Vickers Wellington with very small wheels - Any ideas? - Dunlop "Compacta" tyre trials at Honiley 1945

[[email protected]]

A late model Wellington fitted with very small diameter wheels at some stage and also had some weirdness going on under the rear fuselage.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Looks like some of the German alternative designs for reduced rubber use. Looked for the topic but cannot find it.

 

[[email protected]]

Looks like some of the German alternative designs for reduced rubber use. Looked for the topic but cannot find it.

Could be, but in this instance I could see possible problems with prop clearance. Could it be small wheels fitted in the factory for roof clearance?

 

[Deleted member 2278]

How certain are you of the reg? BV461 was a Warwick ASR.I. There are photos of it in Aircraft Profile 229 at Brooklands, just prior to delivery. Your photo is defo a Wellington (the tail, no corncob exhaust etc.).

ETA: Aaah, you've edited I see.

Could it be temporary wheels for towing across the River Wey at Brooklands? I don't think those wheels would be viable with any kind of warload.

 

[Archibald]

The French industry also used similar tricks... "temporary" propellers and wheels for ferry flights... except the lack of coordination with subcontractors had the "temporary" coming to the frontline (!) I kid you not: MB-152s delivered to the frontline with fixed pitch wooden propellers, two blades... and then you wonder why France collapsed in 1940 ?

(my rant is over)

 

[Deleted member 2278]

While we are on the subject of Wellingtons, does anyone have anything more concrete on the Putnam tome's assertion that Alfa Romeo radials were considered for what became the B.IV?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Intriguing;- the Brits use of big (balloon) tyres was because of the large number of grass airfields at the beginning of WW2 This a universal requirement on all RAF designed prior to 42(ish). In reality paved runway airfields were built really quickly so almost no heavy bomber operations were conducted from grass. A paved surface offers an order of magnitude better load bearing (known as “floatation”) so the wheels & tyres could be a lot, lot smaller;- indeed the Wellington might look odd but I reckon its about right for a fully loaded operation when compared to post war tyre loading/sizing . A modification for smaller wheels and tyres can be quite “deep” ie note the reduced wing incident, which is critical for take off. So I think any proposal to fit smaller wheels/tyres to types in service came pretty low in the priority list. But maybe towards the end of the WW2 there was a let’s have a look at it, especially with the prospect of learning for peace time design knowledge. Example the Wellington had approx 6.5tons/tyre compared to the Vulcan at 4.6tons/tyre, the difference is quite marked.

Also the wheel brakes took advantage of the larger wheel to create a massive drum brake. The smaller wheels required new to aviation disc brake technology. Hence there’s quite a bit of technology development and learning that quietly went on in the late WW2 early post war period.

Also worthy of note;- Vickers, unlike many others, had their own landing gear design department. This means they’re ideally placed to undertake tasks where landing gear integration into the aircraft design is key.

 

[Wobbley Orange]

While we are discussing Wellingtons, a little while ago was watching a wartime film showing the aircraft being prepared for a raid. When it came to starting the engines, a ground crew pushed a rolled up engine cover into the exhaust until the motor started.

Can anyone throw any light on this practice? I assumed it was done to increase back pressure or such like.

 

[EwenS]

Intriguing;- the Brits use of big (balloon) tyres was because of the large number of grass airfields at the beginning of WW2 This a universal requirement on all RAF designed prior to 42(ish). In reality paved runway airfields were built really quickly so almost no heavy bomber operations were conducted from grass. A paved surface offers an order of magnitude better load bearing (known as “floatation”) so the wheels & tyres could be a lot, lot smaller;- indeed the Wellington might look odd but I reckon its about right for a fully loaded operation when compared to post war tyre loading/sizing .

The first paved runways were laid at Odiham and Gosport by the end of 1938 because they were particularly wet as grass fields. Only another 9 are known to have had one or more paved runways by the outbreak of WW2 with another 6-10 (my sources vary) fighter airfields authorised April / May 1939 to receive them in. During 1940/41 runway requirements continued to increase in length until in 1942 the Class A standard was set out which meant further increases in length to existing runways.

But it took some time to bring older pre-war airfields up to the new runway standards. Mildenhall and Waddington for example didn't receive paved runways until 1943 with Helmswell & Scampton in 1944 while the lesser used fighter airfield at Drem in East Lothian never did.

So there were plenty of bomber operations carried out from grass strips, which caused a problem during the winter seasons in 1939/40 and 1940/41 in particular.

The lack of paved runways leads to all sorts of ideas about catapulting bomber aircraft into the air (the Manchester was stressed for that) and arrester systems at airfields (not implemented).

 

[kitnut617]

How certain are you of the reg? BV461 was a Warwick ASR.I. There are photos of it in Aircraft Profile 229 at Brooklands, just prior to delivery. Your photo is defo a Wellington (the tail, no corncob exhaust etc.).

ETA: Aaah, you've edited I see.

Could it be temporary wheels for towing across the River Wey at Brooklands? I don't think those wheels would be viable with any kind of warload.

View attachment 678019

I've read somewhere that was what they were for, to save using production wheels because of a shortage at the time. It might have been in an Air-Britain article.

 

[[email protected]]

Looks like some of the German alternative designs for reduced rubber use. Looked for the topic but cannot find it.

Almost. The aircraft is BK461 used by Dunlop for trials of its "Compacta" tyres at Honiley in 1945.

 

[[email protected]]

More info at the references given http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Arts/Art8238.htm

 

[Hood]

While we are discussing Wellingtons, a little while ago was watching a wartime film showing the aircraft being prepared for a raid. When it came to starting the engines, a ground crew pushed a rolled up engine cover into the exhaust until the motor started.

Can anyone throw any light on this practice? I assumed it was done to increase back pressure or such like.

The film was Target for Tonight and wondered about that when I saw it. As the film was filmed during the last two weeks of March and the first two weeks of April 1941, I wonder if it might have been a cold weather starting procedure?

 

[Kevin Renner]

The French industry also used similar tricks... "temporary" propellers and wheels for ferry flights... except the lack of coordination with subcontractors had the "temporary" coming to the frontline (!) I kid you not: MB-152s delivered to the frontline with fixed pitch wooden propellers, two blades... and then you wonder why France collapsed in 1940 ?

(my rant is over)

The methodology of French aircraft production in the run up to WW2 was well and truely screwed up. Build the airframe to flying condition. Then ferry it to a seperste facility for weapons or radio installations. That's the type of thing a politician dreams up to spread the work around. It's one thing to have the subcontractors spread out and ship components in.

 

[Archibald]

The French industry also used similar tricks... "temporary" propellers and wheels for ferry flights... except the lack of coordination with subcontractors had the "temporary" coming to the frontline (!) I kid you not: MB-152s delivered to the frontline with fixed pitch wooden propellers, two blades... and then you wonder why France collapsed in 1940 ?

(my rant is over)

The methodology of French aircraft production in the run up to WW2 was well and truely screwed up. Build the airframe to flying condition. Then ferry it to a seperste facility for weapons or radio installations. That's the type of thing a politician dreams up to spread the work around. It's one thing to have the subcontractors spread out and ship components in.

You hit the nail on the head. Aircraft got out of manufacturing plants without onboard weapons nor bomb racks. That final job was to be done at EAA-301 in Chateaudun, central France (the air base later become France very own Davis Monthan boneyard, but closed in 2016).

The reason why that centralization of onboard weapons at a special place ? Pretty fun and unbelievable.

1936-1938 Air ministry: Pierre Cot, from a left government (Front Populaire). Who feared big aerospace bosses like Breguet or Block or Potez teamed with the far-right to make a Spain like miltary coup, July 18, 1936 - with military aircraft onboard weapons. And that's why onboard weapons were put under control of the Armée de l'Air EAA-301.

1938-1940 air ministry: Guy La Chambre, from a right wing government. Who feard communist workers snatched onboard weapons of warplanes and used them to make the revolution. Against them.

Can you believe that ?
- the left put onboard warplane weapons under EAA-301 control because they feared fascists bosses conspiring against them
- the right did the exact same thing for the opposite reason - they feared the workers, not the bosses - that communist 5th column !

 

[EwenS]

The French industry also used similar tricks... "temporary" propellers and wheels for ferry flights... except the lack of coordination with subcontractors had the "temporary" coming to the frontline (!) I kid you not: MB-152s delivered to the frontline with fixed pitch wooden propellers, two blades... and then you wonder why France collapsed in 1940 ?

(my rant is over)

The methodology of French aircraft production in the run up to WW2 was well and truely screwed up. Build the airframe to flying condition. Then ferry it to a seperste facility for weapons or radio installations. That's the type of thing a politician dreams up to spread the work around. It's one thing to have the subcontractors spread out and ship components in.

In Britain aircraft generally went from factory to Maintenance Unit where various pieces of govt furnished equipment would be added. That often included armament, radios, gunsights, radar sets or other role specific equipment. It would even include repainting the aircraft if need be (for example Coastal Command Mosquitos in 1944/45) if the standardised factory scheme were not appropriate for the theatre/unit they were to be sent to.

 

[riggerrob]

A similar thing happened during the first year of Hurricane production at Canadian Car and Foundry. Due to a shortage of Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, new production Hurricanes were completed at the Thunder Bay, Ontario (modern name) factory, test-flown, then engines were removed as they were crated for shipment overseas. Those Hurricanes were shipped to England without engines or propellers, with British-built engines bolted on when they arrived in England. Those same RR Merlin engines were bolted onto the next CCF production batch and the cycle repeated itself. After a year or so, Packard Merlin production caught up with demand and Packard Merlin engines were only bolted on once and remained on for the service life of the airframe.

 

[Archibald]

The French industry also used similar tricks... "temporary" propellers and wheels for ferry flights... except the lack of coordination with subcontractors had the "temporary" coming to the frontline (!) I kid you not: MB-152s delivered to the frontline with fixed pitch wooden propellers, two blades... and then you wonder why France collapsed in 1940 ?

(my rant is over)

The methodology of French aircraft production in the run up to WW2 was well and truely screwed up. Build the airframe to flying condition. Then ferry it to a seperste facility for weapons or radio installations. That's the type of thing a politician dreams up to spread the work around. It's one thing to have the subcontractors spread out and ship components in.

In Britain aircraft generally went from factory to Maintenance Unit where various pieces of govt furnished equipment would be added. That often included armament, radios, gunsights, radar sets or other role specific equipment. It would even include repainting the aircraft if need be (for example Coastal Command Mosquitos in 1944/45) if the standardised factory scheme were not appropriate for the theatre/unit they were to be sent to.

Well, if that process is a perfectly well oiled machine, then there is no reason it can't work. And the British did a perfect job there. In stark comparison, French warplanes from the 1930's were fucked up (sorry for the swearing) - fucked up from the RFP and drawing board to combat: from craddle to grave, every single step along the way was perfectly screwed up.

And I'm not exagerating. In fact the system was so broken, dysfunctional, and unefficient, many pilots and mechanics ended thinking "Can't be true. It can only be sabotage".
And thus were born the myths of the 5th column
France 1939-40 before the German onslaught was kind of
"The broken thing is FUBAR or SNAFU. Can't be negligence, can only be sabotage.
And thus...
"Communist workers sabotaged the aircraft
"Free masons sabotaged the aircraft
"German spies sabotaged the aircraft
"Jews sabotaged the aircraft
"Peace activists sabotaged the aircraft
"[enter convenient scapegoat here] sabotaged the aircraft

I kid you not: everybody was picking imaginary sabotages to try and rationalize what was, plain and simply, absolute stupidity or laissez faire.

Case in point: winter 1939 was horrible. Heavy bombardement squadrons were flying antiquated Amiot 143s (and in May they would still fly them in daylight to try and bomb that Sedan bridghead).
Those Amiot engines were rotten because the engine manufacturers were rotten, plants, bosses, managers included. And of course the cold made things worse.
So the engines were dismounted and send back to the engine plants for heavy maintenance.
When the engine came back they were still dysfunctional, if not more.
The mechanics were so baffled and pissed off, they could only think about "SABOTAGE". They just couldn't figure the engine shops were just rotten.

TBH, 1939 France was rotten to the core, at every level: from politics to the military leadership to the industry. It was a hopeless case.
The 1940 collapse was perhaps 20% of insane luck for the germans, 20% them being smart, and 60% of utter and absolute stupidity and inefficiency on the French side. Don't you ever starts me on Gamelin or Huntziger: they made Cadorna & Caporetto looks like Sun Tzu or Clausewitz brilliance.

(I'll stop there - sorry for the thread hijacking).

 

[Andy Jordan]

While we are on the subject of Wellingtons, does anyone have anything more concrete on the Putnam tome's assertion that Alfa Romeo radials were considered for what became the B.IV?

Hiya, Andy Jordan here, I'm a volunteer at Brooklands museum in Surrey, home of the Wellington. I've been doing a lot of research over the last couple of years and can confirm you are correct. At the time, airframe production was far exceeded engine production so Vickers looked at all alternatives. The Mk.IV was only produced for a limited run, 220 production aircraft in total. Engines considered were indeed Alfa Romeo but Anglo Italian relationships were getting a little bit strained! Also considered were the Pratt and Whitney R2600 double wasp (as used in the majority of Warwicks) at 46l and the Wright Cyclone 1820. It was finally decided to use the Pratt and Whitney R1830 double Wasp at 30l capacity on the MkIV. I hope this helps.