1:72 Avro Manchester Mk.I/Mk.Ia *FINALLY FINISHED*

[Rabbit Leader]

Very nice work Roger, I’m sure that’s more than adequate for most of us, although hats off for being a perfectionist and wanting to tweak it again. Looking very impressive. 
 

Cheers.. Dave 

[Dunny]

1 hour ago, Rabbit Leader said:

Very nice work Roger, I’m sure that’s more than adequate for most of us, although hats off for being a perfectionist and wanting to tweak it again. Looking very impressive. 
 

Cheers.. Dave 

Thanks very much Dave - all part of the fun!

[bigbadbadge]

Great result for the rest print Roger, looks great with some lovely details , the improvements you're making will make it absolutely superb.   Great work fella.

Chris

[AliGauld]

Nuff said

[Mancunian airman]

I am aware that the Manchester did indeed have a larger propeller than the Lancaster and the details are in the Manchester book by Rob Kirby but I'm not home so cannot check the radius . . . 

Great CAD and printing . ..  you guys are taking modelling to another level  . . . well beyond my capabilities so its great to see this stuff; Well done 

[Thom216]

Looks dang good for a prototype print! A little fettling and you'll be there.

[Jeff G]

Wow, that’s a great test print. I think you’re doing all Manchester crews proudly!

[Dunny]

11 hours ago, bigbadbadge said:

Great result for the rest print Roger, looks great with some lovely details , the improvements you're making will make it absolutely superb.   Great work fella.

Chris

 

10 hours ago, AliGauld said:

Nuff said

 

8 hours ago, Mancunian airman said:

I am aware that the Manchester did indeed have a larger propeller than the Lancaster and the details are in the Manchester book by Rob Kirby but I'm not home so cannot check the radius . . . 

Great CAD and printing . ..  you guys are taking modelling to another level  . . . well beyond my capabilities so its great to see this stuff; Well done 

Thanks for the kind words - it does make sense given the relative power ratings of the two engines

4 hours ago, Thom216 said:

Looks dang good for a prototype print! A little fettling and you'll be there.

Thanks Thom - not quite there yet but that is the beauty of printing. Tinker build tinker build!

2 hours ago, Jeff G said:

Wow, that’s a great test print. I think you’re doing all Manchester crews proudly!

Cheers Jeff - well worth remembering that however poor the aircraft, it did not stop brave crews flying them into harm's way..

10 hours ago, AliGauld said:

Nuff said

Most kind sir!

11 hours ago, bigbadbadge said:

Great result for the rest print Roger, looks great with some lovely details , the improvements you're making will make it absolutely superb.   Great work fella.

Chris

Thanks Chris - like I said, a bit of a mixed bag!

[Dunny]

Hi All,

 

Given the issues that others have experienced with the width of the main undercarriage legs, I thought an early test fit in the nacelle would be in order. Happily, they appear to be a perfect fit:

 

 

 

This is reassuring in that the schematic appears to have the nacelle dimensions reasonably correct. This also means that I can proceed with my original plan, which is to use the kit wing spar and ribs, as shown below:

 

 

I will have to be careful at the rear end of the nacelle as the Vulture is narrower than what is shown here, but this means that the main undercarriage can mate in to the original kit parts, with the wing (hopefully) fitting around it. I also intend to produce a new pair of main wheels. The schematic as presented gives a wheel diameter thus:

 

 

Whereas the kit wheel measures thus:

 

 

So a difference of 2mm in diameter - enough to be noticeable! That will be a fun design exercise - I shall probably maintain the width of the axle boss but make the rest of the wheel narrower. Another inspection of this lovely photo will also help:

 

 

Some nasty fluid leakage over those tyres - that can't be healthy.

 

Now I know that the nacelle is basically sound in terms of fit I can now start to address the wing and junction with the nacelle (not to mention that rear radiator flap). I also have an Eduard mask set and some seat harnesses on their merry way,

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Roger

[TheyJammedKenny!]

What are your plans regarding the revised wing span?

[Dunny]

40 minutes ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

What are your plans regarding the revised wing span?

I shall be modelling a new wing, using the same 'inner' wing profile, and a new outer section to represent the 90' wingspan. This will should not require any cutting & shutting...

[Dunny]

Hi all,

 

A quick update on the main wheel, which I knocked together after measuring last night. Here's the new version in Fusion:

 

 

And a cheeky peek in Chitubox:

 

 

I feel some more test printing coming on this weekend, particularly with the propeller and all the design changes to the nacelle to assess,

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Roger

Edited November 26, 2024 by Dunny
spelling

[bigbadbadge]

Great job Roger, forcthe undercarriage legs to fit first go and wheel rebderings, more Proffessor Dunnybledore wizardry.

Excellent stuff

Chris

[Dunny]

40 minutes ago, bigbadbadge said:

Great job Roger, forcthe undercarriage legs to fit first go and wheel rebderings, more Proffessor Dunnybledore wizardry.

Excellent stuff

Chris

Thanks Chris - looking at the wing ribs I think I need to make the rear and of the nacelle longer and wider. I'm assuming that the junction with the flaps was the same for Lanc and Manc...

[Dave Swindell]

11 hours ago, Dunny said:

I also intend to produce a new pair of main wheels. The schematic as presented gives a wheel diameter thus:

As far as I'm aware, there was no change in wheel size between the Manchester and Lancaster.

[Dunny]

26 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

As far as I'm aware, there was no change in wheel size between the Manchester and Lancaster.

Hi Dave,

 

A little research told me that the Lancaster main undercarriage had a wheel diameter of 5'6", or 23.2mm in 1:72 scale - not too far off the kit wheel diameter. I've tried to find images of the Manchester with aircrew for scale, such as this one:

 

 

The dimensions I have used equate to 4'10" for the Manchester main wheel, which 'looks' about right given the perspective. 5'6" would be around shoulder height if not higher for average aircrew. Far from scientific  I know but I would propose a smaller diameter....

[TeeELL]

This is an image of an Avro Manchester main wheel:

 

Unfortunately there are no references by which you can obtain dimensions.

However, I have cause to believe this is at East Kirkby (were Lancaster ‘Just Jane’ resides).  Might I suggest you make contact via their web site “Lincolnshire Aircraft Heritage Centre” https://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/contact-us 

They can confirm if thay do possess this item and they might well be prepared to measure it for you.   

Photo for reference, taken by Alan Farrow circa 2016.

[Dunny]

5 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

Unfortunately there are no references by which you can obtain dimensions.

Looks about 4'10" to me Tony 🤣 

 

That's a great idea - for the greater good I might just do that...

[Heather Kay]

1 minute ago, Dunny said:

Looks about 4'10" to me Tony 🤣 

You know, there are some bits of paper on the wall next to that wheel. Generally speaking, bits of paper like that are A4, which is only a few millimetres from a foot. I did a quick guesstimate based on that and came back with about four-and-a-half-ish feet. 
 

I'm actually amazed at the small size, if that is a genuine Manc main wheel!

[Dave Swindell]

10 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

This is an image of an Avro Manchester main wheel:

The hub may be Manchester, but the tyre is of the late/postwar block tread pattern fitted to Lancasters and Lincolns, not the smooth pattern fitted to the wartime Manchester/Lancaster, so that's not going to help unfortunately.

[Dave Swindell]

35 minutes ago, Dunny said:

I know but I would propose a smaller diameter....

I've just run through the photo's in the Wingleader Manchester and Lancaster I books and can't see any noticable difference in main wheel size.

Your model, your choice.

[TeeELL]

Roger,

  if the wheel/tyre isn’t at East Kirkby then I’ve been in touch with another modeller who just happens to live in the same village as Alan Farrow, the guy who took the photo I posted.  I’ve sent a PM to see if they know one another.

[TeeELL]

Notwithstanding the observations by @Dave Swindell I’ve looked at comparative photos.  The tyres on the Manchester come up to a point just below the point where the inverted V sections join the main legs whereas those on the Lancaster are above that point.  Of course, the assumption is that the U/C legs are identical between the 2 types?  I must emphasis that I am, in no way, any kind of expert, just a very mildly interested modeller (who, many, many years ago missed out on being the ‘second/safety’ pilot on what would become the BBMF Lancaster when it was based at RAF Scampton).

[Dave Swindell]

52 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

The tyres on the Manchester come up to a point just below the point where the inverted V sections join the main legs whereas those on the Lancaster are above that point.

That rather depends on how much the oleo is compressed - unloaded Manchester/Lancaster below the joint, fully fuelled and bombed up level/above the joint

[TeeELL]

28 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

That rather depends on how much the oleo is compressed - unloaded Manchester/Lancaster below the joint, fully fuelled and bombed up level/above the joint

Yes quite.  It is clear that I am offering nothing to this discussion so I shall cease.