Talk:Vickers Wellington/Archive 1

Archive 1

Add the Book Pastoral by Nevil Shute

Suggest adding the book by Nevil Shute, Pastoral, 1944, to the "In Popular Culture" section. It is all about the Wellington and has some great descriptions of the plane in combat. He states, btw, that the crew number was 5: Pilot, co-pilot/navigator/bombadier, wireless operator, and nose and tail gunner. Tony (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of personnel?

I thought the crew compliment was more than six. Does that include the bomb aimer, the flight mechanic etc? Thanks!

My father was the Pilot of a Wellington at RAF Stn. Honeybourne on a night training mission. He crashed on 17 November, 1944 with all killed at Abby Farm near Broadway Worcs. Records given me showed a crew of four, now buried at Brookwood cematery, Surrey. Anyone who might have furthur information, log books, station flight records etc. should contact me at odyssey2001@sprint.ca or bountyhunter2001@hotmail.com Thanks, Per Ardua Ad Astra 149.99.132.187 01:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The text says that the fuselage was made up of "steel channel-beams...". Can anyone confirm that this is true? Steel constructional members in an aircraft would make it very heavy. Peter Maggs 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have checked out the Wellington at Brooklands museum. The "channel beams" used in the geodetic construction are quite definately aluminium alloy and not steel. I have changed the text accordingly. Peter Maggs 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnes Wallis

Like every British person I have seen The Dambusters, in which the fictional version of Barnes Wallis claims to have designed the Wellington. This article leads off by saying that the Wellington was designed by R.K. Pierson, which I do not doubt; but Wikipedia's article on Barnes Wallis does not mention R K Pierson, and it would be great if someone will more detailed knowledge than myself could go over both articles and make it clear who designed what. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

---

To be honest, I actually think Barnes Wallace DID design the Welly bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.243.169 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wallis at the time was Chief Structural Engineer on the Wellington. The Chief Designer was R. K. "Rex" Pierson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone with time, please check and add this info to article.

1. Geodetic/geodesic design was by Barnes Wallis. Fuselage was mostly fabric over aluminium "basket weave"

2. Alternative name was the "flying cigar".

3. Production costs and time for the geodetic frame were twice that of monocoque types.

4. The Merlin engines were problematic and gave inferior performance c.f. the Bristols. This was probably due to insufficient clearance between the wing and the rear of the engine. RR recommended at least 24" of clearance. (The Hawker Tornado had about 2" of clearance ... that's why you've never heard of it!)

5. The exhaust collector ring was the front edge of the cowling and was made of brass. Usually left unpainted. The bare brass is obvious only in colour photos.

6. Max loaded altitude was less than the 18000' reach of the German 88mm AA guns. Wellington and Sterling raids confined to night only. (Halifax with bombs could reach 18000'.) Both a/c removed from raid duty over Europe when the 88mm became radar aimed. (It is rarely mentioned anywhere just how effective this gun was.) Wellingtons were used as defensive gunships and pathfinders for the massive night raids by Lancasters. The a/c could reach 18k' without a bomb load.

7. MkIII and later turrets were Fraser-Nash power types. Early Vickers turrets were useless and were quickly replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.77.67 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester or Broughton?

Can anyone tell me why the plant is referred to as Chester? If it's the present BAe Broughton, I think Broughton is a much clearer description in this context. JRPG (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Broughton is on the outskirts and only a few miles from the centre of Chester so neither are wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No that is incorrect, Broughton is not Chester, in fact it's not even in England. It's in Wales. BAe Broughton should not be referred to as Chester, it is near Chester but it is Broughton in North Wales. The site is also known informally as Hawarden Airport. So the above statement that neither is right or wrong is in fact wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.135.118 (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Broughton is Chester it has been known for years as De Havillands/Hawker Siddeley Chester factory mainly by the company. Not saying the factory is not at Broughton and is sometimes refered to as Broughton but a lot of documentation just refers to it as the Chester factory. Why you ask because it is at Chester, as any original research with a map would show it is less than five miles from the centre of Chester. Agree it is in North Wales but only a mile inside the England/Wales border. Hawarden (or sometimes Chester Airport!) is the associated airfield but the name is rarely used for the factory itself. So Chester and Broughton can both be correct for the factory but Hawarden should really be used for only the airfield. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but you are muddying the issue. irrespective of the company's name for its sites, anyone who does not know this area will think the site is in Chester and it is not. I live a few miles from Brougton and it's in North Wales and no where near Chester. The AVRO company might have called it Chester 70 years ago, but that has got nothing to do with the real location. It's in Broughton, North Wales. The article on Broughton, Flintshire clearly states the factory is there and not in Chester. The site is now known as BAe Broughton not BAe Chester. Without clarification, the use of the name Chester is anachronistic, as if by the same token the discussion of places in Ireland should be done within the context of Great Britain and Ireland of the 19th century (see the Derry-Londonderry naming disputes as guidance). BTW there is no such as place Chester Airport, it's Hawarden (Chester) Airport. Note Chester is in brackets because no one calls it Chester Airport. It's actually Hawarden - Chester was only added three to four years ago for marketing purposes, the local paper reported that the airport was rebranding itself to attract more private aircraft by adding Chester to attract more people off the back of Hollyoaks. Naming like this is common practice in the aviation industry e.g. London as in London Stansted Airport or London Gatwick. Besides it's very probable that the factory was known as Chester in contemporary literature at a time when national sensibilities were not high priorities or Sat Navs. The factory is in Broughton, Wales not Chester, England. This is the same error as Stockport when it is still placed within Cheshire today, but under the major changes of the 1974 local goverment act, it was moved into Greater Manchester. 86.169.5.100 (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that this just an article on an aircraft not a geography lesson, despite what you say it is and has been for many years been known as the Chester factory particularly during de havilland times and some of the sources used would use that name. As a compromise I have tweaked the text to read Chester factory (located at Broughton in North Wales) which I hope will keep us both happy. When I lived in the same area many years ago it was normal to say to the where is that question as near Chester (but that may have been because nobody could understand what Clwyd was). MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of geography, it is now crystal clear that the Broughton and Chester factories are one and the same. For what its worth, I worked for 15 years on MOD projects and had only heard of Broughton. Thanks for sorting it. JRPG (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing some local history research, the reason it was called the Chester Factory was because there were many small businesses that had been turned over to airframe construction, for instance several small coach builders in Chester built the wings for the Wellington. These were then taken along Saltney High Street by flatbed lorry to Broughton for final assembly to the airframes. Wings were also made at other sites around the district. This means "Chester" was a euphemism for an area where various private businesses contributed to the overall production of a single aircraft. An from Blackpool of the same thing.

RAFM Wellington is away

The RAFM Wellington is not there, readers will be disappointed if they go especially to see it!! Should be info about its restoration on their site, I tried just now but had a '404'. Entry needs updating to suit. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Loch Ness plane

When the plane was lifted from Loch Ness, the tires were still inflated and the running lights illuminated when power was connected to the wiring. Amazing condition after being submerged for so long. Bizzybody (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Colour outline comparison chart.

I think the Whitly and Hampden are mixed up.The Hampden was the smallest of the three types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.163.253 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnes Wallis

While Barnes Wallis did design the geodetic construction used in the Wellington, he was not the designer of the airframe. The single 1951 source cited is not enough to contradict the multiple other sources identifying Rex Pierson as the aircraft designer. Scr★pIron^IV 18:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And I have now added an unimpeachable source to that effect as an inline citation. Scr★pIron^IV 19:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A 1952 Flight article on Pierson here: [1] which includes his aircraft designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 9 Squadron in Formation 1939-45.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)