Wellington prototype model ?

[Adrian Hills]

Has anyone had the guts to tackle the prototype for the Vickers Wellington? The aircraft which flew serialled K4049 had a very different fuselage than the production airframe. The fin is different too - I seem to remember it came from a Supermarine Stranraer - but I stand to be corrected.

 

If someone did do it, it may have been carved from wood.  These days perhaps someone with a 3D printer could get near the shape.

 

Just thought I'd throw this one out there and see what comes up 🙂

[Mr T]

Never come across one, as you point out it would be a major undertaking. The fin shape was not dissimilar to the Stranraer, but was bigger. The production Wellington shared its fuselage structure with the Warwick if I recall, sections were taken out to get the Wellington length. As well as the fuselage and turrets, bits of the undercarriage were different. I would like to see the early production Wellington before the Fraser Nash turrets were fitted (also smaller wheels and different undercarriage doors and other changes) The late Alan Hall did a conversion article using the old Airfix kit in about 1969. 

[Graham Boak]

The shape of the Wellington with the early turrets was the same as that for the GR versions, but without the turret ring, so that part of it may be simpler than you fear.

 

I agree that the Wellington fuselage was a Warwick fuselage with bits taken out, at least in design terms, but I'm not sure that either real aircraft's fuselage bore a one-to-one relationship with the prototype.  I think a deeper study is required.

[Mr T]

Hi Graham for the early Wellingtons I have a set of transparencies from a Matchbox Wellington that had a duplicate set as I have always fancied doing  one. The original prototype Adrian was talking about is something I would not fancy having a go at as the shape is quite subtle in places and I recall reading the Warwick fuselage was adapted to fit in everything that was required by the RAF, particularly in regards to the original turrets that were unacceptable. I suspect the newer fuselage was easier to build. 

[Graham Boak]

The original turrets were not required as such by the RAF, but were Vickers attempt at a design.  Early days of powered turrets. The original specification was for a much lighter aircraft, probably excessively so, which perhaps goes some way to explain why the Hampden ended up smaller.  However, the first prototype wasn't really a Warwick either, but a thing of itself.  I've never studied the changes between that and the early Wellingtons,  but the Warwick was very much being done in parallel until it was realised that the Wellington was required and mass production achievable, whereas the larger Warwick required more powerful engines, cost more, took longer to build, etc.

 

Have you considered trying to find a Frog kit, which was of an early version and would at least present you with engine cowlings, nacelles etc.?

[dogsbody]

Not the prototype, but and early Mk.I drawing.

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Adrian Hills]

Thank you all for your comments. The Mk I is a relatively easy conversion - I did it using the Matchbox kit a few years ago. When I finally work out how to post images will put my effort up.

 

But what I'm really interested in is the prototype. This had a very different fuselage, the front being round and was waisted on the bottom behind the wing. There must be someone out there who has scratchbuilt one.

[Troy Smith]

18 minutes ago, Adrian Hills said:

When I finally work out how to post images will put my effort up.

I did give you a guide on another post.  

 

19 minutes ago, Adrian Hills said:

But what I'm really interested in is the prototype. This had a very different fuselage, the front being round and was waisted on the bottom behind the wing. There must be someone out there who has scratchbuilt one.

maybe, maybe not....

 

 

 

 

 

 

looking at the early one above, the upper line looks similar,  the work is in the lower line.

 

Again, I'll @John Aero

 

If there are not drawings, then maybe eyeball it, and chop an existing fuselage to shape, then reskin either with thin score card,  or use sprue stringers and plastic primer filler,  this was a technique John showed in the gee-bee thread.

and read on

 

I did have a very old built Matchbox Wellington in the shed, and this maybe a case of judicious cutting and bending, and then reskinnning.    Though the tail may have to be carved,  the fuselage up to the waist maybe modifiable from a kit. (and the wreck could serve as test bed)

Something that is easier to show than explain though. 

 

talk soon

T

[Adrian Hills]

Hi Troy,

The change in profile at the front and rear which are both round on the prototype would preclude modification of an existing shape. A skillfully carved wooden plug upon which a vacform shell could be pulled may be the best way forward. Surprised Mr Sutcliffe or similar artisans didn't attempt it years ago.

 

[John Aero]

It's my view that the prototype fuselage is a totally different structure to the production machines. Much of the prototype fuselage has a circular to oval section and rather reflects  the G.4/31 and Wellesley thinking rather than a practical Bomber design so trying to convert a later Wellington is a non starter IMO.  There is a 3 view drawing in the Putnam Vickers book.

 

John

[Adrian Hills]

11 hours ago, John Aero said:

It's my view that the prototype fuselage is a totally different structure to the production machines. Much of the prototype fuselage has a circular to oval section and rather reflects  the G.4/31 and Wellesley thinking rather than a practical Bomber design so trying to convert a later Wellington is a non starter IMO.  There is a 3 view drawing in the Putnam Vickers book.

 

John

Hi John,

Yes, I have that on p311, but it is a general arrangement drawing and not necessarily to scale. I'm wary of such things as I once did a 1/48 Westland 'Wendover' (Lysander with rear turret) and after scratchbuilding the rear fuselage found it was too short!

 

I quite like Vickers stuff and admit to using general arrangement drawings, plus photos from National Archive, to do a series of prototypes including the biplane G4/31.

 

There are, or were, people out there who could 'see' the shape and create it in wood. Failing that a CAD image which could then be fed into a 3D printer

 

Is there anyone out there ? 🙂

[Adrian Hills]

Further to my comments about other models. Here are some images of Mk I Wellington, Vickers G 4/31 and a Westaland Wendover (This last model was vandalised by an office mate 20 years ago and I have yet to rebuild it.

 

IMG_0116 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0117 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0112 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0111 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0113 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0110 by arhills, on Flickr

[Kushan_Farsight]

Some nice builds! Shame about the wendover damage  

 

 

Looking over the pictures and comments here, and a bit of googling myself, it does seem clear the Prototype Wellington was an all together different 'beast' from even the most early production models.  although an illustration, seeing the prototype next to a production model, the differences are significant -  

 

 

 

Looking at the two, i dont know how much off a normal wellington kit could be used, with minor  to major differences in every way. Perhaps the nacelles could be tweaked, but near enough everything else would need to be new. In some ways, i think you would be better starting from a Vickers Viking kit, but in reality i think an entire new 'ground up' design is required.

 

 

Without going off tangent (because i feel this could be deserving of its very own thread) i did get very confused when my search ended up spitting out a few pics of the Vickers Wellington VI - Experimental High Altitude Bomber -  i had never heard of this derivative before and  it certainly has 'unique' aesthetics! 

 

[John Aero]

A major problem with Putnam general arrangement three views is that they were all drawn originally to a larger scale and then the printers would make them fit. When I've had occasion to do comparisons with other drawings, I scan them, then separate the views and then scale them all separately in a drawing program to match the correct dimensions or true up any compression or stretch. They can then be compared on a light board. It's amazing what can be restored. The same happens with Aviation News drawings and they will often suffer from printers pinch or push but they all to often are inaccurate..

 

Often the Putnam's renderings are about all there is for certain types as some stuff has gone forever.  When the books were published many manufacturers archives were still around,  but due to the politically induced mergers of many companies in the 60's, their archives were deliberately thinned or destroyed. I know one, of two enthusiasts, who rescued much of what is now available from the Fairey Aircraft company, from the boiler house where they had been sent for disposal.  I have some DH stuff which was rescued by interested parties and much of Avro's stuff was consumed in a factory fire.  Rolls Royce also fell victim to the 'New broom' in the 80's who ordered all out of date material on bookshelves to "be removed" to reflect the companies shiny new image. fortunately some went to the RR Heritage Trust.

 

In the 1950's my pal Derek and I used to write schoolboy letters to companies for copies of drawings or photos of historic subjects.  Back would come all sorts of 1/4 or 1/2 plate black and white photos, FOC.  Gloster Aircraft  sent beautiful photo's and  three views of Bamel, Gamecock and F.7/30 etc.  Grumman sent colour layout drawings of the Gulfhawk F.3F and even the Agcat. and photos. Piper sent me a nice 1/32 blueprint of the Tri Pacer. I don't think you'd get much from today's Corporations

 

John

[k5054nz]

I'd never seen the prototype Wellington until visiting this thread today. What a difference to the production version! I definitely see the appeal in a model.

[Adrian Hills]

John,

Thank you very much for the information. I had no idea that general arrangement drawings could be distorted as such. It sounds like you have had this type of interest for quite a few years !

 

To take discussion on the prototype Wellington further, have you ever seen anything on just how the Air Ministry accepted a very different fuselage from the one demonstrated as a prototype. Or was it Vickers who having won the contract for B9/32 felt justified in such a radical change ?

 

This situation is a bit like Supermarine's super duper fast low drag 'racing' plane K5054 winning the fighter contract.

 

Just like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

cheers

Adrian

[Adrian Hills]

Zac,

I wrote and posted the note to John before I saw your comment. It is irony that I cited the number that you use as a handle 🙂

 

[Adrian Hills]

Just to show Kushan I am a bit of a banana about Wellingtons. A DWI job I'm working on and a Mk VI I did about 25 years ago. I don't have a photo of one I fitted a massive dorsal turret too, now lost.

 

IMG_0126 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0125 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0124 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0123 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0122 by arhills, on Flickr

 

IMG_0121 by arhills, on Flickr

 

Enjoy