A picture for our non-US friends...

[Forgotten Field]

Interesting debate. Are there any flying Anson's? Any projects out there available?

[lestweforget]

Interesting debate. Are there any flying Anson's? Any projects out there available?

There are a couple of flying Ansons (or Avro XIX's). A very interesting and long lived aircraft in service. Check out this site for some good info on it's past and surviving airframes.

http://www.oldprops.ukhome.net/Anson.htm

[Forgotten Field]

Thanks for the response. What is the method of construction for the wing? What type of turret was in the airplane?

[JDK]

Dear Glyn,
I'm not sure what you are saying; it might help if you got to grips with the quote function. You just need a [.quote] at the front and a [./quote] (remove the full stops) at the back and it works.

As to 'the gallery' I'm not sure what you mean; it's true it's difficult to asses British designs accurately in the UK; one reason Britain got shafted by Japan with cars and bikes in the 70s. (Americans can be just as blind to the faults of their home grown products.) The point remains the DH designs weren't as good as the available contemporary alternatives for airlines. I don't much care where aircraft come from, there's great and bad designs everywhere; but at 'home' poor performers are usually excused.

There's no excuse for just being underpowered. Perhaps the Americans had gas guzzlers and the Brit designs were frugal; it's an endless debate - but payload and seat-mile is absolutely better/worse. 'Frugality' in the Dragon Rapide resulted in a poor payload performer. How much could a Dragon lift and how fast with boots on? It can be done, but it wasn't impressive - or much use.

As far as I can tell you want a number of excuses to be taken into account, or the bigger historical context. I absolutely agree with the bigger picture, but aircraft remain a tool to do the job. Operators want results, not "here's why ours isn't as good as that one over there".

DH wasn't some backyard outfit, as you try and imply, but the Empire's most successful civilian aircraft manufacturer, and it's clear they failed to provide suitable types for Canada and Australia in the 1930s for what might be best called 'feeder liners' - oh, and there was nothing stopping them making a Buck in the US with a good design. (They had branches in four of the Commonwealth countries at the time, but just shoved out what they had, rather than exploring the local need and fulfilling that - which is why they lost the markets eventually.) My point was they were cushioned into lesser designs by a protected market; the US does provide a free trade competitive contrast as well as the need you highlight - a need also evident in Australia and Canada, New Zealand and India, ignored by the SBAC, whose main effort was to squash colonial designs. Fokker and Junkers both had some success in the US and elsewhere, particularly Canada, and they didn't have the British Empire market to help or hinder, and knew excuses wouldn't cut it. The Knut Rockne crash did for Fokker, and wooden airliners in the US - much as I like wood, it's not as cost effective or maintainable as a metal aircraft in commercial use. The US learnt, moved on; DH hung onto wood too long for airliners, but the Mosquito was a stunning coda to the principle.

Hand wound undercarriages, I think you are muddling something here - the Spitfire and Hurricane never had spooled-wire retraction; the early ones were different, but not pilot-muscle alone. Powered retraction rather than pilot muscle was available and used in other design in the mid 30s - such as the DC-2 and Boeing 247 before the Anson flew. Of course the Wildcat / Martlet had a pilot-driven gear, as a later high-performance type, but that was a definite hangover from earlier kit.

You've certainly got the mental juices working!

Interesting debate.

Certainly, some good points by Glen and Mark!

Are there any flying Anson's? Any projects out there available?

The Avro 19 is a long way from the Anson Mk.I; a postwar version. (The 19s I'm aware of are Air Atlantique's (?) and the Shuttleworth Collection's.) The CWH operated one for many years, but it's not flown for a long time, I think.

The IWM have recently had a stunning restoration put on show of a static Mk.I, with bombs and turret, and in New Zealand, an ex-Aussie (Terry Brain) machine is being restored to Mk.I turreted standard, and it looks magnificent. It'll be great when it flies; hopefully within the next year.

There are, um, loads of Anson frames in NZ, Australia and Canada and a good few dozen aircraft on show, I'd guess. Not enough fliers for a significant type though.

[RyanShort1]

Does anyone know of any Anson restoration or parts in the US?

Also, how easy was it to fly?

Ryan

[JDK]

Does anyone know of any Anson restoration or parts in the US?

Go North young man. I'm sure a Canadian projct could be obtained. I'm not aware of any in the US.

Also, how easy was it to fly?

Pretty easy, a benign type by all accounts. Known as 'Faithful Annie', and it was.

One 'sank' itself attacking a sub in the early days of the war - IIRC, it was a British sub, and the Anson crew were a bit keen, and their (awful) anti-submarine bombs knocked them out of the sky, broke a bulb in the sub's lighting... When rescued by the Royal Navy's subs crew, they were grateful - but Very embarrassed.

To touch on the undercarriage (gear) issue Glyn and I were debating:

A distinctive feature of the Anson I was its landing gear retraction mechanism which required no less than 140 turns of the hand crank by the pilot. To forgo this laborious process, early model Ansons often made short flights with the landing gear extended at the expense of 30 mph (50 km/h) of cruise speed.

Bill Gunston,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Anson

To be honest I'm not sure raising the wheels would add 30mph!

Regards,

[Glyn]

Also, how easy was it to fly?

Ryan

I've only flown in them as a passenger whilst as an ATC cadet. The Pilots Notes state it is stable and do not mention any wayward behaviour. The stalling speed is low (48mph at light load). The only peculiarity I've heard mentioned is the fact that it won't sideslip. Pilots who previously flew biplanes were baffled by this 'feature'. As a twin-engined trainer it was very good as it was just forgiving enough for young trainees to master, but not so forgiving that it would hide their mistakes. Later marks had hydraulic undercarriage operation.

[JDK]

Later marks had hydraulic undercarriage operation.

The quote of Bill Gunston refers only to the Mk.I, but I thought most early marks were manual; it's a regular comment, isn't it? Do you know when it was changed?

[Mark_Pilkington]

I wonder if we are talking past each other, Mark

Glyn, yes I misread your earlier reply as being from someone else so sorry for repeating my points or seeming to be labouring the issue, you did raise in that post about the relative differences of the UK and USA in the early 1930's - UK still paying off WW1, and being a smaller country with extensive canals and railways had a different domestic airline need to the USA with vast differences, hence the appropriateness of the smaller passenger size in a commuter airliner, as against the mainliner and sleeper class required for coast to coast operations in the US. Having acknowledged that difference in "need" I also understand and agree the points you make in your recent post about the priorities in the UK in 1930's turning to Military aviation.

Equally however James is correct to point out these designs were not of great value in Australia either due to the long distances and also harsh climates on wood and fabric, Australian airlines had to fight tooth and nail to overcome British objections to the importation of American pre-war aircraft such as the DC-2 to replace the DH86, and equally the decision to build the American NA-16 as the Wirraway was derided by British objections at the time. In both cases attempts were being made to protect a natural monopoly market for the Society of British Aircraft Constructors.

Interestingly, and as an aside to this Anson thread, in 1964 both TAA and Ansett-ANA had to pay Australian "import-duty tariffs" on the purchase of Boeing 727's because suitable "British" designs were available (BAC-111 and Trident - but not locally built!) yet in 1967 Victa and Yeoman both closed shop because the same Government would NOT provide "import duty tariffs" to protect those locally built designs from American Manufacturer "dumping" - a measure of the different influences then in play in the Australian political environment!

Getting back to Ansons, I was more wanting to contrast the developments of the US stressed metal skin airframes to the Ansons 1934 development, early Avro 652/Ansons had wind up Undercarriage, no flaps, fixed pitch propellors, all a long way behind the DC-2 of the same year with hydraulic undercarriage, flaps and variable pitch props elements already appearing in part on other airframes such as the Boeing 247D (except flaps), where-as the Anson was considered a breakthrough design in the UK being the first twin monoplane into the RAF with retractable undercarriage.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

[Mark_Pilkington]

Does anyone know of any Anson restoration or parts in the US?

Also, how easy was it to fly?

Ryan

There is a late model metal wing Anson under long term restoration somewhere in the USA, the son of the owner has posted here on Wix about it in the past.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

[Glyn]

The quote of Bill Gunston refers only to the Mk.I, but I thought most early marks were manual; it's a regular comment, isn't it? Do you know when it was changed?

The Mark I was certainly manual. You may be interested in the pilots notes which state:
The undercarriage is raised and lowered manually by operating a crank in the pedestal beneath the pilot's seat, approximately 160 turns being necessary. When retracted, a small portion of each wheel is left protruding from the engine nacelle to minimise damage to the aircraft if landed in emergency with wheels retracted. In the event of such a landing the wheel brakes are still effective.
The Marks X & XI had Cheetah XIX engines (As opposed to the Mark Is Cheetah IX) These ran the hydraulics for the undercart ( with a handpump for emergency use ). This PN is dated April 1943 but I don't know when hydraulics were first introduced or by whom as Canada produced 1,822 Mk IIs which differed from the Mk I by using 330 hp Jacobs engines, hydraulic undercarriage and certain items of equipment. As the Federal AT-20 fifty were used by the US. The maximun speed being 178mph. 1,069 Mk Vs were similar except for the use of moulded plastic construction for the fuselage.