Jennings Heilig Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 The nose gear should be offset to one side Only a British engineer could come up with that Why make something simple if you can increase the parts count by 200% and make the thing needlessly complicated and quirky looking at the same time? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippiebg Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Jennings, yes, incredible landing gear! The NG folded sideways to 1. make room for the electronics bay, 2. reduce the unpressurised bay since "pressurisation forces are easier to contain in the hoop, rather than the lenghtways, sense", and 3. keep tha pax and service doors within the same portion of fuselage, for the same reason (Aircraft Engineering magazine, Spring 1964). No parts count or complexity increase, however -- this is not affected by the way in which the gear stows. Each MG strut had two wheels with two tyres each (looking to all the world like four wheels) and rotated through 90 degrees while retracting, so the axle would lie parallel with the aircraft centreline. This did make the main gear bay very slim indeed compared to other designs (the same 1964 article claimed it was "conformal," though there is a small bump at the body-side door). All the same, the Trident always landed very harshly, as I clearly recall from many dozens of flights in it. This was possibly due not only to the gear's geometry, but also to the type's refusal to quite touch down (ground spoiler was regularly raised with the machine flaring and loitering 3-4ft in the air well past the touchdown point). Joy, most of the corrections are quite doable without displacing any decals. Must, if I get the time, do a featurelette. The wing can be sanded to show the kink within 15 minutes for both sides and positively screams "Trident!" at you afterwards. Still, the gorgeous Iraqi 1E shown above and the equally gorgeous CAAC 1E in the build thread posted above weren't redone to almost any degree and they still look like Tridents! Edited August 27, 2012 by skippiebg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Only a British engineer could come up with that Why make something simple if you can increase the parts count by 200% and make the thing needlessly complicated and quirky looking at the same time? Ah, so it must have been a British engineer who designed the pointy end of the A-10, then ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippiebg Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Information changed: see new message on this topic on Page 4 in this thread! Thank you! Edited August 27, 2012 by skippiebg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 - Trident 1 There were sales campaigns with Ansett (exeunt), Zenniko (All Nippon Airways) and Malta Airlines (exeunt). That explains the interesting Malta markings on the TwoSix decal sheet. Thanks for the excelent explanation above. That will be very useful. Just like my previous VC10, this one is not going to be a sraightfoward OOB build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringbag Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Only a British engineer could come up with that Why make something simple if you can increase the parts count by 200% and make the thing needlessly complicated and quirky looking at the same time? Like Concorde and the SST? OOPS!!! Sorry, I forgot the latter didn't work.'tease' Chris. Edited August 23, 2012 by stringbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garryrussell Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 There is also a BEA Flying Jack option for the 1E and a BEA Red Square/PIA Hybrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 Thanks to everyone who has controbuted to this thread. I have yet another question concerning the BEA Red Square livery. The fuselage undersurfaces were BEA grey and the engine nacelles were natural metal. But how about the areas around the engine in the fuselage? Were they natural metal as well? Have a look at this photo from Air Britain. http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1166599/ Is that natural metal on the rear fuselage or just grubby paintwork? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) it's bare metal however............................ you could just paint it grey and it would still be correct as they also flew with that area painted. My guess is that this area was unpainted on *some* aircraft because it did get very dirty and the grime shows up less (the same applied to some 727 operators) so just to mix it up a bit... As to all the other details posted, like I said, it depends how much work you want to do - build it oob and it will still look like a trident Edited August 23, 2012 by kev1n 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 That certainly looks like bare metal to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 it's bare metal however............................ you could just paint it grey and it would still be correct as they also flew with that area painted. Thanks, kev1n. I think that's the one that I want to build. This is gonna be fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I'd say it was bare metal too. As is the fence on the wing, judging by the colour and the way it's reflecting light. That leads to another thought: is it true that the fence needs extending to the leading edge on all variants? This picture suggests otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 most people (including me have the whole lower fuse painted grey - it's simpler... so one with a bare metal bit would be different going to do all the other stuff as well? (go on...you know you want to...hehehehehehe) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 going to do all the other stuff as well? (go on...you know you want to...hehehehehehe) At the moment, I plan on doing the wing root fairings, the wing fences, the kinked wing, correcting the leading edge to the fin and sanding down the fuselage top in front of the intake. I might extend the fin and rudder and open the APU intakes. I very much doubt that I'll widen the chord of the fin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 dont forget making the bullet at the top of the fin more pointy then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viscount806x Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I'd say it was bare metal too. As is the fence on the wing, judging by the colour and the way it's reflecting light. That leads to another thought: is it true that the fence needs extending to the leading edge on all variants? This picture suggests otherwise. The wing fence was in two parts and part of it was on the wing l/e droop and when the droop drooped, so did the portion of fence attached to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 The wing fence was in two parts and part of it was on the wing l/e droop and when the droop drooped, so did the portion of fence attached to it. But there's no separate portion in that picture, unless I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringbag Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) But there's no separate portion in that picture, unless I'm missing something. That's British engineering for you. You can't see the join. Here is a picture that shows the fence link.. Chris. Edited August 23, 2012 by stringbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) That's British engineering for you. You can't see the join. Here is a picture that shows the fence link.. Chris. Ah yes, I do see the join now that I look. But your picture shows a Trident 2 with a longer fence than the Trident 1C in the Air Britain picture - that one barely makes it halfway across the drooping section, whereas the later one clearly goes all the way to the leading edge. The advice in post no.13 was that all variants would need a fence that reached the leading edge, which is what I'm still doubtful about. Edited August 24, 2012 by pigsty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringbag Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Ah yes, I do see the join now that I look. But your picture shows a Trident 2 with a longer fence than the Trident 1C in the Air Britain picture - that one barely makes it halfway across the drooping section, whereas the later one clearly goes all the way to the leading edge. The advice in post no.13 was that all variants would need a fence that reached the leading edge, which is what I'm still doubtful about. Sorry Sean. I missed that. You are correct however in that the fences are shorter on the 1C as shown here. Trident 1C Chris. PS for compaison, here is the 1E and the 2 fences. Edited August 24, 2012 by stringbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringbag Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I have yet another question concerning the BEA Red Square livery. The fuselage undersurfaces were BEA grey and the engine nacelles were natural metal. But how about the areas around the engine in the fuselage? Were they natural metal as well? Is that natural metal on the rear fuselage or just grubby paintwork? Don't forget that early 1C's were delivered with a natural metal lower fuselage as shown here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 Don't forget that early 1C's were delivered with a natural metal lower fuselage as shown here You're not making my choice any easier, yannow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenshb Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Lots of good info here - keep it coming please. I remember seeing and hearing BEA Tridents on approach to Oslo Fornebu way back in the 70's and noticed that the noise was always accompanied by red wings:) Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Loving this thread, I'm feeling inspired to do a T3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringbag Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Loving this thread, I'm feeling inspired to do a T3 Don't forget that the Trident 3 had a different wing sweep angle compared with other marks Neil. Hopefully I'll be able to post more informative detail soon. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now