Can A Wellington Ever Fly Again?

For anyone still interested in this project, things are ticking along quite nicely now – a visit to Brooklands to meet Julian Temple and some of his colleagues proved very beneficial, with names, lists & potential leads all springing forth as hoped…and I left there in an extremely buoyant and positive frame of mind, with the “endorsement” from the Museum for this ‘build’ venture! OK, so an ‘endorsement’ isn’t a full pledge of support, nor is it full backing – but it’s just nice to know that the technical & moral support is there when we’ll need it…
I’m meeting with several people & sources now, in order to see what can be collected together and/or remade, and as it’s still very much a feasibility study, it’s obviously vital to know what we’ll be getting into in depth, before we start talking about finances, etc.
Still, it’s looking more positive than I’d expected in such a short space of time (even the Facebook Page now has over 660 “Likes”! Can’t be bad, eh?), so I’m persevering and searching wider & deeper.
Anyone else feel like chipping in, yet? 😉

Thanks for the tip-off, Stewart – I’ll look into it as soon as I get the chance! :eagerness:

Flixton Remains

I don’t know if it has been mentioned but I remember when I was younger my family and I used to visit the Flixton museum whilst on holiday in Suffolk each year. There used to be substantial Wellington remains in the corner of the second field but I am unsure if they are still there but could be potentially used for patterns etc if they still exist.

Good luck with this project and I hope it gets off the ground…

Stewart.

In truth, given the scarcity of Hercules engines (in any fit state for use, anyway), there’s a high probabilty that if the project gets going and we reach that stage, then we’d use whatever engines that were available that could be fitted (into a modified wing cradle, if need be) to look right. As has been suggested, Twin Wasp engines are more plentiful, and a version was produced with those engines during WW2, so it’s acceptable even to purists.
A Merlin/Griffon-engined variant could also be considered if the budget allowed (and if such engines could be diverted or prised away from jealous Spitfire builders! 😉 ), but morally, given that the vast majority of Wellingtons were radial engine powered, I feel that that should be the target when it comes to commemorating the majority of aircrew who flew in them; a minor issue, sure [and the detail won’t hold up a build-up if there’s really a limited choice], but a small point we’re trying to maintain.

The wings are another point for the “purists” – I agree that they really ought to be original-pattern geodetics, but again, if the only realistic (and perhaps stronger or even cheaper & safer to produce) alternatives are later Viking/Valetta/Varsity wings that look the right shape and would get the replica airborne (regulations allowing, of course), then I wouldn’t rule out that option, as very few people would really complain if they saw such a “representative” replica take flight.
In the end, I’d be just happy to see a close replica in flight rather than a collection of parts in static display, unusable because of too-strict project originality guidelines; how many other old aircraft are out there flying, using more modern technology for better production and quality? Plenty, I suspect!

I’ll know very soon if it’s at all feasible once I’ve started negotiating with various establishments; right now, I’m dealing with a few private issues and at the same time still “testing the water” with this project, but it’s certainly clocking-up a very encouraging following in a short space of time (over 600 “Likes” now on the Facebook Page, alone!), so I feel very strongly that every effort should be made to follow through to a “finished, working product”.

Just give me a little time now, and I’ll really start digging! 😉

The later Hercules engines are very different to the wartime example . Therefore to re-engineer them to fit anything that was designed to have wartime units takes a lot of money and design work. As to the Valetta wings -from memory they were offered to the RAFM and other parties -nothing was forthcoming so they went to the scrapman.

A flying replica isn’t a Wellington unless it is completely re-engineered like spits, hurricanes
Or mustangs, but recreating a static one woukd be very welcome and quite feasible. If various
Parties can be persuaded to cooperate.
Cees

Were the NEAM Valetta wings scrapped? The undercarriage certainly wasn’t – it’s been donated to a group in Germany restoring the ex-Schlumpf collection Viking. Certainly if you were making a flying replica, what would be the harm in having Valetta wings? It would look the part – even though it would be incorrect. The Elvington Halifax has Hastings wings – and they’re not quite 100% correct. But it looks good – certainly the best we’ll have unless the RAF museum does a full resto on its Halfax- which in any case is a different marque, with Merlins.

Alan Sugar in Stapleford??? Dammit! I’ve moved away from there, now – if I’d know that he frequents that airfield, I would’ve hung around there a bit… 😉

.aside from a Spitfire.

Thats the sad bit, wish i could get the money to get a Wellington back.

All it takes is money, find a UK equivalent of Jerry Yeagan, Paul Allen, Peter Jackson or Kermit Weeks.
The UK has plenty of rich guys, check out the cars at Goodwood’s Festival of Speed or Revival. All you have to do is get one interested in preserving UK aviation heritage…aside from a Spitfire.

Nip down to Stapleford and have a word with Alan Sugar.

All it takes is money, find a UK equivalent of Jerry Yeagan, Paul Allen, Peter Jackson or Kermit Weeks.
The UK has plenty of rich guys, check out the cars at Goodwood’s Festival of Speed or Revival. All you have to do is get one interested in preserving UK aviation heritage…aside from a Spitfire.

Hi All,
Just a thought aren’t there a number of crashed Bristol Freighters in Canada and Alaska ? and if I am not mistaken most still have there engines ?

Geoff

Certainly true about interchangeability after the parts are curved, but surely these aircraft were designed to be easy to produce? Logic tells me that you´d need to be producing long lengths of geodetic ribs and then curving them to fit. Once you have the tooling to both produce the ribs and to curve them, then i can´t see how it´s any worse than any other restoration? I suppose it all hinges on how the ribs were curved to their correct shape? Were they built over formers as the Mosquito? Seems doubtful.

Hard to say, James – I haven’t got to discussing those points yet with Brooklands – going down there in a few weeks’ time to find out! 😉

Love those “Britain From Above” links, too – what a shame they were all probably destined for the scrappy… 🙁

A time machine anyone ?
I have counted over 750 + Wellington’s in the pictures from http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/ at Little Rissington in 1946. If you go to the links the pics. are bigger & if you register you can then zoom in.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226790[/ATTACH]
http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/eaw006505?quicktabs_image=0#quicktabs-image

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226791[/ATTACH]
http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/eaw006506?gazetteer=Cotswold&ADMIN_AREA=Cotswold&ref=171

James D – the wing & fuselage geodetics will mainly differ in dimensions such as element length and curvature, so I would imagine that few parts would be interchangeable, given the compound curvatures throughout the aircraft; having said that, it could well be the connecting “gussets” on each cross-point that vary more, as they’re easier to mass-produce with stamping machinery, leaving larger or smaller gaps between elements, etc to give the longer & shorter “diamonds” (for want of a better description). I could also be quite wrong there, too… 😉
.

Certainly true about interchangeability after the parts are curved, but surely these aircraft were designed to be easy to produce? Logic tells me that you´d need to be producing long lengths of geodetic ribs and then curving them to fit. Once you have the tooling to both produce the ribs and to curve them, then i can´t see how it´s any worse than any other restoration? I suppose it all hinges on how the ribs were curved to their correct shape? Were they built over formers as the Mosquito? Seems doubtful.

James D – the wing & fuselage geodetics will mainly differ in dimensions such as element length and curvature, so I would imagine that few parts would be interchangeable, given the compound curvatures throughout the aircraft; having said that, it could well be the connecting “gussets” on each cross-point that vary more, as they’re easier to mass-produce with stamping machinery, leaving larger or smaller gaps between elements, etc to give the longer & shorter “diamonds” (for want of a better description). I could also be quite wrong there, too… 😉

…And thanks for that, Anne – I’ll look it up! I know of a chap quite close to me who probably has the book series in his own library, so I’ll go beavering through his shelves…

My I recommend that Sir frequents Messer’s eBay and looks for the 1943 Paul Elek Publications book titled “Aeroplane Production Yearbook and Manual (1)”. This contains a compilation of articles originally published in that first class periodical ‘Aircraft Production’ and will tell you all you want to know about the techniques used in the British aircraft industry during the early 1940s. Along with in depth articles on the construction of the Miles Master and Supermarine Spitfire there is, from pages 274 to 287, a very nicely illustrated article on the techniques used on the Wellington. If the thought of constructing of the rolling mill used to bend the geodesics into shape doesn’t scare you then you are a better person than I.

Anne

Sorry to put a damper on these pipe dreams but I believe the geodetic construction method used on the Wellington was extremely dependant on a huge resource of forming tools and jigs, each single length of lattice frame needed it own fixture to produce the correct curveture, not a real issue when the investment is recovered in building hundreds but for one it would be unviable. Richard

Is the shape of the geodetic ribs (for want of a better word) consistent through out the larger chunks of the structure of the aircraft? Or at least maybe restricted to two or three kinds? If so, then at least producing large quantities of them should be very easy, once you´ve tooled up to do it. Fitting them together, I agree, would be a tricky job, with lots of trial and error shaping by hand and hefty jigs, but that´s no different to any other airworthy aircraft restoration.
Do Wellingtons have complicated spars or are they also simple structures?
My Dad parachuted from one during the war, so I´ve always had an interest.

…And as I heard, they’ve also “tooled-up” for parts, apparently…so maybe – just maybe… 😉

Keep these ideas rolling in, folks – love ’em all!

The Brooklands restorers were luck to find quite a few sections of geodetic including a large section that had been used as an unlikely greenhouse