avatar_kitnut617

Question to Joe-TSR2 u/c

Started by kitnut617, February 26, 2009, 05:57:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kitnut617

This question I have has come about because of the recent Black TSR2 thread where JHM had asked which orientation of the u/c is correct.  I tried to explain how it works and since then I've been trying to find photos of the real thing.  But photos I've found seem to show two different u/c set ups, is this correct ?

Top photo shows one type and the bottom two show the other.  Is the top photo a development after they were experiencing problems with the u/c ?
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

PR19_Kit

Robert,

I may be able to add a bit to this.

The later type gear you show on the top was fitted after some months test flying. The diagonal strut that's clearly visible was an attempt to prevent the 'tip toe' failure that occured on one flight where Mr. Beaumont managed to land the a/c despite the fact that one side was 2ft higher than the other!

I believe the mod was only fitted to '219, but I can't find any close up piccies of any other a/c to confirm that as yet.
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

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

Regards
Kit

TsrJoe

re. main undercarriage units, during testing with XR219 it was found that a dampening strut was required to try even out severe oscillations with the main units, a fixed non retracting strut was fitted to XR219 for later ground runs and final flight, XR220 and 221 were fitted with a modified version of the same which enabled undercarriage retraction (i am unsure if XR222 was fitted with such a strut too? altho the airframe at Duxford has a 'clean' leg which would visually represent XR219 during its earlyier stages, 221 at Cosford would be representative of 'production' configuration with the retractable strut!) 
From references in the files this 'fix' would have become a standard on all subsequent airframes

it is interesting to note that the requirement for the short take off extendable nose leg was deemed unnecessary for production aircraft, an arrestor hook (similar to that fitted to the F.106 Delta Dart!) was to be fitted to the under rear fuselage and studies were in place to possibly add ventral fins to help rear fuselage stability

hoping this helps, if you want ill dig out some images and drawings from the files showing the mods,

cheers, Joe
... 'i reject your reality and substitute my own !'

IPMS.UK. 'Project Cancelled' Special Interest Group Co-co'ordinator (see also our Project Cancelled FB.group page)
IPMS.UK. 'TSR-2 SIG.' IPMS.UK. 'What-if SIG.' (TSR.2 Research Group, Finnoscandia & WW.2.5 FB. groups)

The Rat

Quote from: TsrJoe on February 27, 2009, 02:28:07 AM
re. main undercarriage units, during testing with XR219 it was found that a dampening strut was required to try even out severe oscillations with the main units,...

If I recall correctly, to make things worse the vibration apparently occurred at exactly the resonant frequency of the human eyeball. Not the sort of thing you want happening when you're hurtling down a runway in a heavy chunk of metel and fuel.
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles
Youtube: https://tinyurl.com/46dpfdpr

PR19_Kit

Joe,

Did the nose leg on '219 actually extend?

Various FS models show this but I can't recall pics of the leg actually extended. If so did they test how much it improved the take-off?
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

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

Regards
Kit

TsrJoe

hi there, im not sure if its just a urban tale? but iv an anacdote from a chap who was chief ground crew at Boscombe that the extendable nose leg was useful for draining the pools of fluids in the rear fuselage (the TSR.2 was a very 'leaky' aircraft!)
i can confirm that the unit was functional tho as i have a photograph in the collection showing it at maximum extension (im not sure without further checking if it had been tried for short take off tho by time of cancellation?) ill dig out and scan the image to post on here

cheers, Joe
... 'i reject your reality and substitute my own !'

IPMS.UK. 'Project Cancelled' Special Interest Group Co-co'ordinator (see also our Project Cancelled FB.group page)
IPMS.UK. 'TSR-2 SIG.' IPMS.UK. 'What-if SIG.' (TSR.2 Research Group, Finnoscandia & WW.2.5 FB. groups)

kitnut617

Thanks very much Joe, Kit, with the info.  Seems that the Airfix kits are modeled after the 'clean' leg version then. 

I would like to see those details you have on the modified u/c Joe if I can please.

Cheers
Robert
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

kitnut617

Hi Joe,

Did you receive my PM ?

Robert
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

dambuster

Quote from: TsrJoe on February 27, 2009, 02:28:07 AM
re. main undercarriage units, during testing with XR219 it was found that a dampening strut was required to try even out severe oscillations with the main units, a fixed non retracting strut was fitted to XR219 for later ground runs and final flight, XR220 and 221 were fitted with a modified version of the same which enabled undercarriage retraction (i am unsure if XR222 was fitted with such a strut too? altho the airframe at Duxford has a 'clean' leg which would visually represent XR219 during its earlyier stages, 221 at Cosford would be representative of 'production' configuration with the retractable strut!) 

Joe

Do you have a confirmed reference that the mod on XR220 at Cosford is fully functional?  From examination and knowing how the undercarriage retracts it is difficult to understand how this strut actually compresses into a retracted state.  The only reference I have come across was in the Frank Barnett Jones (?) book but this had no provenance.

Cheers

Peter

ChrisF

Ive just received my pavla main bay mod from hannants and also in the box came replacement parts for the main u/c including the extra dampening strut... saves me having to make some :D i'll let you all know how it comes along..

kitnut617

#10
Quote from: ChrisF on May 04, 2009, 07:44:27 AM
Ive just received my pavla main bay mod from hannants and also in the box came replacement parts for the main u/c including the extra dampening strut... saves me having to make some :D i'll let you all know how it comes along..

Are you sure it's not in the kit Chris, my Airfix 1/72 kit has them, see here -- item (EDIT) 55:


If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

ChrisF

Yup.. mine is the 1/48 one and completely different... Step 20 on mine for example is fixing on the flaps and tail pieces...

PR19_Kit

Chris,

A buddy of mine has the 1/48 kit and had some bits left over which I asked about on here a while back. I'm pretty sure some of them were the struts............
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

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

Regards
Kit

ChrisF

Hmm how strange... maybe they're not on the instructions anymore but still on the sprue ? i'll have to check... anyway its all good as i definately have the pavla ones now :D

ChrisF

Ive just downloaded the instructions for the 1/48 TSR2 from the airfix website... And they are VERY different to the ones in the box.... AND.... contain a seperate errata for this exact problem... case SOLVED !!  :D :D