It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain copies of this magazine in Argentina owing the in effect import embargo on personal stuff. Some one who knows my interests passed me the following page for my comments.
As I have a stock now of some 25 thousand Avro drawings I am well aware of the frightful problems of trying to make an adequate & comprehensive index of the Avro drawings.
The young lady who prepared the above page is to be commended, but the people who set this task seem to be unaware of the difficulties. Let me show you.
The first item on the list above is for sub-parts 12 & 13 of D.1648. Now D.1648 has an enormous number of sub-parts, 150 of components plus all the stringer parts for the front centre section of both Manchester & Lancaster, probably also at least some for the Lincoln & Shackleton.
What is clear is that it is not a part of the Mk 1 Vulture engine.
Here is the drawing 12 & 13 D.1648.
And here is the heading extracted from that.
The heading shows in which drawings these parts are used:
D.1772 Type 679 Manchester + Mk 1 Vulture
D.1773 Type 679 Manchester + Mk 1 Vulture
D.3190 Bill of Materials (BoM) for Front Centre Section sheet 2
D.1773 Attachment of stringers in Front Centre Section
Here is the reference in the BoM D.3190:
Remember, my eyes are used to deciphering illegible Avro details. Notice they are described as “packing washer” LH & RH.
Here is drawing D.1773 which applies to both Manchester & Lancaster.
And here is a detail extracted from D.1773 to show the actual use of the two parts from 12 & 13 D.1648
Notice this applies to stringers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of former 1 of the Front Centre Section. The purpose of the washer is to improve the installation of the bracket D.1992 which joins the front end of the stringer to former 1. Nothing to do with Vulture engines.
OK, I have successfully identified the part 12 & 13 D.1648. What did I need to be able to do:
1. time
2. a very large stock of drawings to be able to trace through.
3. Knowledge & experience of doing the tracing.
I doubt Flypast have a very large stock of Shackleton drawings. They don’t have the time or experience to produce a worthwhile index.
The only way to do this is for all those who have what might be called a stock of drawings to collaborate together and commit probably a year or two of their time to this task. Even then there will be some drawings that are missing.
That’s the way to do it. But I don’t think it will happen.
Sadly
Mike
By: MikeHoulder - 9th July 2015 at 01:51
Rich,
16 tons! It may be that you have something very precious. Amendment sequences for a particular drawing number. In general, only single versions of any drawing number are preserved. A single drawing preserved, D.1649 for example, maybe the end result of 20 or so different amendments, each as a drawing having been issued under the same drawing number D.1649 but with different dates and where all except the last have been discarded.
To have the whole time sequence of the amended drawings for, say, the interaction of the transport joint, former 6, with the front spar would be a Godsend. This is probably the most complex part of the whole Lancaster design. Studying the sequence in order of time would give a real opportunity to be aware of & to understand the various design decisions made in the course of development.
Mike
By: richw_82 - 8th July 2015 at 21:48
Hi Mike,
No problem I just wanted to emphasise we are aware of the task we face. Its sixteen tons… Not six!
There is a card index system and we’re working to get it computerised. We also have the modification and repair drawings as well as all the schedules, for all the marks of Shackleton. There are also bits of Lancaster, Lincoln, Tudor, Ashton, Argosy and others – due to the crossover in the design of the wing.
The original posting of the photo in your initial post on this topic was on our Facebook page and it was used to illustrate where the various bits of Shackleton evolved from.
We hope at some point to be able to make a lot of what we have available for research purposes though it will have to have the liability statements attached to any copies of drawings.
Kind regards,
Rich
By: MikeHoulder - 8th July 2015 at 21:21
Thank you, Rich, for your kind reply.
I made one incorrect assumption, that the list was one recently produced by Flypast. Though that was reasonable in view of the short description I had read.
The only beliefs I expressed were:
I doubt Flypast have a very large stock of Shackleton drawings. They don’t have the time or experience to produce a worthwhile index.
I think these are almost certainly true and are not a criticism of Flypast. It’s how life is for a busy monthly magazine.
I wanted to show that that single entry was wrong and to give some idea of the labour & method involved to correct it.
I’m sure with your six tons of Shack drawings on paper you are well aware of the labour.
How on earth are you going to index them? Or was an index supplied in the deal?
My best wishes
Mike
By: richw_82 - 8th July 2015 at 20:19
Mike,
That list was posted on Flypast, the Shack drawings don’t belong or reside with them, they are with us at Coventry. That particular sheet was compiled 20 years ago by a volunteer and we know it to be way out of date and incorrect in places. Its also one page of about 300 that cover the copies of drawings we hold which are in numbered bundles, currently taking up most of a 12ft x 12ft room.
We’ve asked Michelle (our new archivist) to redo the lists and so far in the short time she has been with us we’ve managed to successfully find and provide all the necessary drawings to Airfix for their new kit… so something is working.
The harder task will be going through the 16 tons of originals held in fireproof boxes. Some of it was used fairly recently for the Lancaster re-spar. Some hasn’t really been touched since the 1950’s.
With respect to what you may believe, we bought the Shackleton archive complete from BAE. There are omissions from blueprint copies but the originals are complete sets. It was part of the deal to acquire design rights and as such we have no desire to integrate it with any other archive; as it will make it from difficult to manage, to impossible. It would also render null and void parts of the contract of sale of the rights.
Kind regards,
Rich Woods
Shackleton Preservation Trust
Sign In
July 8, 2015 at 7:25 pm