Brand new Wellington bomber?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Old Man helped build Wellingtons at Brooklands then Smith's Lawn [Pressurised Wimpeys I think] and dammit I can no longer prise [very reluctantly from him] any info about Vickers/Barnes Wallis/Wellingtons/Warwicks and Windsor Prototypes. It took nearly 35 years to find out he was saved from injury by being in between two massive American lathes when bombs were dropped one lunchtime.
I would love to see a Wellington airborne again, replica notwithstanding.
I remember being in the garden of our house in the Avenue Sunbury on Thames and seeing a very low flyby of a Wellington with very little canvas aft of the Port wing trailing edge and some strips trailing behind the tailplane fluttering in the breeze. Heading for Heston or Feltham Air Park I expect. About 1943 Late Spring.
Exciting times for young lads back then.
I would love to see a Wellington airborne again, replica notwithstanding.
I remember being in the garden of our house in the Avenue Sunbury on Thames and seeing a very low flyby of a Wellington with very little canvas aft of the Port wing trailing edge and some strips trailing behind the tailplane fluttering in the breeze. Heading for Heston or Feltham Air Park I expect. About 1943 Late Spring.
Exciting times for young lads back then.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot
Just a tidbit of information.
June 2nd 2014. Barrie, Ontario (McDonbalds) :-).
Vet was sat there at 06:00 in his uniform. Chatted to him. He was Flt. Lt. George Mitchell and was one of the Windsor pilots for Barnes Wallis.
He also flew on the 3 Tirpitz raids with Number 9 Squadron.
June 2nd 2014. Barrie, Ontario (McDonbalds) :-).
Vet was sat there at 06:00 in his uniform. Chatted to him. He was Flt. Lt. George Mitchell and was one of the Windsor pilots for Barnes Wallis.
He also flew on the 3 Tirpitz raids with Number 9 Squadron.
Reality-Check.
Frankly, I just can't see this happening, and doubtless those who have raised this in this forum will be the same as those who have raised this elsewhere on the web. It's not impossible, it's just not feasible or realistic financially. End of. It'd be very expensive to build, operate and hangar. If it did happen, realistically-speaking, it'd need to be a 'rebuild' anyway, but it's pretty pointless speculating, as no one is going to fund it. Too much money, - too little fun.
Don't forget, we have lost REAL Sunderland's and Mosquito's because no one in the UK wanted to fund them.....!!!
Don't forget, we have lost REAL Sunderland's and Mosquito's because no one in the UK wanted to fund them.....!!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ex-EUROCONTROL land
Age: 75
Posts: 97
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsor aircraft
BrianJC
Sorry to put a dampner on your post re the veteran who flew the Windsor for Barnes Wallis. I have a listing of all flights undertaken by the three aircraft (DW506, DW512 & NK136) but there is no mention of a pilot of that name flying/working for BW. Did he mention where he was stationed?
regards
IFPSman
Sorry to put a dampner on your post re the veteran who flew the Windsor for Barnes Wallis. I have a listing of all flights undertaken by the three aircraft (DW506, DW512 & NK136) but there is no mention of a pilot of that name flying/working for BW. Did he mention where he was stationed?
regards
IFPSman
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The group that built A1 Pacific 'Tornado' were a hard-headed bunch, with professional legal, business, and financial folk leading it (not just steam-heads!). They are about to commence a Gresley P2, and I expect it'll be running before too long.
But a Wellington? Why? And what would you do with it? As has been said, could you construct a business plan to justify the cost?
If it's to be done 'just for fun' with no business case for it to 'wash its face', then I'd think a Wellington would be well down most aviation enthusiast's list. It's not attractive, it didn't excel, it was wobbly and flexible. It was soon outclassed.
But a Wellington? Why? And what would you do with it? As has been said, could you construct a business plan to justify the cost?
If it's to be done 'just for fun' with no business case for it to 'wash its face', then I'd think a Wellington would be well down most aviation enthusiast's list. It's not attractive, it didn't excel, it was wobbly and flexible. It was soon outclassed.
Aviate1138: I'm aware of the assembly of Wimpeys at Smith's Lawn, but where did construction of the parts take place? Years ago I read a book called 'Beneath the City Streets' which mentioned an underground aircraft factory under Wentworth Golf Course which as you're probably aware, isn't too far from Smith's Lawn, so could it have been there?
(Thinks - purely imaginary - if you could find the entrance to this factory, would you find tooling/jigs/parts still there?)
(Thinks - purely imaginary - if you could find the entrance to this factory, would you find tooling/jigs/parts still there?)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ex-EUROCONTROL land
Age: 75
Posts: 97
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD (and others
The Wellington was the mainstay of BC from day 1 of WW2, until the first of the 4-engined "heavies", the Stirling, entered service in January 1941. The re-hashed manchester aka the lancaster, didn't enter service until February 1942.
The Wellington was the only British-built bomber to see continuous service throughout WW2, and was in continuous production (over 11,000 built) from the late 1930's until October 1945. By comparison, there were only 7300 or so lancasters produced.
By and large, the Wellington was under-rated - it was the only viable means of attacking Germany to any degree AT THAT TIME. Give it the recognition it deserved........
Andy IFPSman
The Wellington was the only British-built bomber to see continuous service throughout WW2, and was in continuous production (over 11,000 built) from the late 1930's until October 1945. By comparison, there were only 7300 or so lancasters produced.
By and large, the Wellington was under-rated - it was the only viable means of attacking Germany to any degree AT THAT TIME. Give it the recognition it deserved........
Andy IFPSman
That will be the Campaign Against Aviation, will it? Use better modern glues, and probably more stable timber, but you cannot fly it because it won't fall apart as quickly...........simples.........
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
And it was still in service in the '50s.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(over 11,000 built) from the late 1930's until October 1945. By comparison, there were only 7300 or so lancasters produced.
They started building Wellingtons a lot earlier than Lancs so 'course there were more made (I'd have expected the difference to be greater given the Lanc's late arrival in comparison).
So many crashed (EFATO was often fatal) that they had to be replaced.
The Lanc was far more effective so fewer were needed.
The Lanc was a far more sophisticated bomber so took longer to produce.
Etc, etc.
It's a bit like the old saw that BoB was won by the Hurricane, not the Spit since far more of the former took part. True, but only because the RAF didn't have enough Spits at that time!
Sorry, the Wellington was 'all we had', but that doesn't make it particularly good.
