Wellington Bomber, BBC4 now

[N Dentressangle]

Just a quick heads up...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tr2p5 if you missed it.

Edited by N Dentressangle on Wednesday 29th December 23:06

[Simpo Two]

Disappointed to note that some workers used the war as an excuse to go on strike and demand higher wages...

[Eric Mc]

Human nature doesn't change - even when there's a war on.

It was a very good programme. I watched it earlier in the year but watched it again tonight.

[Simpo Two]

The other thing I thought was 'Would I rather fly a bomber that's been thrown together in a few hours, or one that's been built properly?'!

[Eric Mc]

Simpo Two said:

The other thing I thought was 'Would I rather fly a bomber that's been thrown together in a few hours, or one that's been built properly?'!

It wasn't REALLY thrown together in a few hours. Much of it had been pre-assembled in advance and then dismantled again prior to the attempt on the record. It was a propaganda and morale stunt so the reality of what they were doing wasn't really told at the time.

Apparently, unlike many of its Wellington brothers, that particular aircraft survived the war and was only broken up for scrap after 1945. So, it does seem they screwed it together fairly well.

[Simpo Two]

Eric Mc said:

Apparently, unlike many of its Wellington brothers, that particular aircraft survived the war and was only broken up for scrap after 1945. So, it does seem they screwed it together fairly well.

Or the flak kept missing it and nobody flew it into a hill in fog!

One question occured to me whilst watching... if the geodetic construction was so great, why wasn't it more widely used? Cost?

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 30th December 16:00

[Eric Mc]

Simpo Two said:

Eric Mc said:

Apparently, unlike many of its Wellington brothers, that particular aircraft survived the war and was only broken up for scrap after 1945. So, it does seem they screwed it together fairly well.

Or the flak kept missing it and nobody flew it into a hill in fog!

One question occured to me whilst watching... if the geodetic construction was so great, why wasn't it more widely used? Cost?

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 30th December 16:00

Almost definitely.

It was quite labour intensive to manufacture and made the structure stronger (and therefore heavier) than it really needed to be - something the aircrew who flew it certainly appreciated.
As far as I know only three aircraft used the system, the Wellesley, the Wellington and the Warwick.

[Semi hemi]

Eric Mc said:

Simpo Two said:

Eric Mc said:

Apparently, unlike many of its Wellington brothers, that particular aircraft survived the war and was only broken up for scrap after 1945. So, it does seem they screwed it together fairly well.

Or the flak kept missing it and nobody flew it into a hill in fog!

One question occured to me whilst watching... if the geodetic construction was so great, why wasn't it more widely used? Cost?

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 30th December 16:00

Almost definitely.

It was quite labour intensive to manufacture and made the structure stronger (and therefore heavier) than it really needed to be - something the aircrew who flew it certainly appreciated.
As far as I know only three aircraft used the system, the Wellesley, the Wellington and the Warwick.

And the Windsor, but not sure if it really got past the prototype stage. it appears not

edited to add the link..

Edited by Semi hemi on Thursday 30th December 18:26

Edited by Semi hemi on Thursday 30th December 18:27

[Eric Mc]

I forgot about the Windsor - but it never entered production.

[Semi hemi]

Eric Mc said:

I forgot about the Windsor - but it never entered production.

I wonder why...
"The Windsor used Wallis's geodetic body and wing structure that Vickers had previously used in the Wellesley, Wellington and Warwick bombers. Instead of doped Irish linen however, a stiff and light skin was used on the Windsor, made with woven steel wires and very thin (1/1000 inch thickness) stainless steel ribbons, doped with PVC or other plastic, specially designed to avoid balloning. To properly fit the skin to the frame, a tuning fork had to be used.

The wings' structure had no spars. Instead, it was a single hollow geodetic tube from tip to tip, passing through the fuselage truss. To better resist the compression and tension efforts, the elements were assembled at 16 degrees next to the root, reverting to the more conventional ninety degrees on the tips, longitudinal elements locking everything in place. The elements' thickness was also reduced towards the tips. No two joints had the same angle on the wing, an authentic production engineer's nightmare.

The wing was designed so that the tips had a noticeable droop on the ground, but was straight in flight, so the skin had to be fitted tighter on top than on the bottom to be evenly tight in flight."

Wiki