Matchbox 1/72 Wellington conversion to Wellington T.18

[David Womby]

Well done.  A great conversion job.

 

David

[DennisTheBear]

That is a great conversion using basic modelling skills and materials (not saying your skills are basic) that is a example that you don't need lots of AM to create a unique model!

 

Kudos galore for this!!

 

DennisTheBear

[Mancunian airman]

I think it looks terrific . . . .

 

Its definitely a one-off and you have done a more than excellent conversion; much to admire

Ian

[Martian]

Classic conversion work, thanks for sharing a most entertaining build with us. 

 

Appreciative of Mars

 

 

[AdrianMF]

Nice conversion. I think the new nose looks pretty good compared to a draughty old front turret!

 

Regards,

Adrian

[TheBaron]

14 hours ago, Acklington said:

Some pleasure in resurrecting a 3-D shape that has not been seen for some 65 years.

A worthy basis for this wonderful piece of work.

 

Both the conversion process and visual finish have been a pleasure to see.

 

Bravo!

Tony

[Acklington]

Many thanks for the comments, they are much appreciated.

 

Last night I did find some answers in the Putman book about Vickers.

All 80 Wellington T.XVIII were ordered with Hercules XVI engines, so presumably produced as such. The one photo (RP573?) that shows a T.XVIII with spinners and broad blade props is clearly a 'factory photo' because there is a bloke stood at the front to give scale to the photo.

So I'm starting to think that if all 80 had Hercules 16 engines, then the T.18 photos that show no spinners and Rotol narrow blade props must show that the props could be changed without changing the engines. But why was this done on the T.18, but not on the more common T.10, of which there are plenty of post-war photos showing spinners and broad blade props. HOWEVER, to confuse the issue further, there is a crash report into the loss of T.18 RP414 from Leeming on 26th February 1951. It says that a spinner came adrift in flight, injuring the pilot and causing the aircraft to crash. Spinners go with broad blade props.

Regarding the 'radio operator', the Vickers book states that the T.18 crew complement was 7. The aircraft was designed for 4 radar trainees plus an Instructor, which makes five. That only leaves 2 other crew to fly the plane, so take your pick from Pilot, flight engineer, navigator, or radio operator!

I'm sorry not to have shown the photos referred to, but I've been worried by copyright issues, and I just copied and saved them onto my hard drive so that I could study them.

[Hamden]

 

Stunning result!

Another little known sub type brought out.

 

    Roger

[Acklington]

I'm resurrecting this thread, because quite by chance I have just come across three photos of a Wellington T.XVII (T.17). As far as I am aware these are the first photos of this version to surface, and they have appeared on https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.c ... borne.html although there is no explanation as to their origin.

wellingtonTMKXVII by Philip Pain, on Flickr
WellingtonMKXVII by Philip Pain, on Flickr

Wellington T.17 by Philip Pain, on Flickr

It is indeed a T. XVII (T.17), as shown by the side window arrangement of the GR.11 from which it was converted. Of interest also it has retained the standard GR.11 'Coastal Command' colour scheme. Perhaps it was the first conversion, or did all eleven T.17s retain a coastal command colour scheme? Apart from the side windows it is in other respects very similar to the T. XVIII (T.18), and appears to also have the faired-over tail gun position. These radar trainers were, at the time, 'top secret', and perhaps part of the subterfuge was to make them look similar to ordinary service Wellingtons, so as not to attract too much attention?

[Troy Smith]

2 minutes ago, Acklington said:

and they have appeared on https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.c ... borne.html although there is no explanation as to their origin.

@FalkeEins  aka Neil is a member here, so he may chip in, 

[Acklington]

I've been studying the three new Wellington T.17 photos, and here are a few more observations for anyone contemplating doing a Wellington T.17 or T.18. 

 

A noticeable feature on the T.17 is that the centre panel on the bomb aimer's position has been blanked off and painted. The two curved side panels remain glazed, and this looks odd on the T.17 photos - as if there is no glazing fitted - but it is there. Anyway, this prompted me to have another look at the few available T.18 photos, none of which show the underside of the nose clearly. But on two of the T.18 photos it does look like the centre panel has been blanked off, so it seems that my T.18 model does need to be modified.

 

The T.17 photos also show that on that particular aircraft, the earlier style tailplane is fitted, with the curved leading edge and straight horn balance. This is exactly as per the Matchbox/Revell 1/72 kit. Otherwise the T.17 has the same aerial fit as the T.18, and it does also retain the astrodome.

 

The main surprise with the T.17 continues to be its 'coastal command' colour scheme, and perhaps it was the case that all eleven T.17s had this scheme. So this gives rise to the intriguing prospect of Fighter Command's 62 OTU at RAF Ouston having a large fleet of 'black/camo' painted T.18s, together with a solitary T.17 MP529 trying not to look conspicuous in dazzling white.

[Acklington]

I'm modifying my finished model to show what seems to be the correct configuration, with the centre panel on the bomb aimer's position faired over;
Wellington T.18, ND113, 62 OTU, Ouston, April 1945 by Philip Pain, on Flickr
Wellington T.18, ND113, 62 OTU, Ouston, April 1945 by Philip Pain, on Flickr
Wellington T.18, ND113, 62 OTU, Ouston, April 1945 by Philip Pain, on Flickr
Wellington T.18, ND113, 62 OTU, Ouston, April 1945 by Philip Pain, on Flickr

Actually that's a bit of a lie, I've just 'photoshopped' my original photos. The model will be done after Christmas, when I get my modelling room back!