Avro Manchester late Mk1 upgrade progress.

S

Shessi

SOH-CM-2024
Hi Folks,
Been working on this, on and off this for some while, finally coming together.

It's a 'mid-life' upgrade for Ted Cook's beautifully modelled Avro Manchester. The poor old Manc is a might have been ac but without it we wouldn't have the definitive Lancaster.

I've done quite a few things to it, I'm sure I've forgotten a few!

Made it multi-LOD, added a rear upper turret, built a new bomb-bay with a bomb load (a 4000lb cookie and 6 x short finned 1000lb-ers, that was fun!), better angled guns, new crew clothes, a lower poly ai version. And a few new skins!

For the CFS2ers I'm doing the same for them, currently got it to 58fps for 16.

It's a great way to get into FSDS and how it works.

Cheers Shessi
 
Shessi said:
The poor old Manc is a might have been ac
Click to expand...

the Manchester did see combat...

The Manchester's operational debut was made during a raid on German Capital ships in Brest when 6 aircraft from No 207 Squadron attacked a cruiser with 500lb armour-piercing bombs. Two nights later, the squadron attacked Germany for the first time when Cologne was the target. By April, a second squadron had formed on Manchesters, No 97, and aircraft from both units joined Bomber Command raids in the coming months. But continued problems with the engines meant further groundings, and during one such time, in April 1941, when all 40 aircraft were to have engine bearings replaced, it was discovered that repeated overheating of the Vultures was causing the oil to lose its viscosity in one-fifth of the expected time. Other modifications were made to aircraft to allow carriage of the new 4,000lb bombs.

During the summer of 1941, No 61 Squadron became the third Manchester squadron, and the first to receive a revised version featuring larger fins which cured the poor handing of the earlier aircraft. At the same time, the reliability of the Vultures increased to such an extent that in percentage terms, no more Manchesters were being lost to mechanical failure than other bomber in the Command and a further four squadrons (Nos 83, 106, 50 and 49) were re-equipped with Manchesters. Interestingly enough, the last two units, Nos 50 and 49 Squadrons, flew the aircraft for 4 months before it was eventually withdrawn in June 1942.

By the end of 1941, Manchesters were regular participants in operations over Germany with bombloads of up to 8,000lbs, but more often than not were restricted to attacking German naval vessels in the Channel ports with armour-piercing bombs. In February 1942, four Manchester squadrons were airborne over the Channel attempting to stop the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst from making good their escape from Brest in the famous 'Channel Dash', but the poor weather over the Channel prevented any aircraft from finding the convoy. Two weeks later however, Manchesters were among a raid on the Gneisenau which was now berthed in Kiel, attacking the warship with armour-piercing bombs.

Ironically, by the middle of 1942, Manchesters were being replaced by Lancasters in Bomber Command and a single aircraft from No 83 Squadron made the final operational flight during an attack on 25th/26th June 1942 on Bremen. Of the 1,200 Manchesters which had originally been ordered from Avro, only 200 were eventually produced.



Great to see the old girl finally! nice work Shessi!:ernae:
 
Hey, now that's looking nice. Was this originally a CFS2 model? Because I don't recall ever seeing that one anywhere. My hanger bay doors are open :ernae:
 
Mark,

looking fantastic, I'll take a whole Sqn thanks, those LOD's mean I'll be having them whistling around as AI :d

Jamie
 
I have always been intrigued by the Manchester,looking like a twin engine Lanc.
Looking good.No,great!:applause:

Horus
 
HorusJ said:
I have always been intrigued by the Manchester,looking like a twin engine Lanc.
Looking good.No,great!:applause:

Horus
Click to expand...

Akshully... the Lanc is a four engined Manchester... Roy Chadwick designed both.; so bound to look similar (also kept production costs down in wartime Blighty)
ttfn

Pete
 
Avro Manchester late Mk1 upgrade progress

This is looking great and I will track with great interest. I have two Manchesters in my FS hangar, a Mk 1 and a Mk 1A (the difference being the presence of the dorsal fin, I think - not all Manchesters had them - but then you know that:salute:). This addition will be genuinely welcome and from the looks of things will be well worth the wait. Some pretty nervy people flew them. If memory serves at least one VC was awarded to a Manchester pilot, I think. There is a short but well-written story about them in a book edited by Gavin Lyall called "The War in the Air - The Royal Air Force in WWII."

The weak spot for the Manchester wasn't the airframe - it was the RR Vulture engines. Everything I've read about them indicates they were prone to overheating quickly if any kind of load were placed on them. Are you thinking about modeling that into the bird, or maybe letting them run a little cooler than they really did?
 
Lookin' good Shessi!

I've used the original Manchester off and on in a couple of sims so I'm looking forward to this major upgrade.

Thanks for keeping CFS 2 in mind too. I'll post a link to this thread in the CFS 2 forum.
 
Really nice stuff there, Shessi, I've always had a soft spot for the old girl, so nice to see someone give her a new lease of life. Love the paintwork as well.
 
Motormouse said:
Akshully... the Lanc is a four engined Manchester... Roy Chadwick designed both.; so bound to look similar (also kept production costs down in wartime Blighty)
ttfn

Pete
Click to expand...
The Lancaster was originally called Manchester Mk III
 
A very inspiring story - following the links brings one to that of Leonard Cheshire as well, equally inspiring and with a fine ironic twist.
 
SSI01 said:
A very inspiring story - following the links brings one to that of Leonard Cheshire as well, equally inspiring and with a fine ironic twist.
Click to expand...

A very complex man, Baron Cheshire; without doubt a very courageous man, and a genuine war hero by anybody's standards - but the good he and his second wife, Sue Ryder, did (and continue to do, posthumously) is equally heroic in my eyes. :salute:

Just a thought; if the Lancaster was originally known as the Manchester III, would that make the Lincoln the Manchester VI and the Shackleton the Manchester VIII? Testament to the soundness of Chadwick's basic design that it was still around (to an extent) until 1990. :applause:
 
AndyG43 said:
A very complex man, Baron Cheshire; without doubt a very courageous man, and a genuine war hero by anybody's standards - but the good he and his second wife, Sue Ryder, did (and continue to do, posthumously) is equally heroic in my eyes. :salute:

Just a thought; if the Lancaster was originally known as the Manchester III, would that make the Lincoln the Manchester VI and the Shackleton the Manchester VIII? Testament to the soundness of Chadwick's basic design that it was still around (to an extent) until 1990. :applause:
Click to expand...

not to mention the bombload these things could carry.... wowzers!
 
Matt Wynn said:
not to mention the bombload these things could carry.... wowzers!
Click to expand...

That was partly a happy outcome of the basic specification, which specified the ability to carry torpedoes; so both the Halifax & the Lancaster had long, uninterrupted bomb bays; the Stirling was built to a different spec, so although it had more power & better range than the other two bombers, the structure of the bomb bay (effectively cells) meant that no individual bomb bigger than 2000lb could be carried - and with the advent of things like the 4000 lb 'cookie' the others were more flexible.
 
I love to think of WCDR Cheshire now that I am retired and trying to change my life's direction entirely from what I used to do. His story goes to show it's possible to learn the ropes of something entirely unrelated to what one did when they were "active," and to excel at your new chosen direction in life. And, yes, his second career called upon him to face death again many times as well, and possibly the second time around it may have been harder; anyone who's had to care for a dying elderly relative, or who has spent time in a hospice (as a visitor) will know what I mean.

Re: the aircraft specs and the effect on bomb loads - I recall reading somewhere the Stirling's wingspan was dictated by the door width of the standard RAF large aircraft hangar of the time - that measurement being exactly 100 ft I believe. The Stirling's windspan was exactly 99 ft. A shorter wing = a poorer ceiling and a lessened lifting capability, hence a smaller bombload. I don't think the RAF had started coming out with the "cookies" at the time the Stirling stood up for ops, the largest bomb in the inventory then may have been a 1,000 pounder which could fit on the (then standard) shackles used on bombers. I recall reading RAF Halifax and Lancaster crews used to raise a cheer at pre-mission briefings when they were told Stirlings would be in the bomber stream with them on a mission, as with their very poor operating ceiling the Stirlings were sure to draw the majority of the flak and night fighters.
 
SSI01 said:
Re: the aircraft specs and the effect on bomb loads - I recall reading somewhere the Stirling's wingspan was dictated by the door width of the standard RAF large aircraft hangar of the time - that measurement being exactly 100 ft I believe. The Stirling's windspan was exactly 99 ft. A shorter wing = a poorer ceiling and a lessened lifting capability, hence a smaller bombload. I don't think the RAF had started coming out with the "cookies" at the time the Stirling stood up for ops, the largest bomb in the inventory then may have been a 1,000 pounder which could fit on the (then standard) shackles used on bombers. I recall reading RAF Halifax and Lancaster crews used to raise a cheer at pre-mission briefings when they were told Stirlings would be in the bomber stream with them on a mission, as with their very poor operating ceiling the Stirlings were sure to draw the majority of the flak and night fighters.
Click to expand...

Yes, fair comment about the wingspan/ceiling. And yes, the cookies weren't available when the Stirling was designed; but neither were they available when the Manchester/Lancaster was designed. Compared with the Halifax the Stirling was had a lower ceiling and was slower; however, it climbed faster than the Halifax and had a much better range (abot 500 miles more) - the Lanc was far superior to both in all respects. The Halfax had a maximum bombload of 13000 lb, the Stirling & the Lanc could carry 14000 lb as standard; bear in mind that would be drastically reduced for longer range missions - however, the Stirling could haul that full load for about 600 miles. Worth mentioning at this point that the B-17 had a maximum load of only 8000 lb, and that could only be carried for about 400 miles.

So yes, the Stirling had some shortcomings, but it also had some major positives. But the killer was that bomb bay; the Stirling had a 40 ft bomb bay, the Lanc came in at 33 ft - but the Stirling had 2 structural dividers rinning right down the middle of the bay, which stopped it carrying any of the bigger bombs. In theory it had more than enough power to carry the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs the Lanc did - it just physically couldn't do it!! But for that design 'flaw' I suspect that it would have been the Halifax relegated to the secondary roles, not the Stirling.

But in terms of this thread, the Lancaster had them all beaten hands down, in terms of range, speed, ceiling, maximum payload, the works; Roy Chadwick got it right first time, he just needed the right engine to help his design realise it's full potential. The Lancaster was one of the two finest bombers we produced in this country during the war; the other one.... well, ask Henry about that!! :salute:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top