Vickers Wellington VS. Vicker Warwick

[Pisis]

Hi folks,

I came accross a few data about the Vickers Warwick and I realised I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Warwick and a Vickers Wellington.

I understand there was a distinction in Warwick's construction, engine and that Warwicks was a slightly bigger aircraft. Other than that, any interesting facts?

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Shortround6]

Basically a Warwick was a Wellington on steroids. Some parts of the fuselage were interchangeable The Warwick was just stretched out longer with extra sections. The wings were bigger in span and area but I am not sure if they used any of the same parts. The size engines it needed did not become available in the time they thought they would so early versions were under powered and by the time more powerful engines were available it was realized that twin engine heavy bombers were not a good idea. One engine going out reduced performance too much compared to a four engine bomber loosing one engine.

 

[Pisis]

Thanks for the info, Shortround!

 

[irmurray]

The visual giveaways (other than size) that an aircraft is a Warwick are:
- (due to the longer fuselage) the propellers are behind the cockpit (on the Wellington, they are level with the cockpit)
- the engine nacelles are all below the wing (on the Wellington, they are both above and below the wing)
- the Warwick has a mid-upper turret and
- (sometimes) the Warwick has a dorsal extension ahead of the vertical stabiliser.

Structurally, the Warwick fuselage was a Wellington fuselage with an extra section just ahead of the wings, and the wing structure was different (the main difference being that there was no gap in the wing structure for the engine nacelle, as there was on the Wellington).

Hope that is helpful.

Regards,


Iain.