TSR-2 (Merged a few times)
"I believe the Canadian Arrow was also subject to the complete destruction of all tooling and airframes."
Did the Canadian government owe the yanks like our lot did.
"Sure we'll lend you the money to get you out of the mire but you make sure that 'plane can't be resurected in the future, just protecting our aircraft industry you see"
Did the Canadian government owe the yanks like our lot did.
"Sure we'll lend you the money to get you out of the mire but you make sure that 'plane can't be resurected in the future, just protecting our aircraft industry you see"
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2 Undercarriage
I'm looking for information about the main U/C retract mechanics. Certainly it was a relatively complex operation looking at the size of the main bogies and the space available.
Ideally it would be great to get hold of some video where the U/C was actually retracted but seems unlikely to exist?
Why?
Ideally it would be great to get hold of some video where the U/C was actually retracted but seems unlikely to exist?
Why?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask the guys at Duxford http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.00d00j
They have one there and I'm sure, with a load of photographs of knuckles etc, it'll be possible to work it out.
They have one there and I'm sure, with a load of photographs of knuckles etc, it'll be possible to work it out.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have collected a huge quantity of photos and various drawing that show 'this part only on XR219' and others bits marked 'only on XR220' and close ups of the bogies and links etc and TBH its 'doing me 'ead in' 
Hence the request for any possible video.
Hence the request for any possible video.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article on TSR.2 Undercarriage
The following is an extract from an article on the TRS.2 “Concept versus Reality” written by Frank Barnett-Jones and published in July 1997 copy of “Aeroplane Monthly”:-
“The prime consideration in the undercarriage design was the accommodation of a rough-field landing requirement. This necessitated a landing technique similar to that used by carrier-borne aircraft, so the system had to be strong to withstand a non-flare landing on a semi-prepared surface.
The responsibility for the undercarriage lay with Vickers, which designed the undercarriage with a simple hydraulic telescope tube arrangement, together with a tandem wheel configuration. A similar system was already in use on the Vickers Valiant, so the technicalities were understood. However if one studies the undercarriage on the Valiant it will be seen that while the design characteristics are similar because of the differences in physical layout the results are somewhat different. In the landing phase the weight of the aircraft is transferred from the wing to the undercarriage and the wheel makes vertical contact with the ground at 2ft/sec. Ideally, therefore, the oleo compression should move at the same vertical angle to place less stress on the undercarriage.
On the TRS.2 this was not the case, because the oleos splayed out to accommodate the maximum–track requirement. At the same time the large ankle on the bogie extended the wheels well beyond the point where the vertical weight was being applied. This meant that the compression of the telescopic legs was not vertical, as on the Valiant, but at an angle of approximately 15 degrees. Therefore, as the wheels touched the runway and compression began, the bogies would be dragged inward as the legs compressed. Such a reaction not only imposed stress on the ankle, but also induced a strong weaving effect on the tandem wheels as the aircraft settled on the undercarriage. There was evidence to show that the system was vulnerable when the ankle on XR219 sheared without warning during trial at Shoeburyness.”
“The prime consideration in the undercarriage design was the accommodation of a rough-field landing requirement. This necessitated a landing technique similar to that used by carrier-borne aircraft, so the system had to be strong to withstand a non-flare landing on a semi-prepared surface.
The responsibility for the undercarriage lay with Vickers, which designed the undercarriage with a simple hydraulic telescope tube arrangement, together with a tandem wheel configuration. A similar system was already in use on the Vickers Valiant, so the technicalities were understood. However if one studies the undercarriage on the Valiant it will be seen that while the design characteristics are similar because of the differences in physical layout the results are somewhat different. In the landing phase the weight of the aircraft is transferred from the wing to the undercarriage and the wheel makes vertical contact with the ground at 2ft/sec. Ideally, therefore, the oleo compression should move at the same vertical angle to place less stress on the undercarriage.
On the TRS.2 this was not the case, because the oleos splayed out to accommodate the maximum–track requirement. At the same time the large ankle on the bogie extended the wheels well beyond the point where the vertical weight was being applied. This meant that the compression of the telescopic legs was not vertical, as on the Valiant, but at an angle of approximately 15 degrees. Therefore, as the wheels touched the runway and compression began, the bogies would be dragged inward as the legs compressed. Such a reaction not only imposed stress on the ankle, but also induced a strong weaving effect on the tandem wheels as the aircraft settled on the undercarriage. There was evidence to show that the system was vulnerable when the ankle on XR219 sheared without warning during trial at Shoeburyness.”
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Trindade
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember years ago a contact in British Aerospace told me it was pressure from the Soviets and not the Americans wanting us to buy the F-111. We never bought the F-111.
Chapman Pincher has some interesting things to say about the Labour Government at that time:-
Chapman Pincher
Their Trade is Treachery
Chapman Pincher has some interesting things to say about the Labour Government at that time:-
Chapman Pincher
Their Trade is Treachery
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall reading that one of the two prototypes had an issue whereby the main u/c bogey, which had to sort of rotate around itself during the retraction sequence to enter the bays, failed to unwrap itself thus at leat one landing was carried out with the bogey inverted. As far as I am aware no serious damage was suffered, but it may well explain, at least in part, why ionagh has the photos illustrating differences in u/c detail.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf_bravo_zulu
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU stated:- "Fascinating. Were many landings made at Shoeburyness?"
Frank Barnett-Jones wrote "There was evidence to show that the system was vulnerable when the ankle on XR219 sheared without warning during trial at Shoeburyness"
I think you will find what he meant was that the evidence of this failure could be seen at Shoeburyness as XR219, XR221 and XR223 were taken to the shooting range at Shoeburyness to be destroyed as 'damage to aircraft' targets.
The following is a photograph showing the sad end for XR219, shot to pieces at Shoeburyness.
Frank Barnett-Jones wrote "There was evidence to show that the system was vulnerable when the ankle on XR219 sheared without warning during trial at Shoeburyness"
I think you will find what he meant was that the evidence of this failure could be seen at Shoeburyness as XR219, XR221 and XR223 were taken to the shooting range at Shoeburyness to be destroyed as 'damage to aircraft' targets.
The following is a photograph showing the sad end for XR219, shot to pieces at Shoeburyness.
Lovely model TSR2, ionagh 
What's the powerplant - is it gas-turbine powered?
I believe the main gears pivoted 180degrees around the 'ankle' joint during retraction - similar to the Russian Tupolev designs, but forward retracting instead of to the rear. The Illyushin 18 turboprop airliner retracts/pivots forward in this manner.
The TSR2 did indeed seem to have quite complicated retraction dynamics, but spare a thought for another supersonic prototype(s) that never made it: The XB-70 Valkyrie. The 4-wheel bogies had to pivot 90 degrees 'sidways', then 90 degrees 'up' before the gear legs swang back into the bays with the bogie effectively lying on it's side in the bay.
What's the powerplant - is it gas-turbine powered?
I believe the main gears pivoted 180degrees around the 'ankle' joint during retraction - similar to the Russian Tupolev designs, but forward retracting instead of to the rear. The Illyushin 18 turboprop airliner retracts/pivots forward in this manner.
The TSR2 did indeed seem to have quite complicated retraction dynamics, but spare a thought for another supersonic prototype(s) that never made it: The XB-70 Valkyrie. The 4-wheel bogies had to pivot 90 degrees 'sidways', then 90 degrees 'up' before the gear legs swang back into the bays with the bogie effectively lying on it's side in the bay.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks DH106, power is 2 electric ducted fans; about 2,5kw total (around
45N thrust). I think you could buy a small car for the price of putting 2 gas turbines in a model
45N thrust). I think you could buy a small car for the price of putting 2 gas turbines in a model
Wow - 2.5Kw, they're big ducted fans. Has it flown yet?
I love 'exotic' models - I built a smaller XB-70 Valkyrie years ago with a pusher engine. Now that electrics have moved on so much I'd love a bigger DF version, or if I had the dosh a turbine one.
Any more piccies?
I love 'exotic' models - I built a smaller XB-70 Valkyrie years ago with a pusher engine. Now that electrics have moved on so much I'd love a bigger DF version, or if I had the dosh a turbine one.
Any more piccies?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not flown yet but you can see the building here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=589940
Fans are 90mm types so they are just about limit at this power level.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=589940
Fans are 90mm types so they are just about limit at this power level.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
