Wellington Bomber

This was because they were meant to work with the RAF Museum’s Ju 87, which wasn’t made successfully flyable in the end.,

How far did they get with trying to bring it back to life? What was the problem that defeated them in the end? Did they get it running?

Sorry for the derail!

You’re right of course, certification would be the real challenge but technically I think this approach would work. Where it would fall on the cost-versus-realism scale is hard to say, probably cheaper to go the CG route, especially if you needed more than one.

As for the aerodynamics the C-47 was quite capable of towing a Horsa glider so at least there would be ‘drag’ to spare.

I don’t see why the same basic approach couldn’t be used to produce a flying Wellington mock-up on a C-47 airframe.

I don’t know what the aerodynamics and more critically, the certification would be like. The cutouts to allow the props to revolve into the fuselage were significant. It was a viable project in Czechoslovakia, then, as a taxiing prop – a big paper/cost difference to a flyer – and not such a good idea now. I’ve seen a Norseman ‘rebodied’ as a parasol type in France for a film, but a mock Wellington on a Dak would be hard yards – certainly compared to CGI from a filming point of view.

Film companies have no obligation to give out accurate publicity, and are very adept at disinformation to generate interest as well.

The issue with the Battle of Britain film Ju87 was that the were Doras/Gustavs, not Berthas, and thus a type too late for the battle. This was because they were meant to work with the RAF Museum’s Ju 87, which wasn’t made successfully flyable in the end.

n/m means ‘no message’ when the text is all pasted in the post title in threaded forums. However ‘or are you just a prat?’ is personal abuse wherever it appears. Good manners reflect on the poster as well as the subject.

Regards,

Malta Story

My father was one of the Wellington pilots for the film. The aircraft were T10’s (NB113 & HF626) & the filming was at Luqa & Ta Kali in November 1953. The RAF crews were also “extras” in the film for which J Arthur Rank promoted my dad from Flight Sergeant to Flying Officer!

any reliable images anywhere?

what with the intinterweb and speed of communication these days I’d have imagined some images to have come out by now? anybody seen anything yet ?

Moggy,This was a sensible question seeking view abouts the potential to rebuild/replicate reproduce a Wellington Bomber

And mine was a sensible answer to a question from somebody who had read on a modelling forum that a Wellington was being built for a film.

What’s your problem?

Moggy

I think the RAF Hendon Wellington was filmed flying for ‘The Dambusters’ (not the ‘archive’ bomb-dropping scenes).

The Czech film was called ‘Nebesti Jezdci’ (Heaven Riders / Riders in the Sky / The Sky Riders) and was released in 1968.

I don’t see why the same basic approach couldn’t be used to produce a flying Wellington mock-up on a C-47 airframe.

The wings and tail surfaces were left unchanged on the Czech mock-up apart from the fin profile being changed. The fabric covered ‘Wellington’ fuselage was built over the original airframe and probably wouldn’t have produced significant extra drag. The drag, weight and effect on centre-of-gravity of the mocked-up nose and tail turrets and the modified engine nacelles could I’m sure all be brought within allowable limits. On the Czech mock-up the undercarriage legs were shortened but the gear was still able to retract (and during filming was used to simulate a crash landing during a fast taxi run).

Oh…..and I’d crop the propeller blades too! 😉

Then it would be a flying Wellington that wasn’t a model!:D

`

Saw a real one on T.V. yesterday afternoon, in the film “Malta Story”…….

(Jack Hawkins, Alec Guinness)

…seeing the actual actors in front of the ‘old-Girl’ & her ‘blanked-off’ front turret made me sad, bearing in mind the film was made in
1953 & I’d imagine the Wimpy was prob’ scrapped thereafter ????????

I could tell they’d used various stock footage in parts, but THIS one was “on the set” with various actors at the end, with Hawkins in front of it.

IIRC, it was right near the end of the film.

Maybe “the” last appearance by a REAL Wimpy in films ???? (1953)

(BTW, I KNOW “Dambusters” was 1956 , but IIRC the Wellington/beach scene was OLD footage grafted on….)

`

The film was made in the late 1960s. An article on the mock-up also appeared in The Aeroplane Sept 2001.

I remember a magazine article years ago about a Wellington mock-up built for a Czech film.

It was built over a Soviet ‘C-47’ and could be taxied under the power of the original engines, but not flown.

My recollection is that, on the ground at least, it looked very convincing.

it was in one of the earliest issues of Air International – when it was still known as Air Enthusiast International before the quarterly Air Enthusiast came out

It was a good representation – IIRC one compromise was the need to build channels into the side of the new outline to give the prop blades the necessary clearance.

I remember a magazine article years ago about a Wellington mock-up built for a Czech film.

It was built over a Soviet ‘C-47’ and could be taxied under the power of the original engines, but not flown.

My recollection is that, on the ground at least, it looked very convincing.

….Lets just hope it looks better than the BoB Stukas
Moggy

Some of the Ju 87 models made were pretty good. Can’t remember from the film how accurate the flying models were only that, when they were blown up, it was VERY obvious they were models

Roger Smith.

If I remember there was a large scale model Wellington on display at Legends this year, Perhaps that’s the one or a new build.

Nothing wrong with posting witty comments JM-you will get plenty of others with serious ones!-for what its worth- anything is possible given enough money-but i can’t see anyone doing such a thing just for a film when a large model or a CGI rendition these days would work just as well

Moggy,

This was a sensible question seeking view abouts the potential to rebuild/replicate reproduce a Wellington Bomber

Do you have some sort of personality complex that requires you to try and appear cleverer and wittier than others?

or are you just a prat?

No doubt you will remove this thread and ban me like everybody else who find you rather tiresome!

Maybe that’s what ‘n/m’ means in the Hyperscale world?

Moggy

what if it wasn’t a model?

Then it would be a flying Wellington that wasn’t a model!:D

what if it wasn’t a model?

A model? Perfectly possible.

Lets just hope it looks better than the BoB Stukas

Moggy

I would have thought the Wellington was the last bomber on earth to be considered as a ’40s nuclear weapons platform, it’s bomb bay was made up of many small sections and useless for large weapons. May have been considered in some related research.

The RAF had Mk 14s (my fave of them all), and as far as I know that is the highest mark number applied. However I do find the Wellington Marking system very confusing as 14 Marks of the Wellington didn’t go into service.

Edit, there was a Mk 19 aswel,but I think it was a conversion from previous Marks.

Did you know, there were more Wellingtons built than any other British bomber