Talk:Avro Manchester/Archive 1

Archive 1

Figure discrepancy

There is a discrepancy between the production figures for the Manchester - the info box reports a total of 202 units while a figure of 209 is mentioned in the body of the article. Is anyone able to confirm the correct figure? --Adrian M. H. 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackson gives 202 including protoypes; where does 209 come from?TSRL (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This [1]] says two prototypes L7246 and L7247 and 200 production aircraft L7276 to L7584, although only 157 were actually finished as Manchesters the remaining 43 were Lancaster Is.

• L7246-L7247 (2) Prototypes
• L7276-L7325 (50)
• L7373-L7402 (30)
• L7415-L7434 (20)
• L7453-L7497 (45)
• L7515-L7526 (12)
• L7527- (Lancaster I)

Any reliable sources for 159! as it look like the original contract was for 200, although the article says 193 operational aircraft!! MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is OK according to Jackson as far as it goes. These are Avro built aircraft. One L7517 was damaged by fire on the production line and not replaced, so now 158. But Metropolitan-Vickers also built Manchesters R5768 - R5797 and R5829 - R5841, so another 44 making the total 202. That is his story and it sounds as is damien is wrong.TSRL (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, seems reasonable then to stick to 202. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirteen production Manchesters were destroyed when the MetroVick factory in Manchester was bombed on December 23rd 1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.73 (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The article still mentions a figure of 209, in the "operational history" section. Production of the Manchester was halted in November 1941, by which point a total of 209 aircraft had entered service with the RAF. Given that you had this debate thirteen years ago, what went wrong? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Catapult

The He 177 Greif article makes brief mention of a catapult launch requirement for the Manchester. Does anyone know an more about this? KiwiBiggles 01:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the Manchester was originally designed for catapult launching. At the time it was feared that airfields would not last long under bombing attack and that the runways would soon become unusable. To obviate this difficulty, for a short time it was actually a requirement for the Manchester to be capable of something called 'assisted (or "frictionless") take off', which in-effect, meant launching by land-based catapult.

Of course, while launching something small like a Fairey Seafox or similar from a shipboard catapult was possible, the land-based catapult used a Cordite charge to propel the aircraft and it was found that scaling-up this charge for an aircraft the size of a Manchester would be impracticable and probably dangerous to the aircrew. In additon, it was found that a catapult capable of launching an aircraft of this size would need engineering along similar lines to that of the Forth Bridge, and so the requirement was later dropped.

The legacy of this design requirement however remained in the design of the Manchester's (and resulting Lancaster's) fuselage, in the shape of the interior floor/bomb bay roof, which was designed as a strong 'backbone' around-which the rest of the aircraft was built.

The airfield runway problem was of course also the reasoning behind the later Hawker Siddeley Harrier. Ian Dunster 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a mention of this in Jackson's cited book. He says the first prototype spent a lot of its time at RAE Farnborough, developing catapult take-offs and arrester wire landings. Peter Cooper's history of Farnborough describes the prototype's activity there as "handling". However, on p.74 he has a photo of Manchester 1 protoype L7276 mounted on a low trolley which ran along a pair of tracks, each a pair of rails) separated by the main-wheel spacing. Track length of the DCTO (directionally controlled take-off) was almost a mile. Cooper says the system was developed for the Norwegian campaign. The Manchester prototype used it successfully on 1942-9-8. There is no mention of power above that of the aircraft engines and the work seems not to have been part of the RAE Catapult Section's remit. So a track, not a catapult? Parts of the track were still visible in 2005.TSRL (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. The size of 'catapult' would have been vast for an aircraft the size of the Manchester. I suspect the 'catapult' wording was just to imply an 'assisted' take-off, rather than an actual catapult. Later in the war RATO would probably have been specified instead.

The basic requirements set out in specification P.13/36 are below:

A twin-engined landplane medium bomber with dive-bombing capacity.

Minimum crew of 4, 2 pilots, 1 wireless/telegraphy operator, 1 air gunner.

Additional crew for longer flights. 1 navigator, 2nd air gunner.

Armament of 2 powered turrets, one 2-gun forward, one 4-gun aft.

With a crew of 6, typical service load of 5,900lbs.

Maximum bomb load of 8,000lbs, including 4 x 2,000lbs OR 2 x torpedoes of 18 inches (46cm) diameter, length 18ft 2.5 inches (5.5m).

Provision should be made for carrying troops if needed.

The specification also called for catapult take-offs and 'arrested' landings.

The P.13/36 specification was issued on 6 September 1935.

Avro Manchester Image Gallery

Hello,

I have started doing an aircraft image gallery(hobby project) and I think it will be useful to add a link to it here. I have tried this in the past but I broke some rules (you are not allowed to add links to your own website) so it was deleted by another user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TAG.Odessa#Why_are_you_deleting_the_external_links.3F).

The solution, according to the 'external links' rules : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest is to "please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it".

Avro Manchester : http://www.aircraft-list.com/db/Avro_Manchester/25/

So please look over that page and if you think it is useful then add it, if not then just ignore this message.

Thanks

Best wishes

Nekhbet 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Survivors?

Are there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.81.85 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 December 2008

No. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Loss numbers don't add up

"... losing 63 aircraft in action, flying its last operation against Bremen on 25 June 1942.[7] Of the 78 aircraft lost, 45 were non-operational losses of which 30 involved engine failure". 78 - 45 = 33, not 63. ??? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The figures are not right it should be 78 operational losses + 45 non-operational, the 45 is as well as not part of the 78. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

" ... The original bearings were made without any silver as an economy measure, so they weren't hard enough. The bearings would collapse the connecting rod and the piston would fling out through the side of the engine and bang! Your engine just destroyed itself." - did the original writer not consider that if the Vulture's problems had been simply due to a lack of silver in the bearings then Rolls-Royce would have had the bearing supplier supply different bearings incorporating the silver once the 'problem' became known, rather than cancel what was one of the RAF's most important engines.

The actual problem was inadequate lubrication of the big end bearings which would have required a re-designed crankshaft with modified oil ways to solve, but development of the Vulture was halted in 1940 due to the Battle of Britain so RR could concentrate on the Merlin. By the time the battle was over the Merlin had already been seen to have the potential for development to the same design power as the Vulture (a special 'Racing Merlin' had been run at 2,160-horsepower as early as 1938), and so the Vulture was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.158 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)