Vickers Windsor

The quoted use of Light Green/Earth is interesting – there has long been speculation that the daytime ‘special’ Lancasters has these colours rather than their ‘Dark’ equivalents (although at least one pic shows no difference between a ‘special’ and it’s night-time ‘standard equivalent IIRC)

I have an image scanned from Janes Fighting Aircraft WWII (Fwd: Gunston) of the P prototype with definitely very bright undersides – despite being black and white, it has distinctive camo markings.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224330[/ATTACH]

These seem to corroborate exactly with the other image above, despite being the “other” side view, if you try to follow the locations and angles of the dark over the top of the fuse. Although the undersides from the previous image almost look white.

I had to get the wife to hold the large book on the scanner/printer and is a wee bit on a cant, but it worked 😉

In agreement with the Dark Earth/Green with Yellow undersides as the specification for 1944 bombers/prototypes (AP 2656A Vol 1 Sect 6).

Putnams (1988) ‘Vickers Aircraft since 1908’ by CF Andrews and EB Morgan (ISBN 0-85177-815-1) have b/w photos of DW 506 & NK136 which appear to corroborate this, BUT! There is also a photo of NK 136 without the nacelle barbettes in what appears a dark grey/green camo. Even the prototype ‘P’ is toned down or is it just dirty.:)

I knew I’d seen one from an irrefutable source! All colours clearly genuine and untouched. 😀

Thank-you all very much for your replies and comments. I also go along with the idea of Green/dark Earth (with trainer yellow undersides) – it was just that there are several models of the aircraft on other Forum Boards which show the aircraft in Grey/green camouflage which got me thinking that maybe they knew something I didn’t!!
Again, thanks
Andy F

as Graham said, it most certainly was painted green/brown/yellow.
somewhere there is a colour photo of it, not colourised but genuine, where it is I don’t know but how I keep finding things this year I will soon have proof.

There’s no AM instruction for such aircraft to be in other than Dark Green and Dark Earth. Other than a query about the Light Earth you mention, I’d be strongly inclined to go with the actual documentation rather than some artwork of unknown provenance. I suspect the Sky undersides is simply a mistake: for very high altitude bombers the RAE had developed a darker colour called Deep Sky. There is some dispute as to whether the early B-17s were painted in this colour or the similar PRU Blue, but Yellow was indeed the correct colour for prototypes.

From looking at the pictures I’ve got (Aircraft of the Fighting Powers Vol 7) I’d say the two aircraft pictured (DW512 and another, presumably DW506 going from the cowling shape) were both in green/brown prototype finish with yellow undersides, but obviously they’re black and white so I can’t be too dogmatic.

Edit: Just seen some impressions of the Windsors with green/grey above and both sky and yellow undersides, just to confuse matters!

Thanks, Paul178 – that is what I suspect also,,,
ttfn
Andy F

You might be better off posting this in “Historic” My guess(and it is only a guess) is Dark Earth and Green with yellow undersides.

RE: Picture at last

Hey, don’t knock the Beverly or the flying tit, ooops sorry Argosy, i grew up with those around me, i can still hear the Bevs droning now.
Ahhh happy days.

Phil

RE: Picture at last

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-03-02 AT 07:00 PM (GMT)]I think that this aircraft is beautiful considering we had things like the Blackburn Beverly etc etc. If you look at any of the transport planes of that era then they all look pretty ugly. Or what about the Argosy. Just another ugly bird or is there a hidden beauty. Remember Beauty is only skin deep.

Regards Merlin

RE: Picture at last

You reckon? I say the Baracuda is forgiven compared to that thing!

RE: Picture at last

>Gawd its hideous!

Certainly doesn’t give the DH Hornet much of a run for its money, but stand it next to a Fairey Barracuda and its true beauty emerges 😉

Moggy

RE: Picture at last

Gawd its hideous!

RE: Picture at last

>Scanned from Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2
>
>Moggy
thanks for pic and info mark

Picture at last

Scanned from Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2

Moggy

Attachments:

RE: Vickers Windsor

If you can get hold of them, the May 1985 Flypast had an article on the Windsor and the November 1985 Flypast had an article from one of the pilots on flying it. Another later article had pictures of the “pieces” of a prototype lying around Grove.

RE: Windsor, a question & picture on the way

OK, found one.

Can’t get to a scanner at the moment so you’ll have to wait, However I have found an interesting oddity about the aircraft.

The wing was a fairly conventional 4 engine affair like the Halicaster, however EACH of the engine nacelles came equipped with a retractable undercarriage unit. Four wheels plus the tailwheel.

(Sudden mental image of turning off base leg at Scampton calling “P for Popsie is finals for Two-Six, Five greens”)

Now this means that the track of the aircraft was around 50ft.

Now the standard taxiway width was? You guessed it – 50 ft. So not much margin for error trundling a bomber heavy with fuel, explosives and nervous crew around on a dark and stormy night.

I think I know why Barnes Wallis did this. Anybody care to speculate?

Moggy

RE: vickers windsor

Is this the one where the prototype came to grief at Grove, Oxon. If so, Flypast had a feature including pictures many years ago, might be able to source more photoraphs from there.