Tony Whittingham Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Hello all, I’m thinking of stretching a Britannia to obtain a CL-44 Yukon. From published dimensions I see there’s a 12 foot stretch of the fuselage, but I’m wondering how this is divided fore and aft of the wing. A rough count of windows gives me 84 “ forward, and 60” aft. Anyone know for sure? regards, TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Edmundson Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) What scale? Welsh made a 1/144 CL44J I measured the differences between the Welsh Britannia and the Welsh CL-44J in front of the wing the difference is 35mm; behind the wing the difference is 22mm this may have helped, maybe (now to find the differences between a CL-44D and a J Tony Edited June 26, 2018 by Tony Edmundson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Edmundson Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 If it were I, I would be shortening a J rather than extending a Britannia. or swapping a cockpit section between the two. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Whittingham Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Hi Tony, I’m working in 1/72 scale. I have this wild idea to splice sections into a Britannia to get a CC-106. I think that’s equivalent to a CL-44D. I think the J has a swing tail, and a very abrupt transition between the rear fuselage and the movable tail. The J is even longer than the D model. regards, Tony PS. This feels odd, as if I’m writing to myself. Edited June 27, 2018 by Tony Whittingham Info on CL-44J vs D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzn20 Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) If you use the CL-44J (400) kit you'll have to change the Cockpit windows to the Britannia's window layout and it needs shortening (so might be the same grief as stretching ) and maybe engines from Proteus to Tynes although I'm not sure what the differences are in appearance between them . The CC-106 Yukon had Britannia C/pit windows , CL-44J s had less windows (and not as mentioned many times from a Convair 880/990 ) I think the nose and C/pit area' profile are the same shape except for where the CL-44J's (Canadair 400 ) deeper windows meet the nose . The J was the longest of the CL-44 models, a stretched version of the -D4 without swing tail. I worked on Brits, CL-44D and Conroy Skymonster/CL-44 Guppy. If the Proteus and Tyne engines look the same, its either shortening a CL-44J kit and Britannia Cockpit glass or use Britannia kit lengthen the Fuse and not much else....As far as I know or can remember . Edited June 27, 2018 by bzn20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Whittingham Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Thanks bzn20! I’m thinking in 1/72 scale, so my only option is lengthening a Britannia. I just cannot tell where the sections should be inserted. As for the RR Tynes, I’ll probably estimate the length of the nacelle using a Revell Atlantic in my stash, unless I come across a drawing. regards, TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) In On Atlas' Shoulders, Chris Gibson states that the CL-44 was lengthened 12 ft 4 in but adds that the wing was moved aft by 20 inches. Not incredibly helpful. It also introduces the complication of whether you are working on a Britannia 330, and if not what are the differences between a 300 and whatever you have got. Incidentally, according to Putnam's Canadian Aircraft sing 1909 the CL-44J was 10ft 1in longer behind the wing and 5 ft 1 in aft of the wing. Not a lot of help in 1/72. The CC-106 was the CL-44-6 with side-loading door and no swinging tail. It was the D4 that had the swinging tail. Edited June 27, 2018 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) A quick look at Putnam's Bristol Aircraft Since 1910 tells me that only the series 100 Britannias were short. Series 200 and 300 were all the same size, with an 82 in extension forward of the wing and 41in aft. That's with 5 in of the 12ft 4in extension of the CL-44-6, and much the same proportion as the CL-44J, which makes me suggest that you could split the extension fore and aft in the 2:1 proportion. Doing this doesn't match your windows proportion, however, and Gibson's aft movement of the wing is in the wrong direction to fix that. It is however probably true that the split was between an exact number of frames (i.e. windows - though this doesn't work with the J variant, boo hiss) . It was not only the CL-44J that had the revised cockpit windows but the Cl-44D4 also. It might be worth checking your windows, but moving the galleys and other internal changes may be affecting that. Edited June 28, 2018 by Graham Boak Maths error - the first stretch is only 10ft 3 in. I still think that the general proportion argument holds, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Whittingham Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 Thanks Graham, I am leaning toward a 84” extension forward, and a 64” after stretch over the 300 series Britannia, subject to confirmation from some other sources. If and when I do get the exact stretch dimensions, I will update this post for the benefit of all those interested. regards, TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groundloop Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 Quote The J was the longest of the CL-44 models, a stretched version of the -D4 without swing tail. Are you sure the J did not have the swing tail? It definitely had the bulged fairings where the hinges were on the -D4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 The first source I read said that it didn't have the swing tail: the second source said that the hydraulic power and actuators to work it were removed. As Loftleidair were the only users, and they wanted them for high capacity work, plus they were converted D airframes, then retaining the bulged fairings makes some sort of sense - presumably it was simply cheaper overall to leave them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzn20 Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) Four new build CL-44D4 with stretched fuselage for the Loftleidir order by 10 ft 1 in forward of the wing, and another piece of 5 ft 1 in fuse aft of the wing. This increased max PAX by 29 to 190 ish but it could have increased a bit more with higher density seat pitch . The maximum take off weight maximum stayed the same since the extra weight was traded by removing the centre tanks. With the stretched fuse J model the range gave way to payload. It was never a freighter conversion but the new model CL-44J airframe built for the Loftleidir . The D4 swing tail components were deleted on build so tail section was locked shut possibly with extra structure around the split . After Loftleidir had finished with them they were all converted to Freighters ended up with a multitude of Cargo outfits with a large Cabin Freight door aft of the wing left side so I'm guessing the swing tail wasn't bought into being due to "weak points" in the same area , no idea if the swing tail was ever "unbolted" systems fitted and operated ,never seen a picture of a J with the tail swung open. BTW Britannia Proteus engine cowlings are different to the CL-44's Tyne's . Edited June 29, 2018 by bzn20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 One of the Loftleidir aircraft was the converted and flown as such D4-8 prototype, airframe 39 (how it got the final build number is unknown to me) converted to the J prototype. The CL-44D4-8 was ordered by the Canadian Department of defence, but none were delivered. Loftleidir airframes 9, 35 and 36 were converted CL-44D4-8. Numbers 9 and 35 had previously been registered, but only to Canadair. 36 is the only one with no previous registration before Loftleidir. So they were new-build in the sense of unflown by any other user, but not built from the start as Js. My source is the Putnam Canadian Aircraft since 1909, which does not go into detail of the reasons nor timing of the Canadian Government cancellation, or the timing of the Loftleidir order, nor the respective build standard of each of the four aircraft (other than the prototype). As only one did not carry a Canadian registration, this suggests to me that the cancellation was fairly late in the production. However, two other aircraft started as D4-8s (37 and 38) were sold as D4-2s to Flying Tigers. They were intended from the start of build as freighters. Else why have the swing tail at all, rather than the Yukon tail? It seems most likely that Lofteidir got them cheap after the cancellation, and took them structurally "as is" but for the stretch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzn20 Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 It gets more interesting. USAF MAC were looking at the CL-44 and they wanted quite a few of them . Obviously that never happened but the US operators were well used to flying to Vietnam contracted by US DoD or Airforce . The unused airframes on the line explains the swing tail blisters . That confused me as to why have them at all, ? Canadair must have had a reason for starting builds with no orders (why do that ?) , official orders anyway or did some airline cancel or reduce an order amount ? Reduced orders weren't unusual .From what I remember from the 60s Loftleidir wanted the stretched J model from the start , the lower PAX figure wouldn't suit their requirements for the cheap Atlantic routes that undercut everyone else's prices and they were cheap but slower via Iceland . This was the 'plane that did it for them. They advertised cheap flights on the RR-400 in Ian Allan's Civil Aircraft Markings (CAM) 1967/68 not cheap enough for a 13 year old though ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Whittingham Posted June 30, 2018 Author Share Posted June 30, 2018 (edited) Hello All, I managed to find a site, flight-manuals-online.com, which contained the info I needed. Here are the results from the Canadair Operating manuals on this site: Britannia 300 ( LOA 124 ft. 3 in.) data from David Littlefield's "a History of the Bristol Britannia" Wheelbase (cl nose gear strut to CL main gear bogie) 42 ft 1.4in. (505") Canadair CC-106 Yukon aka CL-44-6 (LOA 136 ft. 9in.) 12 ft. 6in. (150") longer than Britannia 300 Wheelbase 49ft. 11.5in. (599") excess over Britannia 94" Canadair CL44J (LOA 151ft. 11.9in.) 15ft 2in. (182") longer than CC-106, 27ft 8in. (332") longer than Britannia 300 Wheelbase 60ft. 0.4in. (720") Excess over Britannia 215" Excess over CC-106 121" Britannia 102 (LOA 114’-0”) 10’ -3” (123”) shorter than Britannia 300 Wheelbase 35’-3” (423”) Wheelbase less than Britannia 300/320 by 82” IN my opinion. the differences in the wheelbase is equivalent to the forward section stretch from version to version, and subtraction of these numbers from the overall length should yield the after cabin stretch. Hope this helps all who wish to build a Canadair 44 from a Britannia! TW Edited July 5, 2018 by Tony Whittingham Add Britannia 102 info from Graham Blake. Thanks! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Edmundson Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 Thats why we're lucky in 1/144, we just have to shorten a -44J and slap on a Britannia nose for a Yukon, or just buy a welsh Yukon kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Whittingham Posted July 5, 2018 Author Share Posted July 5, 2018 Hi All, Just to check all the boxes, does anyone have access to the Britannia 102 manuals? I’m curious to know what the Britannia 102 wheelbase might be. regards, TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Should be 82 inches shorter than the 200/300 series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Whittingham Posted July 5, 2018 Author Share Posted July 5, 2018 I’ve updated the table in post no. 15 to include Graham’s input. It makes sense to me, as it’s equivalent to two seat rows. TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunkmeister Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Interesting thread. I’ve often thought along the same lines, but on a different direction. My dream build from the Brittania/CL-44/Yukon family would be the Argus naval patrol plane. That thing was a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busnproplinerfan Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Clunkmeister said: Interesting thread. I’ve often thought along the same lines, but on a different direction. My dream build from the Brittania/CL-44/Yukon family would be the Argus naval patrol plane. That thing was a beast. I to want a fleet of the Britannias, I did make an Argus in 1/72 https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235029208-172-canadair-cp-107-argus/&tab=comments#comment-2867127 I saw three retired Argus aircraft, they are impressive. Wish I could've seen one flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xvtonker Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Bit of a teaser here, but I have it on good authority that an aftermarket company is already developing conversions for the MACH2 Britannia. These include: Corrected wingtips for the Britannia Canadair CL-44 conversion Canadair CC-106 Yukon conversion Canadair CP-107 Argus conversion XVTonker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdsvidioman Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 39 minutes ago, xvtonker said: Bit of a teaser here, but I have it on good authority that an aftermarket company is already developing conversions for the MACH2 Britannia. These include: Corrected wingtips for the Britannia Canadair CL-44 conversion Canadair CC-106 Yukon conversion Canadair CP-107 Argus conversion XVTonker We can only hope. Would be very interested in the Argus. Better get a Britannia before they all disappear. Paul 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Whittingham Posted August 7, 2018 Author Share Posted August 7, 2018 Who would have thought that we would see an Argus conversion. That will set the cat among the pigeons here in Canada! On another note, I have measured both my Mach 2 Britannia, and my Airwaves Britannia, and they both come up short of the 124’ - 3” overall length of the full size version. Looks like 30 scale inches short. TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Puff Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 11 hours ago, xvtonker said: Bit of a teaser here, but I have it on good authority that an aftermarket company is already developing conversions for the MACH2 Britannia. These include: Corrected wingtips for the Britannia Canadair CL-44 conversion Canadair CC-106 Yukon conversion Canadair CP-107 Argus conversion XVTonker Please keep us posted with anything more you hear - I'm definitely interested in an Argus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now