Fly Again, Wellington!

Can be done in 30 hours!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlVLZ230iFs

Hehe……..

“…As for your thoughts on a flying scale Wellington…

Well, Vega – I did say it was just an idea! ::highly_amused: It did raise a few smiles, as you can imagine…but as the old adage goes, “Nothing’s impossible…” (Just damned expensive!) That idea would very much be a last-ditch effort if all other avenues became closed…

Time will indeed tell if this whole plot becomes viable; we do have reservations, sure, but we’re determined to at least have a good go at it, and hopefully get it snowballing by taking it just one decent step at a time and grow it however we can.

Thanks again for the comments – all opinions are valid! 😉

“I would expect the far larger and significantly more complex Wellington to have a drawing set in the 50K to 100K range.”

Possibly, however given the limited numbers of draftsmen (even then) and the difficulty of calculating these complex shapes, i think it was likely that a lot of parts suffixes were numbered ND, ie not drawn…. These can usually say “refer to pattern” in the text on the assembly drawings.

He’s a museum owner, SADSACK, and paid far too much for it (though he did buy a lot more secondary stuff with it), so he’s understandably seeking to recoup some of his expense. Time will tell, and he might relent one day… 😉

Vega ECM – Each channel was rolled from flat through an array of rollers, each altering the eventual C-shape into a curved length that was pre-set into the micrometer gauges on each adjuster wheel – effectively, the rolling machine was the “Grandaddy” of all CNC-type machinery in use today… designed, built & used in mass production long before computers were even invented. There were about 10,000 drawings of the complete Wellington – no idea how many for the airframe alone – but every section was made separately in the rolling mill, then fitted into a jig and rivetted together.

Those butterfly connectors were aluminium pressings, and the outer connector plates were stamped out by the thousands…

The old joke of “300,000 rivets flying in close formation”, eh? 😉

A year or two ago I copied twelve thousand individual detail drawings (known as A schemes) for the Hawker Tempest and Typhoon for a fellow forum member. From the missing numbers in the sequence and missing cross references on the drawings it was clear we had significantly less than 50% of either type. My guess is the Typhoon (A) scheme drawing set is about 12K drawings and the Tempest around 14K drawings. A complete Spitfire drawing set is often quoted as 12K drawings.

Given that these small and structurally simple aircraft have drawing sets which are in excess of 10K, I would expect the far larger and significantly more complex Wellington to have a drawing set in the 50K to 100K range.

I remember seeing WW2 period pictures in Aircraft Engineering which shows large geodetic sections being rolled and stretched formed as assemblies. I guess this could be post processing the curved structures after removal jig to correct the inherent spring which must have been a nightmare considering so many compound curved parts being forced into their final shape during assembly. (Even if you thought they had been shaped correctly) I’ve seen similar post processing on welded sheet metal assemblies to recover the final assembly to a set repeatable tolerance.

As for your thoughts on a flying scale Wellington.

At present the CAA can grant a P2F on a non annex 1 type if they are satisfied you are rebuilding an original aircraft (can be as little as a data plate) to an original type design. For the latter you will need as a minimum;- airworthy original parts or a complete drawing set from which to produce parts that exactly match the drawing or non-airworthy original parts in such a condition you can justify the production an exact airworthy copy.

Anything else is a new aircraft type.

As we are fully signed up to EASA, a new aircraft type automatically type falls firmly under their regulations. You need an IR21 approved design authority. The LAA can help with this but only up to an A/C that weighs up to 2400lbs. Above that your on your own. New A/C types must to comply to CS-23 and fitted with engines that comply to CS-E. Mandatory testing includes non flying structural test specimen(s), a system rig, component part testing such as landing gear drop tested, and new types engines run to destruction.

Although, without the regulation knowledge it might sound attractive, honestly it will be an order of magnitude cheaper to rebuild an original A/C.

BTW I love the idea and enthusiasm

Any interest generated by this project is welcome. The wellington was the backbone of bomber command. And it seems to be largly forgotten despite being the most built of British types.
If I remember correctly the Brooklands team formed all geodetic sections by hand using a press and wooden blocks to prevent distortion. Perhaps they still have these.
Cheers
Cees

Sadsack -the intention with the TFC Beaufighter from the start was that she would fly with later mark Hercules engines . There has never been a lack of these units at a reasonable price -the engineering challenges in making a Beaufighter fly with this type of Hercules far outweigh the difficulty in getting hold of them! So no I don’t think there is any truth in that story.

I cannot get my head round these people who would rather hang onto an item than see an aircraft fly again.

Thats true to some extent, and in this case you may have a point. But it also depends on how other parties have treated you in the past. For instance if you have asked to do a deal on something that they’ve had and they have said no – then I can’t see why that attitude should change when the need is reversed !

Rob

I thought it was Barnes Wallis carrying over his Airship structural design experience into aircraft.
…..
As for it being no better than metal semi monocoque, I’m not sure I agree but it depends on what grounds you make the judgement. I understand that its lighter but its more expensive(time consuming). If you look around its still in use today on light weight structures albeit not fabric covered or fabricated from numerous parts.;- check the by pass casing on the EJ200, many composite structures and it’s the basic fuselage structure proposed for Reaction Engines Skylon.

Yes and no (or do I mean “no and yes”?). The Vickers airships were not geodetic construction, although apparently his experience with those set his mind thinking on the subject.

Composite structures often use diagonal reinforcement of a load-bearing skin. Nowadays the skin is integral to the structure, so in that sense it is not geodetic as originally understood. Rather the diagonal following of a curved surface is argueably an incidental rather than primary feature.

He’s a museum owner, SADSACK, and paid far too much for it (though he did buy a lot more secondary stuff with it), so he’s understandably seeking to recoup some of his expense. Time will tell, and he might relent one day… 😉

Vega ECM – Each channel was rolled from flat through an array of rollers, each altering the eventual C-shape into a curved length that was pre-set into the micrometer gauges on each adjuster wheel – effectively, the rolling machine was the “Grandaddy” of all CNC-type machinery in use today… designed, built & used in mass production long before computers were even invented. There were about 10,000 drawings of the complete Wellington – no idea how many for the airframe alone – but every section was made separately in the rolling mill, then fitted into a jig and rivetted together.

Those butterfly connectors were aluminium pressings, and the outer connector plates were stamped out by the thousands…

The old joke of “300,000 rivets flying in close formation”, eh? 😉

I cannot get my head round these people who would rather hang onto an item than see an aircraft fly again. For example Beaufighter engines, which are extremely rare, and unless I am informed wrong, TFC tracked a pair down to somebody who wanted a ridiculous price for them. What use are they in a packing crate? Who else is likely to want them? If it wasnt for the engines she would probably have flown by now.

If the owner of the tail section is an enthusiast doesn’t he want to see a Wellington run up again?

My understanding is that all the struts in geodetic construction are formed from standard section strips. Each strut has to be rolled to curve and twist it to match its particular location in the airframe. As a method of construction it works for larger, fabric covered aircraft such as the Wellington, but that aircraft type is probably pushing the limit both in terms of the size and speed geodetic construction can be applied to. Essentially it offered no advantage over stressed skin construction and only gained limited acceptance because stressed skin construction in metal on larger aircraft was not well understood in the UK at the time the Wellesley was conceived.

I thought it was Barnes Wallis carrying over his Airship structural design experience into aircraft.

Were the individual detail parts rolled to fit into a assembly which means they would each be a horrible compound curve or was the assembly made flat and then rolled/pressed to the required curved shape in 10 foot long sections?

As for it being no better than metal semi monocoque, I’m not sure I agree but it depends on what grounds you make the judgement. I understand that its lighter but its more expensive(time consuming). If you look around its still in use today on light weight structures albeit not fabric covered or fabricated from numerous parts.;- check the by pass casing on the EJ200, many composite structures and it’s the basic fuselage structure proposed for Reaction Engines Skylon.

By-the-way – PowerandPassion – you asked about the connection between geodetic cross-points? Here’s a photo of the joint – as far as I’m aware, it’s the same as the Wellesley in principle, though might be slightly beefed up as the “MK2” descendant of the Wellesley (design improvements, etc…) – I believe this piece is ex-L7775, too – hence it’s twisted damage…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]234673[/ATTACH]

Thanks, chaps – all comments very much appreciated!

Well, I had set up that Facebook Page nearly two years ago, but left it quiet until we got our house sale & move dealt with. During that first unpublicised year, it gained a tiny 32 “Likes” from friends…but as soon as we had settled and tidied up, I edited its ‘mission statement’ to: “Can a Wellington ever fly again? Or is it just a flight of fantasy?”, and started sharing the Page to other Groups and Pages across that website as far and as fast as I could manage, just to test the public waters on a bigger scale than I could here; effectively, a discussion topic and a taster – that was all I had in mind, to begin with…

Amazingly, after less than one full year, it’s clocked up just under 2000 “Likes” – a figure that has staggered me, somewhat, but continues to encourage me (and my mad mates) to dig deep and cast around for help right across the globe, seeking advice and even spares, crash site locations – anything we could think of that might bear fruit, somehow – and I have to say that I have been greatly encouraged to keep going and trying, no matter how large or small this “project” may become, so much so that I later set up a Facebook Group, “Wellington Preservation Group”, to take care of those with a more enduring interest overall in the background interest in all the other smaller targets that we have in mind. That, too, has gained members at an astounding rate – 560+ at the latest count – and not all have crossed over from the other Page, to judge by the names lists.

Thus far, I have made contact with a decent technical adviser in CAA, received copyright permission from BAe (very recently, after a long search for the right person), set up ‘alliances’ with all manner of very experienced and helpful aviation restoration experts & technicians, metals suppliers, manufacturing companies – especially a firm that’s happy to roll off the channel sections required for the geodetics, which will bring down the overall complexity of our own rolling mill design somewhat to that of a channel-curving machine, effectively (though we’ll still be able to roll our own, if you’ll pardon the expression!). We’ve also established very good relations and moral support/working rapport with Brooklands Museum and others (with particular thanks to JT at Brooklands, for their ongoing support as things are progressing in ever-bigger stages between us), so we’re looking very positive for technical advice and support as we go.

The Facebook Page has listed a few ideas that have floated through my mind during this past year, ranging from a small to big ambitions. The initial idea of a mock cockpit for taking around to various events and shows has been gradually developing in my mind, and is aimed to give people an idea of what it would have been like to ‘fly’ a Wimpy – to be achieved, partially, by building-in a flight simulator set-up with one (or more) LCD screen(s) covering its canopy, using something like Microsoft’s FSX simulator (already donated!) fully connected to the control equipment, so that visitors can have a go at crashing a digital Wellington 🙂 amongst other things; I’ve even got a dummy front turret in mind to keep the kids (and smaller persons!) entertained by having a go at “daggadaggadagga!” playing…

I mentioned developing a serious interest, too, in a large-scale radio-controlled Wellington; there are several out there already, and the new owner of a fully-geodetic 1:4.5-scale Wimpy has expressed great interest in the idea of supporting the ‘project’ as well as he can manage…and another fully-geodetic 1:5th scale (all aluminium) Wimpy is on another drawing board, ready to go in a couple of years’ time. My interest with those stems from an idea that I had when watching US Air Force drones in action, recently – why not fit out such a large scale model with a set of cameras, installed in the pilot’s eye-view, and in both turrets? Make those cameras also movable on R/C gimbals to be operated by others on the ground, while the pilot is left to concentrate upon the delicate task of flying safely – and add to those cameras, another smaller one right up on the tail tip, all being projected on TV screens on the ground (perhaps inside the mock cockpit) for spectators to really enjoy a “flight”, as near exactly as it would have appeared to the crew in a real aircraft – in my mind, a very good “fall-back” option should a real flying Wellington prove to be unattainable, after all; indeed, it might prove to be the ONLY way we might experience what it was like to enjoy a Wellington in flight…

On the subject of “real” aircraft – flying or not – I have conferred with many technicians and engineers about various legalities and issues regarding design, building, flight and other connected, important issues, and everyone agrees that firstly, a full-scale exact reproduction of a Vickers Wellington would be extremely expensive (as everyone knows, anyway!), but technically ‘doable’, given umpteen years and sizeable donations from someone like Richard Branson or maybe Sir Peter Jackson, etc; not impossible, but certainly stretching the realms of possibility and probability…Until I mooted the notion of a scaled-down replica – say, about 2/3rd size – built to original design criteria & shapes to look exactly the same, but be constructed of modern composite materials in representation of the original design – things like honeycomb sandwich boarding, latticed carbon fibre, higher grade but thinner alloys, etc., etc. – and all of a sudden, I started getting “Hmm, yes…now I like the sound of that – much more achievable, given today’s technology…”
Well, that last notion is bound to upset rivet counters and purists, but still, it’s a workable option if an exact replica in original materials becomes unlikely… We’ll see – I’m in no rush to push that boundary.

…Leaving us with the growing likelihood of a ground-rolling replica, developed from copying existing parts, artefacts, wreckage (for patterns) & drawings – probably ending up with a MkIV, as I’ve been reliably informed by very knowledgeable sources that there are still plenty of Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp radials around the world – some still new in crates – thanks to the continuing maintenance and use of DC3s and a few C47s (plus a whole pile of other potential source airframes). I’ve also found a good reference source for parts universally-used in other aircraft similar to the Wellington, too, so we should be able to find enough non-airframe parts and piecemeal sections of geodetic panels to furnish it out (says he, hopefully, with fingers crossed…).
Maybe, perhaps, possibly, other establishments might offer to provide us with those wings & bits elsewhere as the project progresses – it’s a nice dream, but you never know – so it’s increasingly possible that we could construct a rolling memorial using many parts from crashed Wellingtons, each piece fitted into a structurally-sound tubular skeleton (as originally conceived from the very outset), and every bit commemorated and identified with a small plaque dedicated to the memory of those who perished at whatever crash site the relevant part came from.

L7775 has been espoused several times; as you know, the wings are at East Kirkby, and although I’ve contacted the museum, no promises have been made in any way, except initially for purpose of measurements & copying. The tail section at Moreton-In-Marsh…actually isn’t there any longer, but is now in Stratford Armouries Museum – and is NOT, in fact, from L7775, but from a crash site in Yorkshire. However, although the current owner offered the entire collection of tail-end parts recently, he wants a King’s Ransom for it, so unless he changes his mind, it’s out of reach… 🙁
Maybe, if we need a substantial lump of a tail section later, we might ask the Laird of L7775’s resting place if we might acquire it, as it’s still up there; maybe an option…but it isn’t that important; patterns and drawings are available for the tail section, etc. (though it would be nice to have such a chunk in place from an original).

Anyway – enough of the goal-setting; it’s been one heck of a brain-storming twelve months, and a colossal amount of discussion and negotiation has been going on in the background as more ideas have been floated, mooted, discounted, modified, expanded and discussed, and useful discoveries made – but we can do very little indeed until we get that base workshop, so that is our absolute priority, and we should be attending to that goal very imminently.

Thanks for your time and interest – please keep in touch, and keep your fingers crossed! 😉

I am more of a Vickers Wellesley type guy, but I wonder if anybody could educate me on the makeup of the geodesic construction method used in it and the Wellington. Is it based on cast aluminium cross pieces which are joined by roll formed aluminium straights ? Are the lengths or curvature of the straights the method by which the geometry altered to allow you to construct wings and fuselage out of common elements. Are the straights L3 duralumin ? What DTD or BS material are the cross pieces made out of ?
……. 🙂

My understanding is that all the struts in geodetic construction are formed from standard section strips. Each strut has to be rolled to curve and twist it to match its particular location in the airframe. As a method of construction it works for larger, fabric covered aircraft such as the Wellington, but that aircraft type is probably pushing the limit both in terms of the size and speed geodetic construction can be applied to. Essentially it offered no advantage over stressed skin construction and only gained limited acceptance because stressed skin construction in metal on larger aircraft was not well understood in the UK at the time the Wellesley was conceived.

…but all we need initially is a workshop big enough to house a forward section of a Wellington fuselage, for copying and working (and yes, a geodetic rolling mill is in CAD design, ready for manufacture when we’re ready), so SOME plans are rolling… (Excuse the intended pun! 😉 )

Oddly enough, the CAA have responded quite positively, and BAe haven’t said “No”, either, so I don’t rule out the future wish of airworthiness.

Hello Barry!

Nice to see that you have approached the CAA and BAE Systems…..at least you are realistic about flying!

I am also very pleased that you mention your geodetic rolling-mill and CAD design capability; it is evidence that you have something more concrete than just a ‘plan’ and a facebook page! One of the great problems of the internet is that a ‘project’ can assume a far bigger profile than it warrants…

…the other great problem is that one can shoot one’s mouth off on a forum and forget that the person one is insulting can read every word one has written!!! 😮

I would say that the approach to start with an authentically constructed replica front fuselage is a sensible approach; start small and grow at a rate that only adds a burden the project can support. You’d be surprised how ‘big and obsessive’ some small hobbies can get! 😉

Personally, I’m a bit of a purist when it comes to preservation or ‘resurection’; I like to see things replicated exactly as they were in the original airframe. I also think preserving the skills and techniques of aircraft manufacture is as important as commemorating the deeds and sacrifices of those that served.

Once again, good luck with your project…

…and you can be assured that we are watching with great interest!

I think in terms of pure vision and ambition in restoring WW2 combat aircraft, New Zealand and Canada have led the charge.

In the UK we seem to devote much of our efforts into popping out more and more Spitfires ( just like the war :p )

No offence whatever to our New Zealand friends, but their exchange rate vs the dollar has pushed their industry to the fore at the expense of our own.

The work they do is very, very good, but is arguably no better than ours.

Personally, I think a Wellington is achievable, with the right backing. Its a relatively simple aircraft, for which there is a fair bit of information available. There is plenty of crash wreckage around, both in the UK and on the continent, and enough surviving documentation that it would be technically possible.

As ever, money and enthusiasm are the keys. With the right proportions of both, you can do anything.

Bruce

I think in the UK we have more naysayers than the other countries put together.

The naysayers of the United Kingdom stood alone in 1940 and refused practical accomodation with Hitler. The eccentrics of the United Kingdom laboured in spite of discouragement and setback to produce the Britain First, the sleeve valve engine, the Mosquito and the Merlin to restore parliamentary democracy, rule of law and justice to Europe. The United Kingdom is never greater than when its naysayers and eccentrics find a way of working together. Often it takes an external threat. Try being kinder to each other. Start building the thing. Start with a bolt.

I am more of a Vickers Wellesley type guy, but I wonder if anybody could educate me on the makeup of the geodesic construction method used in it and the Wellington. Is it based on cast aluminium cross pieces which are joined by roll formed aluminium straights ? Are the lengths or curvature of the straights the method by which the geometry altered to allow you to construct wings and fuselage out of common elements. Are the straights L3 duralumin ? What DTD or BS material are the cross pieces made out of ?
Maybe a single engine, smaller Wellesley would be a good trial run for a Wellington……. 🙂

Exactly. It’s important to have dreams but it’s equally important to have a healthy dose of pragmatism. I hope something comes of this enthusiasm and drive, whatever it is

How do you define “naysayer”? Presumably one who says a project cannot and will not succeed for a list of viable reasons.

But those of us who wish the project well and would dearly love to see any new warbird airborne but who for perfectly valid reasons do not believe it will happen are not in the same category – or perhaps we are in your definition of the word.

Either way Barry’s huge enthusiasm and optimism for his project has to be applauded and whether eventually he produces a flying or a rolling Wimpy makes little difference to what he and his supporters will have achieved.