Avro Manchester late Mk1 upgrade progress.

[Matt Wynn]

the good old deHavilland Type 98.... my numero uno warbird, gorgeous lines, right engine..... been profiling a type 98 for 3 years, never finished it because i'm a bit of a perfectionist with her

 

[SSI01]

I recall reading somewhere some comments Air Chief Marshal Harris made about the Halifax. I get the impression he more or less tolerated the aircraft being on strength with Bomber Command because they needed numbers, and quickly, until the Lancaster came along. He called the Halifax "a typical Handley-Page product," but I'm not sure what he meant by that. I do remember hearing the aircraft as originally built, with the triangular vertical stabs and square wingtips, had wicked stall characteristics and not too great directional stability. Fining down the lines (eliminating the nose turret, general cleanup, etc) plus adding rounded wingtips and larger vertical stabs helped a lot but it was never as popular within the command's ranks as the Lancaster. Interesting statistic - I do not know the percentages for the Stirling, but more Halifax pilots survived bailing out of a stricken aircraft than Lancaster pilots. I've also seen it averred the Lancaster was structurally stronger than the Halifax. If you put these together, this means if the Halifax were hit it would burn/fail before the Lancaster would, but you as the pilot would have a better chance of escaping the aircraft; if you were in the Lancaster, the bird would hold together better if hit, giving you a better chance to make it home, but if push came to shove, you had less of a chance of surviving your shoot-down if you were the pilot of the aircraft!

 

[Matt Wynn]

i think the strongest (in terms of construction) bomber the British had at their disposal was the venerable 'Welly'.... i mean... this got back to base fine

 

[SSI01]

Agreed. The Wimpey is overlooked frequently in our times for its contributions to the RAF's war effort. Barnes Wallis's "basketweave" construction made the aircraft immensely strong despite its rather spindly appearance with the fabric stripped off. Fire must have been feared more than any other possibility by a Wimpey crew as it could literally strip the aircraft of its airfoil even if there were no other damage to the wing.

If you know any old Wellington aircrew ask them if somehow getting off the catwalk running down the aircraft toward the tail turret during ground maintenance work was a chargeable offense under RAF regulations (you could easily put your foot through the fuselage fabric, causing repair work). One of the few instances in relatively modern aircraft where a needle and thread were essential repair tools!

 

[AndyG43]

Agreed. The Wimpey is overlooked frequently in our times for its contributions to the RAF's war effort. Barnes Wallis's "basketweave" construction made the aircraft immensely strong despite its rather spindly appearance with the fabric stripped off. Fire must have been feared more than any other possibility by a Wimpey crew as it could literally strip the aircraft of its airfoil even if there were no other damage to the wing.

If you know any old Wellington aircrew ask them if somehow getting off the catwalk running down the aircraft toward the tail turret during ground maintenance work was a chargeable offense under RAF regulations (you could easily put your foot through the fuselage fabric, causing repair work). One of the few instances in relatively modern aircraft where a needle and thread were essential repair tools!

If any of you ever get the opportunity, pay a visit to the Brooklands Museum. There is a Wellington on display (one of only two surviving anywhere) which displays that geodetic framework beautifully. There is also a replica of part of the fuselage which you can go into, which brings home to you how cramped the conditions were, and makes you appreciate the bravery of the crews even more - oh, and of course the hangar this display is in was actually used as a final assembly for Wellingtons during the war!

http://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/index.php?/explore/vickers-290-wellington-1a-n2980-1939/

 

[SPman]

I recall reading somewhere some comments Air Chief Marshal Harris made about the Halifax. I get the impression he more or less tolerated the aircraft being on strength with Bomber Command because they needed numbers, and quickly, until the Lancaster came along. He called the Halifax "a typical Handley-Page product," but I'm not sure what he meant by that. I do remember hearing the aircraft as originally built, with the triangular vertical stabs and square wingtips, had wicked stall characteristics and not too great directional stability. Fining down the lines (eliminating the nose turret, general cleanup, etc) plus adding rounded wingtips and larger vertical stabs helped a lot but it was never as popular within the command's ranks as the Lancaster. Interesting statistic - I do not know the percentages for the Stirling, but more Halifax pilots survived bailing out of a stricken aircraft than Lancaster pilots. I've also seen it averred the Lancaster was structurally stronger than the Halifax. If you put these together, this means if the Halifax were hit it would burn/fail before the Lancaster would, but you as the pilot would have a better chance of escaping the aircraft; if you were in the Lancaster, the bird would hold together better if hit, giving you a better chance to make it home, but if push came to shove, you had less of a chance of surviving your shoot-down if you were the pilot of the aircraft!

I was sitting in the pilots seat of the MOTAT Lancaster (NZ), some years ago, when an old bloke clambered up to the cockpit. He was an ex bomber command pilot - he flew Halifaxes - he said it was the first time he had ever been in a Lanc. He then marvelled at the cramped confines of the cockpit and remarked it was a wonder any pilots ever escaped from a Lancaster, even given that they were 50 years younger. He said the Halifax was a cavern, compared to the Lanc., much easier to move around in. He had had cause to evacuate the cockpit in haste, during the war (he didn't, unfortunately expand on that) and reckoned it would have been touch and go if he was flying a Lancaster.......

 

[SSI01]

One needs to recall we feel cramped and confined when we are moving around the interior of the replica when it is stable on solid ground. Now maybe we should take that replica and mount it on a set of gimbals, put it in a deep freeze, turn out the lights and run two car engines without mufflers right next to it, then ask the guest to travel from one place to another in that fuselage while it moves about 50 feet down a track. Think that would add a sense of realism? You bet it took some nerve to do what those men did.

My father and all but one of the men in my family growing up were WWII veterans (the one was just a little too young to have enlisted), and most of them were combat veterans - including dad. All (or most, anyway) boys look up to their dads; I felt like I was in the company of giants during Thanksgiving or Christmas family gatherings. I know now that I was, though they would all deny it if they were here.

I visited the USMC museum at Quantico, VA several years ago. At one point in your tour, you turn a corner and find yourself walking down the fuselage of a Boeing-Vertol CH-46 "Frog" toward the open rear ramp. The end of the ramp is situated close to a sandbag wall with a couple of mannequins in Marine Corps 1960's-vintage fatigues keeping a look-out. There is a photo-electric cell crossing the fuselage as your start down it that trips a loud sound of helo engines and rotors; when you get to the top of the ramp you trip another one that sends out a recorded yell of "Incomiiiiinnnnnnggggg!!!!!" and the sound of a rocket approaching and detonating nearby. The display replicates conditions at Khe Sanh during the siege of 1968. I had a guide tell me he'd seen more than one veteran grab his wife, kids, and their spouses, or grandchildren and dirt-dive right on the spot with them in tow. Makes one wonder what could be done with that fuselage.