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

[Rob G]

Now that you've drawn them up, I did some digging around, and found that the Manchester used either dH Type 5140 or Nash Kelvinator A5/138 propellers, the same as Lancasters.

 

https://www.lancaster-archive.com/manc_eng_props.htm

 

[Dunny]

31 minutes ago, Rob G said:

Now that you've drawn them up, I did some digging around, and found that the Manchester used either dH Type 5140 or Nash Kelvinator A5/138 propellers, the same as Lancasters.

 

https://www.lancaster-archive.com/manc_eng_props.htm

 

Rob,

 

Thanks for that - I may just use the kit propellers in that case, although it does not account for the 3mm difference in diameter from kit to schematic (which could, of course, be wrong). Appreciate the input,

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[Dunny]

Hi All,

 

I've been on a bit of a roll today. Here's the port horizontal stabiliser:

 

 

Here's the port empennage assembled:

 

 

Looks like a bought one! That will give an overall span of 28', rather than the 33' of later Mancs and all Lancs. I have still yet to figure out the junction with the fuselage - I'll replicate the kit engineering, but will test the fit between this & the vertical element before doing so. I'm a bit weary of panel lines for the moment, so I might start to have a crack at the dorsal turret,

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Roger

Edited November 29, 2024 by Dunny
empennage image

[Rabbit Leader]

Looking Good! 

[Rob G]

3 hours ago, Dunny said:

Rob,

 

Thanks for that - I may just use the kit propellers in that case, although it does not account for the 3mm difference in diameter from kit to schematic (which could, of course, be wrong)

 

By 'schematic', you mean drawing, yes? As you have already found, they are almost always untrustworthy, even if they're factory drawings, which I don't think yours are.

[bigbadbadge]

Tail plane looks good Roger, more great work fella

Chris

[Dunny]

4 hours ago, Dunny said:

Rob,

 

Thanks for that - I may just use the kit propellers in that case, although it does not account for the 3mm difference in diameter from kit to schematic (which could, of course, be wrong). Appreciate the input,

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

The information provide by @Rob G piqued my curiosity, as it would make more sense for the Vulture to be driving a larger propeller than the considerably less powerful Merlin. I therefore did some most unscientific reckoning using some suitable photos. Here's the Vulture propeller diameter:

 

 

And the equivalent photo of a Lanc:

 

 

From the pilot's notes I know that the undercarriage track for both aircraft is identical at 23'9", and therefore that the spacing of the nacelles is identical on both aircraft. Even allowing for parallax error (and my hamfisted attempts at annotation), I would say that the Manchester propeller tip sits considerably closer to the fuselage than the Lanc's. The plot thickens...

[Dunny]

1 hour ago, Rabbit Leader said:

Looking Good! 

 

51 minutes ago, bigbadbadge said:

Tail plane looks good Roger, more great work fella

Chris

Thanks Gents - I'm studiously avoiding work on the mainplanes...

[Rob G]

The photo of the Manchester isn't quite perpendicular, the Lancaster is close. Have a look at the relative positions of the ends of the Manchester tailplanes in relation to the undercarriage legs - our left side seems to end at the inner leg, while our right definitely continues across behind the other inner leg, it touches the tyre. The Lancaster photo has both tailplanes running across to the outer gear doors. 

 

May I suggest repeating the circle with the port propeller, to see how it compares with the stb?

 

In the end, you'll get no grief from me either way, I was just adding the information that I had found.

 

All that said, a bit more looking, before I posted the above led me to the following forum chat that may be worth a deeper dive. It points to Manchester props being larger, as you surmise, as well as having an absolute shedload of prop minutiae.

 

Sigh.

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/146954-de-havilland-decoder-part-one?page=0

 

If only 'they' had kept proper records. 

[Dunny]

8 minutes ago, Rob G said:

The photo of the Manchester isn't quite perpendicular, the Lancaster is close. Have a look at the relative positions of the ends of the Manchester tailplanes in relation to the undercarriage legs - our left side seems to end at the inner leg, while our right definitely continues across behind the other inner leg, it touches the tyre. The Lancaster photo has both tailplanes running across to the outer gear doors. 

 

May I suggest repeating the circle with the port propeller, to see how it compares with the stb?

 

In the end, you'll get no grief from me either way, I was just adding the information that I had found.

 

All that said, a bit more looking, before I posted the above led me to the following forum chat that may be worth a deeper dive. It points to Manchester props being larger, as you surmise, as well as having an absolute shedload of prop minutiae.

 

Sigh.

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/146954-de-havilland-decoder-part-one?page=0

 

If only 'they' had kept proper records. 

Nice one Rob - I will repeat the exercise for the sanity of all concerned. I think I'll also question the hive mind separately but appreciate your input,

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[brewerjerry]

Hi

    On the subject of props, i think the old airfix magazine conversion used slightly modified typhoon props 

  not sure how accurate that was tho' 

 

might be useful

 

old discussion on BM 

 

here i suggested 1:32 P-38 props 

 

 

  cheers

    jerry 

Edited November 29, 2024 by brewerjerry

[brewerjerry]

18 hours ago, Rob G said:

Now that you've drawn them up, I did some digging around, and found that the Manchester used either dH Type 5140 or Nash Kelvinator A5/138 propellers, the same as Lancasters.

 

https://www.lancaster-archive.com/manc_eng_props.htm

 

Hi

    The manchester manual  AP1600A  gives different props,

  it states

  DH D.I.S. 27 type 6/3 

    maybe there is an error on that website ?

     cheers

       jerry

Edited November 29, 2024 by brewerjerry

[Dunny]

17 hours ago, Rob G said:

The photo of the Manchester isn't quite perpendicular, the Lancaster is close. Have a look at the relative positions of the ends of the Manchester tailplanes in relation to the undercarriage legs - our left side seems to end at the inner leg, while our right definitely continues across behind the other inner leg, it touches the tyre. The Lancaster photo has both tailplanes running across to the outer gear doors. 

 

May I suggest repeating the circle with the port propeller, to see how it compares with the stb?

 

In the end, you'll get no grief from me either way, I was just adding the information that I had found.

 

All that said, a bit more looking, before I posted the above led me to the following forum chat that may be worth a deeper dive. It points to Manchester props being larger, as you surmise, as well as having an absolute shedload of prop minutiae.

 

Sigh.

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/146954-de-havilland-decoder-part-one?page=0

 

If only 'they' had kept proper records. 

 

7 hours ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi

    On the subject of props, i think the old airfix magazine conversion used slightly modified typhoon props 

  not sure how accurate that was tho' 

 

might be useful

 

old discussion on BM 

 

here i suggested 1:32 P-38 props 

 

 

  cheers

    jerry 

Thanks for the extra detail gents - I'm sticking with the larger propellers on that basis...

[elger]

I set aside some Stirling propellers in case I would ever do a 1/72 Manchester conversion because I remember reading somewhere (don't remember where) that these would be suitable. Did the Vulture's propellers spin in the opposite direction of a Merlin like the Bristol Hercules?

[Dunny]

19 minutes ago, elger said:

I set aside some Stirling propellers in case I would ever do a 1/72 Manchester conversion because I remember reading somewhere (don't remember where) that these would be suitable. Did the Vulture's propellers spin in the opposite direction of a Merlin like the Bristol Hercules?

Elger,

 

Just looking that the above photos of the Lanc vs. Manc it looks like they may spin in the opposite direction - well noted,

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

The Merlin was the last major British engine to turn in the "wrong" direction.  The RAE introduced  a ruling to ensure that.  Early enough for the Griffon to comply  and apparently the Vulture too (see above).  Handed engines required different gearboxes to reverse the rotation before reaching the prop.

[MOK61]

Fantastic design work there.

 

As an aside about the propellors I have read somewhere that several of the early multi-block engine designs, like the Vulture, the Napier Sabre and even the DB606, suffered from reliability problems which were not helped by driving large props, the tips of which were travelling at supersonic speeds, causing vibration problems which were not well understood at the time.

 

It's all fascinating stuff.

 

Murray

[AliGauld]

Ye Gods there is no stopping the man.

Fantastic stuff Roger.

 

 

Cheers,

Alistair

[Dunny]

15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The Merlin was the last major British engine to turn in the "wrong" direction.  The RAE introduced  a ruling to ensure that.  Early enough for the Griffon to comply  and apparently the Vulture too (see above).  Handed engines required different gearboxes to reverse the rotation before reaching the prop.

Sounds like the Vulture had enough problems with out throwing in a gearbox 

12 hours ago, MOK61 said:

Fantastic design work there.

 

As an aside about the propellors I have read somewhere that several of the early multi-block engine designs, like the Vulture, the Napier Sabre and even the DB606, suffered from reliability problems which were not helped by driving large props, the tips of which were travelling at supersonic speeds, causing vibration problems which were not well understood at the time.

 

It's all fascinating stuff.

 

Murray

I refer to my above comment 🤣

7 hours ago, AliGauld said:

Ye Gods there is no stopping the man.

Fantastic stuff Roger.

 

 

Cheers,

Alistair

Thank you Alistair - it is rather fun!

[Dunny]

Hi All,

 

Well the results of the test print are quite pleasing. Here's one of the main wheels:

 

 

Macro photography is not kind but the 'Dunlor' is just visible! 😍 Pretty impressive given that it's only 0.1mm tall! Talking of small things, here's the Mk.IX bombsight:

 

 

Yes, dear reader, those are mm marks on the ruler. Here's a final shot showing the wheel, bombsight and control column:

 

 

Not looking too bad, although I think I need to get a softer brush for cleaning parts...

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Roger

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Wow!  Those look superb!

[Dunny]

1 hour ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Wow!  Those look superb!

Thank you TJK!

[bigbadbadge]

Agreed, they do look fantastic Roger, great work fella.

Chris

[Graham Boak]

9 hours ago, Dunny said:

Sounds like the Vulture had enough problems with out throwing in a gearbox 

I refer to my above comment 🤣

Thank you Alistair - it is rather fun!

All such engines have gearboxes.  I suspect RR simply altered the timing and the crankshaft to design in the desired rotation.

 

The recent work on the problems with DH props does cast doubt on RR's claims to have fixed the Vulture before it was cancelled.  Or perhaps they had fixed the others and the engine would have ran properly with different props.  But it was cancelled because RR's workload on the others was considered more important.

[TeeELL]

Absolutely marvellous work Roger, you certainly have a touch of ‘CAD eye’ Lol.