bolyman, that would be great (much, much more than great!). But remember it is structural component weights that I need: wing sections, tailplanes, fins, fuselage sections, wheels etc.
Mike

Forestfan, I’ve seen your thread. Unfortunately I don’t have any of the knowledge that you want. My interest is purely in the mechanism of the machine.
Best wishes & good hunting
Mike

The web here is a specific reference to the upper & lower wing spar beams and the sheet between them as here:

Sorry, Greg, but I don’t think a single machining instruction could identify this piece, whereas a design stressing value could do so.

Mike

To illustrate the subtleties that are causing me problems, here is a relatively unimportant issue. It might, of course, illustrate my inability to read engineering drawings.

Here is a section from your photo, Rob, for which many thanks.

Looking at the beam on the left, the outer face of the port inner beam, the apex of the triangular cutout has been extended or eased. The righthand beam, the port outer beam has no such extension of the apex.

Now look at a part of the Avro 5/O.2510 drawing.

I believe the two areas circled the drawing are where the casting (aluminium magnesium alloy DTD 900) has to be trimmed to prevent the slinging cable from chaffing.

The Avro drawing is itself confusing, particularly if you don’t read the bit about chaffing. But the dotted curves in the upper circle do suggest that the apex of the triangular cutout should rounded and extended on both sides of the beam. How to resolve this with the appearance in Rob’s photo, that is the question.

All four beams are either identical or mirrored copies except that the outer faces of the outer beams have a small further machining slot right at the top to give space for a big outer wing joining bolt.

Mike

I have Avro drawings for two very different variants of the beam. One was probably used for Manchesters and only very early Lancasters.
The early one was constructed with sheet and standard channels. The later one as above, the one that interests me, is a one piece casting.

As I said, I have the drawings but they have some very fine subtleties and it would be a great help to have photos to confirm these. There are plenty of photos showing the beams installed in the aircraft but unfortunately very little can be seen. I think it must be a beam out of the aircraft on the bench with photos taken at various angles in close-up. Perhaps I’ll get lucky with Canadian Warplanes Heritage as you suggested, Andy.

All the best and thanks
Mike

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