Author Topic: U-2 and TR-1  (Read 1068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28283
  • Whiffing since the 70s
U-2 and TR-1
« on: March 06, 2012, 12:32:51 pm »
I found to my amazement that there isn't a topic on Lockheed's two big winged machines in here, so I started one.  ;D

I note that all the early U-2 variants had quite distinctively marked 'No Step' areas on the wings, whereas the later TR-1 variants don't.

The question is 'Why?' Did the TR-1s have a totally different wing that could accept people walking anywhere on its surface, or was walking on their wings totally banned?
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline rickshaw

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 9392
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2012, 03:10:58 pm »
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the TR-1's wing is carbon-fibre whereas the U-2 was bonded metal.   Different structures result in different walk instructions?   If anything, if it was true, I'd expect no walking allowed on the TR-1.
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Offline pyro-manic

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • Master Procrastinator
    • Me on Flickr
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2012, 03:21:08 pm »
I'd like to, if I ever stumble across a cheap U-2 kit when nothing else takes my fancy, convert one back to a fighter, just for giggles. Bubble canopy, afterburner, delta wings and a rackful of Sparrows. :)
Some of my models can be found on my Flickr album >>>HERE<<<

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28283
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2012, 04:17:44 pm »
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the TR-1's wing is carbon-fibre whereas the U-2 was bonded metal.   Different structures result in different walk instructions?   If anything, if it was true, I'd expect no walking allowed on the TR-1.

That would make sense, yes. There are a couple of circular marks on a TR-1's wing, look a bit like markers for fuel tanks, but that's all there is to see.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Weaver

  • I'm either dumb or evil - you decide.....
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 16250
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2018, 02:01:22 am »
January's Aeroplane magazine has the first psrt of a two-part series about RAF involvement in the U-2 programme. This is relatively new information, obtained by a FOIA request in 2016.

A handul of British pilots flew the type, and conducted 29 operational missions, including two overflights of the Soviet Union. Ownership of the aircraft was transferred to the RAF during these missions, so that they were technically "all British". "British" operations ceased after the Powers shoot-down, but UK involvement in the U-2 program continued into the 1970s, including options to buy some aircraft. The latter phase will be covered in part 2.

Some obvious what-if modelling opportunities here:

What If U-2 development had been more 'joint' right from the start, perhaps due to use of a British engine (RR Conway?)? Might this have lead to genuinely British-owned U-2 going from civilian to RAF markings after the Powers incident.

What If the 1970s offers to sell the aircraft to the UK had been taken up?

Where might a British U-2/TR-1 program find itself in the 21st century? Would it have become the platform for CASTOR/ASTOR perhaps?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2018, 02:07:09 am by Weaver »
Neophyte: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Neo: Even false things?
MtY: Even false things are true.
Neo: How can that be?
MtY: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Principia Discordia

Twitter: @hws5mp
www.minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28283
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2018, 03:02:03 am »

January's Aeroplane magazine has the first psrt of a two-part series about RAF involvement in the U-2 programme. This is relatively new information, obtained by a FOIA request in 2016.


I bet they don't mention the PR19s though................  ;D ;)
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline JayBee

  • Won't go back to Hull again
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
  • "Aquilla non captat muskas"
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2018, 05:42:09 am »
SHH! These things are not meant to be discussed outside certain circles!
Alle kunst ist umsunst wenn ein engel auf das zundloch brunzt!!

Sic biscuitus disintegratum!

Offline McColm

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2018, 07:51:33 am »
Maybe they found that they could charge the general public fot the wing walking experience?

Offline kitnut617

  • That's got his tum rumbling already just by the sound of it.
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10698
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2018, 08:14:08 am »
I've read an article in one of the Air-Britain quarterlies I get (can't remember which one though), it was about the RAF's use of the RB-45's which has almost an identical history as that U-2 story. The aircraft were 'loaned' to the RAF and just before each mission, had roundels and fin flashes applied.
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28283
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2018, 10:14:06 am »

I've read an article in one of the Air-Britain quarterlies I get (can't remember which one though), it was about the RAF's use of the RB-45's which has almost an identical history as that U-2 story. The aircraft were 'loaned' to the RAF and just before each mission, had roundels and fin flashes applied.


Those were the Sculthorpe based RB-45s, and they had RAF flashes almost the full height of the fin, which looked very odd.

This pic from Paul Lashmar's 'Sculthorpe Scullduggery' book, via Britmodeller.



Someone does a decal sheet for that scheme, for the Mach 2 kit, but I can't remember who. :(
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Gondor

  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
  • Builds Slower Than A Glacier Moves
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2018, 01:58:48 pm »

January's Aeroplane magazine has the first psrt of a two-part series about RAF involvement in the U-2 programme. This is relatively new information, obtained by a FOIA request in 2016.


I bet they don't mention the PR19s though................  ;D ;)

Maybe they would have been in the unpublished part three?

Gondor
My Ability to Imagine is only exceeded by my Imagined Abilities

Offline joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6848
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2018, 02:46:59 pm »
The TR-1 was a development of the U-2R, which was a major redesign of the original
U-2. The R, and related, are a third larger than the original U-2, aside from appearance
and engine - with the exception of the S, they have little in common and the airframe is
still primarily metal.

U-2A/C/D
Construction: Conventional aluminum monococque
Length: 49.7 feet
Wingspan: 80 feet, 2 inches
Wing Area: 600 square feet
Height: 15 feet, 2 inches (at tail)
Empty Weight: 14,250 pounds
Maximum Gross Take-Off Weight: 24,150 pounds
Maximum Speed: over 430 mph
Operational Ceiling: over 70,000 feet
Maximum Unrefueled Range: 3,000 nautical miles
Armament: none
Powerplant Data: Pratt & Whitney(P & W) J57-P-37/ J57-P-37A with 10,500 pounds of thrust
updated to: P & W J57-P-31/ J57-P-31A with 11,200 pounds of thrust
updated to: P & W J75-P-13/ J75-P-13A with 15,800 pounds of thrust
updated to: P & W J75-P-13B axial flow turbojet with 18,500 pounds of thrust

U-2R, and TR-1, U-2S, TU-2S(2 seat trainer)
Construction: Conventional aluminum monococoque, with some composites
Length: 63.1 feet
Wingspan: 104.8 feet
Wing Area (gross): 1,000 square feet
Height: 16.7 feet (at tail)
Empty Weight: Classified
Maximum Takeoff Weight:40,000 lb.
Maximum Speed: over 430 mph
Operational Ceiling: over 70,000 feet
Maximum Unrefeuled Range: over 3,000 nautical miles
Aramament: none
Powerplant Data:
U-2R: Pratt & Whitney J75-P-13B with 18,500 pounds thrust
U-2S: General Electric F118-GE-101 with 18,300 pounds thrust

https://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u2specs.html
"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline The Rat

  • Proud Designated Pervert
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8285
  • Rivets? We don't count no stinkin' rivets!
    • http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2018, 05:59:46 pm »
I'd like to, if I ever stumble across a cheap U-2 kit when nothing else takes my fancy, convert one back to a fighter, just for giggles. Bubble canopy, afterburner, delta wings and a rackful of Sparrows. :)

I'm doing something very similar to that right now.  ;D
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles

Pineapple is a great pizza topping. Fight me.

Offline sandiego89

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2018, 06:11:26 pm »
And all this just proves we need a re-issue of the 1/72 affordable boxings, they are really tough to find and crazy expensive when the do pop up-  Kit must have bought them all....
Dave "Sandiego89"
Chesapeake, Virginia, USA

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28283
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: U-2 and TR-1
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2018, 01:55:26 am »

And all this just proves we need a re-issue of the 1/72 affordable boxings, they are really tough to find and crazy expensive when the do pop up-  Kit must have bought them all....


Who, me?  :o

Actually you could be right, at the last count I had 4 x Airfix U-2s, 3 x Minicraft ones, a High Planes TR-1 and a Rareplanes TR-1 vacform.  ;D
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit