mk II, Z8570 originally with Merlin Xs, later changed out to Merlin XXs
W5389 & W5518, hybrids consisting of Mk II fuselages with Mk VI wings and Merlin 62s.
The latter two were used to test at least fifteen types of engine between 1944 and 1945.

7. Wellington and Warwick were both used extensively as transports and airliner versions of both were proposed.

8. While looking very Heath Robinson-esque the experience with the design of pressure cabin the high altitude Mk V and VI was very useful when it came time to develop pressurized airliners. The Mk VI was also used in the development of the pressure cabin for the high-altitude Spitfire recce aircraft.

9. At one point the R-2800 was considered for installation in the Wellington.

A floatplane makes the most sense for a waterborne Wimpy, especially with the Wellington Mk I being similar in size and weight to the CANT Z.506B. Later marks are within the weight range occupied by the Blohm & Voss Ha 139.

Jon

[The Rat]

Flying boat maybe, but some whacking great floats could do the trick .There's plenty of floatplanes out there with fabric covered fuselages a lot less durable than the Wellington had.

Now there's a thought ------ hmmmm!!  

EDIT:  AUW of a Wellington 28,500 lbs.  AUW of a DC-3 26,900 lbs.  Looks like the C-47 floatplane conversion will work for that.

What's the length of those floats? I've got a pair that juuuuuust might...

[kitnut617]

Sorry Dave, the model is packed away somewhere so I can't get to it and measure them up for you, but I posted a side on photo in the DC-3 thread a couple of days ago, you might be able to work out what they are if you know the length of the Dakota. Scroll back a few posts to see it.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20134.msg356292.html#msg356292

[PR19_Kit]

What's the length of those floats? I've got a pair that juuuuuust might...

The ones on mine are 7.5" long to the rear of the water rudders, a tad less for just the floats of course.

For those who are Imperially challenged that's 190.5 mm...............

[The Rat]

Dang. The ones I've got are much shorter, only about the length of my...

Never mind.

[PR19_Kit]

But floats are a relatively simple shape, and could be extended at will.

I've just remembered that I widened my Aeroclub ones as well as lengthening them. I copied the Aviation News drawing onto a chunk of 60 thou styrene and use it as a 'backbone' before sandwiching with the two bits of vacform I'd cut apart. I did this at the step and extended the forward part of the float,as it was a) the easiest way to do it and b) coincided almost exactly with the extension needed to comply with the plans. The backbone made a handy re-inforcement for attaching the undercarriage too.

[The Rat]

But floats are a relatively simple shape, and could be extended at will.

Or there's always good old balsa! 

[rickshaw]

Another factor which needed to be considered with geodetic was the problem of stretch.  The aircraft would literally stretch if loads were applied to it.  This prevented the use of Wellingtons and similar bombers as glidertugs, which they would have been perfect for.   Literally, when a glider was being pulled, the aircraft frame apparently would stretch about five or six feet and all the control rods/cables would be damaged!

[jcf]

Another factor which needed to be considered with geodetic was the problem of stretch.  The aircraft would literally stretch if loads were applied to it.  This prevented the use of Wellingtons and similar bombers as glidertugs, which they would have been perfect for.   Literally, when a glider was being pulled, the aircraft frame apparently would stretch about five or six feet and all the control rods/cables would be damaged!

Five to six FEET? Highly doubtful, 5 to 6 inches would be enough to adversely affect flight control rigging and no rod and cable control system has 60 to 72 inches of 'give'. That much stretch would cause almost immediate in-flight failure.

[GTX]

How about a tri-motor (piston that is)?

To match my earlier suggestion:



Regards,

Greg

[Logan Hartke]

Wow, that's the most natural non-trimotor trimotor Whif I have EVER seen.  VERY nice.  That deserves to be put into plastic.

Cheers,

Logan

[Daryl J.]

Yeah Logan.....with some Mediterranean sort of camouflage paint scheme.




Daryl J.

[jcf]

Kinda looks like the SM 82. 

http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/savoia_canguro.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.82

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy---Air/Savoia-Marchetti-SM-82PW-Canguru/0987132/L/

[Hobbes]

Another factor which needed to be considered with geodetic was the problem of stretch.  The aircraft would literally stretch if loads were applied to it.  This prevented the use of Wellingtons and similar bombers as glidertugs, which they would have been perfect for. 

So why not attach the tug cable to a part that you know can take the load, e.g. the wing spar ?

[Mossie]

Wow, that's the most natural non-trimotor trimotor Whif I have EVER seen.  VERY nice.  That deserves to be put into plastic.

Cheers,

Logan

I'm with Logan.  How about a tri-motor based on the Mk.II with Merlins for different look?