York CF-HMX

Mark,

The Halifax and Hastings centre sections are identical, it’s the intermediate wingsections that are wider than the Halifax’. The section over the centresection of the Halifax was called the covered waggon, not on the Lancaster. Nice thread by the way, keep it up.

Cheers

Cees

Cees,

I knew there was a difference between the Halifax and Hastings wing, I thought it was in the Centre-section, again due to the fuselage size, what was the reason for the difference in the intermediate section?

I use the term covered wagon to describe the fuselage section built integral to the Lancaster wing centre-section, I have heard its not a correct term for the Lancaster but it does seem to be recognised by others.

I suffer similar problems describing the next section of fuselage aft containing the mid upper turret, which I usually call the “centre-rear” fuselage, as against the tail section of fuselage containing the tail turret, I havent noticed a diagram applying actual names to these sections?

I guess I could resort to describing them via stations or formers?

smiles

Mark Pilkington

Mark,

The Halifax and Hastings centre sections are identical, it’s the intermediate wingsections that are wider than the Halifax’. The section over the centresection of the Halifax was called the covered waggon, not on the Lancaster. Nice thread by the way, keep it up.

Cheers

Cees

My remark was a little off the cuff, and I hoped to spark some debate on the subject wich you have now coverd.

On the subject of Lancaster sections, I was under the impression you had a Lancaster centre section with your project (please post updates) so thank you for dispelling that. What do you have ? The other section you mentioned is a rear section at Aeroventure (Doncaster) not far from Sandtoft.

The Halifax composite is at ELVington. I should note here I would`nt have the first clue where any where is in Australia never mind be able to spell it.

Thank you for your reply

Ben

Ben, in the Lincoln/Lancaster parts recovered from the UK there was only one complete Wing Centre-section, and that is the Lincoln Centre-section from RF342.

Two other sections of Lancaster Wing Centre-sections were recovered, but both with their wing stubs cut off flush from the fuselage, one from KB994 consisting of the covered wagon fuselage section, and the other consisting just of the spar webs and floor/bomb-bay.

The KB994 covered wagon fuselage section, along with the KB994 cockpit, and KB976 centre-rear fuselage were all shipped down-under with the Lincoln are all owned by a fellow enthusiast, in store for an eventual display outcome with a museum he is associated with, he has chosen to keep his identity anonomous at this stage, & I need to respect his wishes.

The other centre-section “floor” is with the Lincoln project at the Australian National Aviation Museum and is intended to supply spares for the Lincoln restoration.

In regards to the Lincoln, it is currently in temporary storage while other parts are sourced in Australia and overseas.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Mark
I always thought the centre section on both York and Lanc were essentially the same in size, both have a span of 102 feet.

Richard

Richard you are correct that both have the same 102′ wingspan, which bursts my assumption that the wider fuselage required a wider centre-section, it would seem either smaller prop tip clearances are existing on the York, (or shorter prop blades?) or that the York fuselage is no wider than the Lancaster, none of which I can confirm.

Even if the fuselages are the same width, the Lancaster fuselage has break points in front and rear of the Centre-section that leaves a Covered Wagon section in place across both spars, and the bomb bay forms the floor, other than the spars that section will be substantially different on the York.

The York centre-section will still be significantly different at the fuselage attach points, it seems it has the same fuselage break points, but the York wing is a top rather than bottom mounted wing, the Lancaster wing “appears” mid mounted but other than bomb bay doors there is little fuselage structure below the wing centre-section, and therefore the fuselage frames rise up from the floor line or base of the spars, where as the York must have the majority of fuselage frames extending down below the spars.

It would still be a major job to convert the York centre-section to Lancaster, and perhaps easier to work with other remanents.

Can anyone comment on the comparitive fuselage widths of the Lancaster and York?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

While the wing outer panels may be identical to Lancaster the York Centre-section is obviously of a wider span due to the fuselage width and significantly different in that area due to the high wing mounting and transport fuselage configuration, ie no bomb bay floor, no mounting for the covered wagon section of fuselage, and too wide for it in any case.

Mark Pilkington

Mark
I always thought the centre section on both York and Lanc were essentially the same in size, both have a span of 102 feet.

Richard

…..So clearly to undertake a Lanc you would need to access a centre-section, it seems the 2 Lancaster wrecks in Canada both have surviving wing outer panels but totally destroyed centre-sections, “Elsie” in Europe similarly has little surviving of its centre-section, and the Lincoln Centre-section in Canada is cut in two with one section un-accounted for?

Mark,

I recall a thread & photo here recently showing the very substantial wing/center remains of a Lanc in a museum in Germany. I think recovered from a lake after the war. I’ll see if i can find it…..

EDIT: Aha, here it is…

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=65661

.

My remark was a little off the cuff, and I hoped to spark some debate on the subject wich you have now coverd.

On the subject of Lancaster sections, I was under the impression you had a Lancaster centre section with your project (please post updates) so thank you for dispelling that. What do you have ? The other section you mentioned is a rear section at Aeroventure (Doncaster) not far from Sandtoft.

The Halifax composite is at ELVington. I should note here I would`nt have the first clue where any where is in Australia never mind be able to spell it.

Thank you for your reply

Ben

Use the wings in a Lanc rebuild and scrap the rest.

I’m not aware of any current Lancaster restorations or displays requiring a replacement set of wings?, and others exist in any case?

On the other hand I think a ground up new “Lanc rebuild” from surviving sections would be far more difficult than the York, and I dont think its any more viable to “scratch build” a Lanc as it is to restore the York.

While the wing outer panels may be identical to Lancaster the York Centre-section is obviously of a wider span due to the fuselage width and significantly different in that area due to the high wing mounting and transport fuselage configuration, ie no bomb bay floor, no mounting for the covered wagon section of fuselage, and too wide for it in any case.

While the Elphington Halifax survives with the wider centre-section of the Hastings, I suspect the Yorks wider centre-section would be very obvious in the finished “Lancaster”, and to cut and rebuild it into a Lancaster section would be a major work in itself, with little of the existing structure being used.

So clearly to undertake a Lanc you would need to access a centre-section, it seems the 2 Lancaster wrecks in Canada both have surviving wing outer panels but totally destroyed centre-sections, “Elsie” in Europe similarly has little surviving of its centre-section, and the Lincoln Centre-section in Canada is cut in two with one section un-accounted for?

Then you need a fuselage, again there is little if any fuselage sections remaining at the 2 Lancaster wrecks in Canada, or at “Elsie”, and there is only one other fuselage section surviving to my knowledge, the composite sections of KB994 and KB976 recovered down under as part of our Lincoln acquisition, however its rear fuselage remains in another collection in the UK.

I am not aware of any other major Lancaster fuselage sections that could form the basis of another Lancaster rebuild?

Of course there are still hundreds of parts beyond the wing centre-section, rear fuselage, nose, tailplanes, fins rudders etc that would need to be pursued, and hours of re-construction to produce such a composite Lancaster, and that would always be the runt of the litter of the remaining survivors.

Given the 2 Lancaster wrecks in Canada both have outer wing panel remains, the raiding of the York does’nt seem warranted in any case.

It would seem far better to utilise the York remains to preserve and display that types own heritage, either in the form of an “as -is” display, or a composite restoration with a rebuilt forward fuselage / cockpit section, although that would be a significant project in itself, and an FSM approach similar to the Elphington Halifax might be the outcome rather than an exact structural reconstruction?

do ALL wrecks have to be recovered?…. re ‘restorations’ you can wipe out a lot of history with a can of paint and a spray-gun …have you ever seen the Halifax displayed in ‘as found’ state in the RAF Museum?….however,I have to admit I’d be impressed if someone got the York out and into flyable condition, and I would say ‘Treasure of the Humboldt Glacier’ (the Kee Bird) is not only a top aviation documentary but it stands up as a great movie about endeavour!…. regards, longshot

Not all wrecks have to be recovered, and many have’nt been, and wont be, before the elements make them unviable to recover or do anything with in anycase.

There is merit in displaying some wrecks “as is” and the RAF Museum Halifax is a good example of the value in such displays as against leaving it in the lake, equally the Trenton example shows how the “restored” approach can equally deliver a good return on effort and still provide preserved history – the debate between the two approaches rages on in this forum elsewhere.

Given there are only two preserved Yorks surviving, that Yorks did play a role in post war air transport in Canada, and a Canadian museum has plans to recover it and preserve it in some way, I dont have a problem in supporting its recovery?, and certainly support that over it being parted out as Lancaster parts?

The recovery, preservation and display “as is”, or complete “restoration” via very substantial reconstruction of the forward fuselage would still seem a better use than letting it rot away? if there is a group with the resources and desire to do so?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Use the wings in a Lanc rebuild and scrap the rest.

York in the Wilderness

?? that attitude could apply to every flying warbird restoration, or every preserved airframe already displayed in a museum – if photos are enough for you?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

do ALL wrecks have to be recovered?…. re ‘restorations’ you can wipe out a lot of history with a can of paint and a spray-gun :)…have you ever seen the Halifax displayed in ‘as found’ state in the RAF Museum?….however,I have to admit I’d be impressed if someone got the York out and into flyable condition, and I would say ‘Treasure of the Humboldt Glacier’ (the Kee Bird) is not only a top aviation documentary but it stands up as a great movie about endeavour!…. regards, longshot

Good idea then.
In what timescale?
Cheers

Cees

Cees it is in care of a friend who is working on her eventual recovery.

Peter,

Where is that instrument panel now?

This would make a nice recovery training for the RCAF, This is indeed only the third York remaining and with a Canadian history. Perhaps something for Trenton? If they can reconstruct a Halifax then the Avro must be a breeze.
I always wonder why these wrecks are still out there, get it out fast (of course it takes time to organise an expedition and funding but other than that……..:rolleyes:)
Cheers

Cees

Mark, your pictures dont show,however I did go to that site and see them. The nose section remains are buried into the ground now. Something tells me there was a partial fire or something in the cockpit. The complete instrument panel was recovered from the ground. Interesting to see what happens and I wholly agree that there is enough there to repair and build on a new nose section to complete a York.

Why not leave where it is ? 🙂 We have the photos

?? that attitude could apply to every flying warbird restoration, or every preserved airframe already displayed in a museum – if photos are enough for you?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

York in the Wilderness

Why not leave where it is ? 🙂 We have the photos

.

Ruud Leeuw’s excellent website “Abandoned Planes of the North” is sporting two recent photos by Sean Barry taken in May 2009.

http://www.ruudleeuw.com/search116.htm

Although a massive job to recover, and significant forward structure missing, hopefully the VMFA can eventually recover CF-HMX and preserve it with a reconstructed forward section as the third Avro York survivor – still too much airframe surviving not to be worth the effort.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Lots of info here.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=62512&highlight=avro+yorks

Truc

thanks keith 🙂 i presume the remote location has helped with her survival so far?

ben

After lots of googleing ? can’t find any info about this one except in ‘ASN’ as below. Keith.

Date: 12 APR 1955
Type: Avro 685 York C.1
Operator: Arctic Wings
Registration: CF-HMX
C/n / msn: ?
First flight: 1945
Crew: Fatalities: / Occupants:
Passengers: Fatalities: / Occupants:
Total: Fatalities: / Occupants:
Airplane damage: Written off
Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Hall Lake, NU (Canada)
Phase: Unknown (UNK)
Nature: Unknown
Departure airport: ?
Destination airport: ?
Narrative:
The York struck a snow bank at Hall Lake.

Sources:

This information is not presented as the Flight Safety Foundation or the Aviation Safety Network’s opinion as to the cause of the accident. It is preliminary and is based on the facts as they are known at this time.