Vickers Windsor and Boeing Washington.

Forgot to say in my earlier post that really the geodetic construction technique was not very suitable for aircraft!it was similar to the structure which worked very well on the R100 .Even the Wellington had some idiosynchratic behaviour caused by geodetics although it was probably as good overall as anything else available at the time (not necessarily a recommendation!!)Most WW2 aircraft of course are viewed with affection by their crews and enthusiasts and I am not trying to upset anybody!!but really the Wellesley was big enough to point to flexing problems and I think it was a big mistake by Vickers to persevere with geodetics.

Thanks for everybodys input, it seems like there is a lot more history around this subject than I thought!

In early 1941 Very Heavy Bombers became both possible and necessary: possible as BIG Power moved, at last, from bench to wing; necessary for range India – Manchukuo/Japan, or for load over defences now starting at Calais. US initiated Consolidated B-32 Dominator (and B-36) and gave a back-up task to the junior bomberist, Boeing -at that time, near-bankrupt…but engineers on their staff invented means of pressurisation which worked (to be Garrett, licensed in UK to Westland’s Normalair unit). B-32’s did not.

In 1942 Ministers Beaverbrook and Llewellin were fired because UK could not deliver 1936 designs. UK abandoned really-Big Bombers, begged for US product, desperate to move up from Wellington, Warwick having failed. (The King’s Forces ultimately flew more B-24s than Stirlings). Vickers’ boss Sir Charles Craven was MAP Controller-General: he thwarted notions of a B-29 licence and extracted design funds for (to be) Windsor, as the ultimate geodetic exercise. RAE was highly dubious of “over-ambitious” fabrication techniques.

From November 1942 new Minister Stafford Cripps and new Chief Executive Sir Wilfrid Freeman caused (little) Heavies to happen – by firing Oswald Short from his own firm and threatening Fred HP with the same. Heavies then flowed from not-the-parent. Cripps rewarded Avro by funding Lancaster IV (to be Lincoln), but for Portal this modest-range type was to be an Interim. He caused Churchill to extract US acceptance of an RAF role v. Japan (to be Tiger Force) by endorsing the ability of UK’s prime armourer to build a real, long-range Paralyser. Cripps ordered 300 of them in June,1943, sight unseen.

In part because UK, then and later, stuffed up pressurisation; in part because Vickers allowed excessive “creative tension” between Barnes Wallis and lesser folk; in part because UK under-resourced/did not recognise the challenge of Systems – new power on new airframe with new (rotables):Windsor drifted. RAE/RAF never recovered confidence in Vickers, which is why (to be Valiant) was rejected in 1947, only admitted in 1948 as lead-in to proper Mediums. By March,1947 MAP had ceased funding any turboprop Windsor, and the Corporations had rejected civil variants. UK took Lincolns in the Empire-policing role (built to 1951!), awaiting high jets for a 1955 atomic Task v. USSR. Uncle Joe tried his luck in Berlin; SAC B-29s put him back in his cage. He did the same in 1950 in Korea, where they did not fare well v. Mig-15. Nor would even a Theseus or Clyde turboprop Windsor.

Nor would RAF’s Washingtons, but they were the base for Bomber Command to expand ready for jet Light and Medium Bombers. RAF received them free: US MWDP paid for them (and for 50% of the 104 Valiants). What UK retired last year was the 1947 US Reconstruction Loan, which itself settled the net of Lend/Lease.

I can’t remember which test pilot’s memoirs I once read, which referred to the Vickers Windsor – but by all accounts it was a shocker. I seem to remember some pretty horrible tales of in-flight flexing and generally nasty handling!

I’ve a feeling that it belonged to that long line of aeroplanes of that era that were “designed by commitee”. At very least it was never destined to be a success!

The choice of B-29s might not have helped the balance of payments (didn’t we just finish paying for them last year? :dev2:), but they probably prolonged the lives of some aircrew!!

As its a rainy evening, I wait for a storm of protest in the Windsor’s defence!! :diablo:

The windsor was given a few pages in ‘Wings of the weird and wonderful 2’ by Eric Brown.
During one of his flights in it he had generator drive failure on 3 engines,the hydraulic pump also failed and he only got 3 ‘greens’ after using the undercarriage emergency system,possibly caused by excessive flexing of the wings in rough air.
Looking at a photo of a Windsor there is virtually no ground clearance under the fuselage and therefore weapons loading may well have been a bit of a problem !!! A La Canberra !!
A fabric covered heavy bomber would have given our allies a good laugh post war anyway.
Bomb aiming would have been ‘interesting’ in bumpy weather, Eric Brown describes flying a Windsor in bumpy conditions as ” everything vibrating ,wings and fuselage flexing violently and the control column seesawing continuously with no corresponding control movement !!”

The very floppy flyin Whale!

OHHH AHH old floppy wing’s versus the 29!!(wash):rolleyes:

NO CONTEST!!:D

twas the right choice on the 29 I reckon;)

Sealord,

I’m not very familiar with the type, but on review of your link I note the pressurisation was dropped from the design before its first flight.

I assume in 1941 the Atomic Bomb and the need for high altitude and speed related to the exit of the delivery aircraft was not a known issue, and that therefore the primary reason for the pressurisation in the spec was related to the long range requirements of the design.

I therefore wonder if the design (unpressurised) was effectively overtaken by the intended Lancaster VI which later became the Lincoln, and that the ongoing development of the design from 1944 onwards was really a design exercise rather than any intention to enter production.

For its intended role of maintaining the conventional bombing of Germany in Europe the Lincoln was more than adequate (as was the existing Lancaster design which is why it remained in production and service and the Lincoln was held back from operational introduction).

The US had specifically developed the B29 to be pressurised for high alitude flying to achieve its long range to attack the Japanese in the Pacific, I dont know that in 1941 that the British designs of Windor or Lincoln would have been focusing on that need either.

However the pressurisation and high altitude attributes of the B29 permitted it to deliver and exit a nuclear bomb delivery, which the Lancaster and Lincoln could not.

By the end of 1945, the “need” for Nuclear delivery had been identified, but so too had the emergence of jet aircraft, the B29 Washington was a better aircraft to fill the “Nuclear standoff” stop-gap than the Lincoln, although the Lincoln did serve in some numbers post war in any case for conventional bomb capability.

I havent read any technical assessments of the Windors performance or design other than your link, but it did have some features that were problematic for others such as the remote 20mm gun barbettes on the engine narcelles, “quadruple” undercarriage that all would have risk of delaying introduction of a new type.

Your “what if” question of the viability of further development of the Windsor to meet the stop gap role would depend on two things,

one – what was the reason for the pressurisation being dropped from the deisgn in the first place?
two – how close was the design to practical introduction in 1945 when it was cancelled and the “Nuclear” requirement would have emerged?

20-20 hindsight would seem easy to agree with the historical decisions of the day not to introduce the Windsor into service in WW2 over the Lancaster or intended Lincoln, and to not proceed with it as a stopgap when the Washington could be acquired off the shelf.

regards

Mark Pilkington

I reckon a far better candidate to be a “British B-29” would have been the unbuilt Short S36 for the B8/41 spec, essentially a stretched “super-Stirling” with four Centauruses (Centauri??) Almost B-29 sized, but unpressurised and a lesser payload.

William

Interesting, thanks Scouse.

I reckon a far better candidate to be a “British B-29” would have been the unbuilt Short S36 for the B8/41 spec, essentially a stretched “super-Stirling” with four Centauruses (Centauri??) Almost B-29 sized, but unpressurised and a lesser payload.

William

Thanks for the reply, I must admit that I am kind of hoping for a stiff defence of the Windsor, it keeps things interesting.;)

I can’t remember which test pilot’s memoirs I once read, which referred to the Vickers Windsor – but by all accounts it was a shocker. I seem to remember some pretty horrible tales of in-flight flexing and generally nasty handling!

I’ve a feeling that it belonged to that long line of aeroplanes of that era that were “designed by commitee”. At very least it was never destined to be a success!

The choice of B-29s might not have helped the balance of payments (didn’t we just finish paying for them last year? :dev2:), but they probably prolonged the lives of some aircrew!!

As its a rainy evening, I wait for a storm of protest in the Windsor’s defence!! :diablo: