This discussion has been closed.
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Friday 14th January, 2011. GMT 0954
Re: AVRO Manchester.
Is there any truth to the statement that the AVRO Lancaster was designed and built as a pre - production model in 1940 after a draughtsman at Rolls - Royce / DERBY redrew the twin engined AVRO Manchester as a four engined heavy bomber?
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
The Lancaster was at first called the Manchester Mk2. I think it was AVROs chief designer (Camm?) who saw that the design was sound but the plane was under powered. The engines in the Manchester were not Merlins and the aircraft struggled to fly on one engine, a must for an aircraft flying over flack filled lands. An interesting thought. What happened to the Manchesters?
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
, in reply to message 2.
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Friday 14th January, 2011. GMT 1655
Re: AVRO Manchester.
I was led to understand that only 24 / repeat twenty - four AVRO Manchesters were built between 1934 and 1937. Five of them were converted into AVRO Lancasters in 1940. The first one of which, the so called pre - production model was named S for SUGAR and took part in the bombing of Lubeck; a Hanseatic Port on the North German Coast. As far as I understand only 3 / repeat three AVRO Manchesters survived the second world war. An interesting point to note is that 1 / repeat one AVRO Manchester was seen at RAF Kinloss in 1987 and was thought to be on its way to RED POINT on the West Coast of Scotland.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Hi David… following your thread with interest here and reading everything I can get off the net… what on earth was an aircraft of that size doing bound for Red Point…?
There are no airfields… I doubt there’s a flat enough area large enough to land a kite… it is without doubt a very remote spot… which is why I like it, or was it a maintenance flight on a round trip…?
Kind regards bandick.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Sorry David, your figures are well out. 200 were ordered on 1st of July 1937,another 200 in September 1939, but then the order reduced to a 157 total. 11 Squadrons plus no 25Sqd. OTU. (Forgotten Bombers Ken Wixey)
GF
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
, in reply to message 5.
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Saturday, 15th January 2011
Saturday. 15th January, 2011. GMT 1207
Re: AVRO Manchester.
As far as I understand there were never more than 5 / repeat five AVRO Manchesters in a flight during the second world war. 25 Squadron RAF Bomber Command was indeed an OTU (Operational Training Unit) but there was only 1 / repeat one squadron in action. 106 Squadron RAF Bomber Command was commanded by Guy Gibson from April 1942 until it was converted to AVRO Lancasters in late 1942.
The figures you quote may be correct as far as the intention of the War Office but the build never took off partly because the MOTOR or flight characteristics weren't acceptable to AVRO. The production plant in Manchester was turned over to AVRO Lancaster construction in January 1940.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
David, I don't know where you get your facts from, but I've double checked mine and my figures are nearer the mark. What's with the repeat business?
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
A simple search will show you that the figures for all Manchesters built was nearer 200 built. 20 were Mk 1s with the centre fin. The rest carried the same tail layout of the Lancaster.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
It wasn't simply the difficulty of flying the Manchester one one engine, it was also that the Vulture was one of three R-R runts produced in WWII. Good job the Merlin and the Gryphon weren't as bad as the Eagle, Peregrine, and, worst of all, the Vulture.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Neither of the Red Points repeat RED POINTS in the Highlands seem to have anu aeronautical or military significance so I also cannot understand why an Avro Manchester would be seen going there from Kinloss.
The main runway at Kinloss is very visible from a road, if such an unusual aircraft had been there then I am sure someone would have got a picture.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
What's with this red point repeat red point thing? There is no need for it, as most of us get the point first time.
GF
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
re Sidney Camm - surely he was the Hawker designer, not the Avro one? Wasn't that Chadwick?
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Urnungal. Of course you are right. Maybe I should have written Camm, repeat Camm and I would have gotten away with it. LOL
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
As far as I understand only 3 / repeat three AVRO Manchesters survived the second world war.Â
I believe I saw one flying over Liverpool c1958. It was quite low so it may have been heading for Speke Airport. Squarish fuselage. I was amazed and thrilled to see it.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Squarish fuselage sounds more like a York than a Manc to me. Take a look at
The three 4-engine heavies (I'm leaving the Lincoln out of this) had rather different design histories. The Stirling was originally to have used the Sunderland's wing, but the Air Ministry insisted that the span was reduced to 100', which impaired its performance by quite a margin, we've been through the story of the Manc/Lanc, but the one which does seem to have been changed from twin Vultures to a 4-motor design was the Halibag. From my reading on the subject, it sounds as though Handley-Page heard the rumours about the unreliability of the Vulture, and recast the design off their own bat before going into production.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
An hour or so after posting, it came to me! It wasn't an Avro Manchester I spotted but an Avro York - the passenger version of the wartime Lancaster. Sorry folks.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Has anybody seen the Halifax that was built from spare parts/Hastings parts? I know a big fuss was made over its roll out. (I wonder if Haynes had brought out a Build your own Halifax book?)
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
, in reply to message 2.
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
The chief designer at Avro was Roy Chadwick.
Both the Manchester and the Halifax were originally designed around the RR Vulture. The Vulture was an X configuration engine, approximately four cylinder banks (six cylinders each) from the earlier and very successful Kestrel engine combined around a new crankcase. The main (but not only) problem with this engine were the big-end bearings, where the connecting rods from four cylinders transferred their power to the crankshaft. The design of the master rod bearing, asymmetric and held together by bolts, was insufficiently strong. Failure of a big-end bearing tends to have catastrophic consequences, with loose connecting rods slashing through the crankcase. The lubrication system also generated problems.
Although changes in design and production practice reduced the number of problems, complete redesign would have been necessary to allow the Vulture to run reliably at higher powers. The engine was abandoned, also because the power of the Merlin began to approximate that of the Vulture (and would in the end exceed it). The Halifax had switched over to four Merlins during design phase. The Manchester had to be modified into the Lancaster after the weaknesses of the Vulture became painfully obvious. While Rolls-Royce may have recommended the action, adopting four Merlins was an obvious step and Avro was quite capable of reaching this conclusion all by itself
The Merlin-engined version was actually first called the Mk III. The Mk.II would have been a twin-engined aircraft using the Centaurus or Sabre, engines in approximately the same class as the Vulture. While these engines were less problematic, their development also took a long time and the Mk.II probably would have been delayed by several years, if Avro had proceeded with that option.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Actually the Sabre development went fairly quickly, and 2,200 horsepower engines were available in March 1938, but Napiers never solved the problem of moving from hand-assembled prototypes to production line examples before they were taken over by English Electric, and the Air Ministry forced Bristol to provide the expertise to resolve the problems. The final Sabre prototype is reputed to have produced over 5,000 hp - a stark contrast with the Vulture's ca. 1,800, derated in service to ca. 1,500. All the sleeve valve engines had similar problems, but Bristol seem to have been most successful in getting them into series production.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
, in reply to message 15.
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Handley-Page were instructed by the ministry to change their HP.56 design to accept four Merlins as the HP.57, because a shortage of Vulture engines was anticipated. Not having a better crystal ball than anyone else, they at first complained about it: Redesigning the wing was a substantial amount of work and resulted in months of delay. The Halifax turned out to be rather underpowered by four Merlins, so one shudders to contemplate the potential performance of the HP.56.
As for the Stirling, the Air Ministry indeed restricted wing span, in an attempt to keep the size and weight of the new generation of bombers under control. (Contrary to what is often claimed, hangar door size was not the limiting factor.) But the real problem with the Stirling was not a too small wing span, but excessive structural weight. The competitors were little bigger, and the Halifax had a shorter wing span, but the Stirling was underpowered for its weight: 43,200 pounds empty for the Mk.III, or about 7,000 lb more than its direct competitors. I don't know why this happened, but I suspect that as a manufacturer of flying boats, Short Bros habitually put in a large safet margin.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
I know this will not get through the censor...but Davids posts are making this 14 hour shift/I repeat 14 hour shift fly past...my ribs are hurting with laughter...
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Good to know that they serve SOME useful repeat SOME purpose.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
Re WIERD postings of DJW
With respect I THINK our man mentioned above is MORE than LIKLEY on similar working HOURS to the very amused NEW member with SORE sides. AND Mr DJW is passing TIME on somelse's money taking the MIKEY out of us.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
I suspect that DJW's Cuddy-style helmet needs winding up.
Link to this forum: AVRO Manchester: precusor to the AVRO Lancaster?
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.