Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick

[Aeroweanie]

Its been established that the design of the Vickers Warwick is closely related to that of the Wellington.

The best information I can find for the Wellington is that the root airfoil was the "NACA 24 (17.7%)" while the tip airfoil was the "NACA 24". I don't know for certain if the root airfoil was the NACA 2417.7, but I suspect so. I have no further information on the tip airfoil.

Has anyone been able to find information as to whether the wing of the Warwick used the same aerofoils as the Wellington?

 

[nuuumannn]

I cannot say for certain whether or not these two had the same wing profile, but it is likely. Both were very much designed complementary to one another on the production line, enabling a sharing of resources and speeding up of production. Both used the same structural elements to create the Geodetic framework, just that the Warwick had extra frames and wing ribs to increase fuselage length and span respectively. Both aircraft were designed to be complementary in service, too, the Warwick was designed as a heavy bomber utilising more powerful engines that were being promised at the time.

 

[Jugman]

NACA had a series of number airfoils in the late 20s that predate the 4 and 5 digit series. The odd nomenclature suggests it may be one of these numbered airfoils.

 

[SaparotRob]

The depth of knowledge here is astounding.

 

[special ed]

It's because of the things one learns here.

 

[Aeroweanie]

NACA had a series of number airfoils in the late 20s that predate the 4 and 5 digit series. The odd nomenclature suggests it may be one of these numbered airfoils.

That is why in the Incomplete Guide, I have it listed the way I do. Its not clear which it is.

 

[SaparotRob]

It's because of the things one learns here.

 

[Aeroweanie]

I recently found a maintenance manual for the Warwick, which lists the wing airfoil as "NACA 14":

 

[ThomasP]

In my notes I have the Wellington airfoil as NACA 2418 modified (actually 17.7% thick) at the root, to 2410.3 at the tip. This would give a section thickness at mid-span of 14%. Chord was 14' 7" at the root to 4' 2" at the tip.

The 2418 modified to 17.7% is from a RAFHS Journal article (sorry, but I did not note the specific issue the article was in, and I did not note and do not remember if the 2410.3 section at the tip was from the same article). The chord measurements are from an Air Ministry rigging diagram.

I do not know if you could reasonably access the following, but the Science Museum at Swindon (see attachment) holds a lot of Barnes Wallis' papers in their archives which include a lot of technical papers on the Wellesley and Wellington - possibly there is something in them that would definitively answer the question about the airfoil sections on the Wellesley, Wellington, Warwick, etc.

 

[Aeroweanie]

In my notes I have the Wellington airfoil as NACA 2418 modified (actually 17.7%) at the root, to 2410.3 at the tip. This would give a section at mid-span of 14%. Chord was 14' 7" at the root to 4' 2" at the tip.
The 2418 modified to 17.7% is from a RAFHS Journal article (sorry, but I did not note the specific issue the article was in). The chord measurements are from an Air Ministry rigging diagram.

I do not know if you could reasonable access the following, but the Science Museum at Swindon (see attachment) hold a lot of Barnes Wallis' papers in their archives - possibly there is something in them that would definitively answer the question about the airfoil sections on the Wellesley, Wellington, Warwick, etc.

Thank you! I've updated the master list to include these airfoils for the Wellington and VC-1 Viking (which used a Wellington wing).

Now, the question: is the Warwick airfoil information a typo or is at NACA 14XX airfoil?

 

[ThomasP]

I would bet it is a typo, but . . .

 

[Aeroweanie]

I would bet it is a typo, but . . .

That is what I suspect

BTW, you started kindergarten in 1963? I started in 1962

 

[ThomasP]

I do not know enough about the behavior a different nose radius causes. IIUC, a sharper nose and/or more symmetric profile would be advantageous at higher speeds, but at the speeds (250-300 mph) of the Wellington and Warwick would there be any significant advantage to going to a 14xx vs a 24xx?

 

[Aeroweanie]

I do not know enough about the behavior a different nose radius causes. IIUC, a sharper nose and/or more symmetric profile would be advantageous at higher speeds, but at the speeds (250-300 mph) of the Wellington and Warwick would there be any significant advantage to going to a 14xx vs a 24xx?

For a NACA 4-digit airfoil the first digit indicates the maximum value of the mean-line ordinate (camber), in percent of the chord. By going from 2% camber to 1% camber, they might have been tunning the airfoil to operate at lower lift coefficients.

 

[yulzari]

Just like the Spitfire and Hurricane their Airships were looking to 2,000bhp power plants and the Spitfire/Wellington generation was seen as an interim pending the arrival of the production Vulture. Thus the Warwick was expected to become the major Vickers bomber type just as the Tornado to be the major Hawker fighter.