Jump to content

1:72 Airfix BAC TSR.2


Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...
21 hours ago, bobgdsm75 said:

Hi guys anyone got measurements of the wheels of the real aircraft? Cool build btw

 

 

I believe the main gear tyres were 43" in diameter if that's what you mean. That is what I think I can read off of the sidewall in a close-up photo. That would work out to around 15 mm in 1:72, which is very close to what I used on the model. Scaling up the nose gear tyres on the model would yield 28" or so in diameter. FWIW...

 

Perhaps @canberra kid can tell us the actual numbers.   :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

I believe the main gear tyres were 43" in diameter if that's what you mean. That is what I think I can read off of the sidewall in a close-up photo. That would work out to around 15 mm in 1:72, which is very close to what I used on the model. Scaling up the nose gear tyres on the model would yield 28" or so in diameter. FWIW...

 

Perhaps @canberra kid can tell us the actual numbers.   :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

As yet Bill I can't find an answer, I did find this drawing which may say the size unfortunately it's too 'fuzzy' to read, I do have a set of scale drawings from BAC that I can look at at the weekend.

xd8XYO.jpg

John 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 1/10/2018 at 8:43 AM, Navy Bird said:

 

 

 

Thanks mates. The photos I have which show the coaming are all from a vantage point where the photographer is looking through the side panels of the windscreen. This is the best shot I have, found somewhere on the net and posted here under fair use.

 

1280px-BAC_TSR2_Cosford-01

 

I didn't think it was black, which led me to question the instruction sheets. Looks darker than the photos of the pit. I wonder, though - are the windscreen panels tinted? If so, is this affecting the perception of the colour? @hairystick - any chance you could post the photos you took of the coaming? I'm also interested in any details that CMK might have missed. For example, was there any insulation on top of the coaming to prevent unwanted heat from the sun? What's the HUD look like?

 

The inside of the windscreen framework appears to be the same grey as the cockpit, which is a veritable sea of grey:

 

tsr280b

 

tsr281b

 

The previous two photos show the cockpits as of February 1965, I believe, and should be a pretty good representation of what was used. The same two photos appear in Damien Burke's book, and are not labelled as photos of mock-ups, where other photos specifically are. I'm guessing these are the cockpits on XR219.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I used Gunze H335 Medium Sea Grey for the cockpit colour. Since it seems the coaming was darker, I can use H331 Dark Sea Grey for that pretty easily. That should make a nice contrast.

 

Next up - the gear bays and struts. Light Aircraft Grey or Light Admiralty Grey? I suspect the former, as they don't seem to have any bluish tinge.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. @Seahawk - obsession can be a hobbyhorse at times. Sometimes I think too much. So, right, the book by Thornborough. I don't have that actually (just the ones by Burke and McLelland) and it sounds like I should try to procure a copy. I suspect it's out of print, since I seem to recall that Ad Hob Publications is no longer - the owner passed on I believe. This will mean tackling eBay prices. Always a joy.

It's as if engineers at BAC took a look at a B-58 Cockpit and said, "Chaps, i think we need to use a somewhat darker shade of grey..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2018 at 3:25 PM, Navy Bird said:

This has been a right royal pain.

 

IMG_1819

 

To be honest, I don't like it. When that happens, I'd rather work on something else. Anyway, I think I'll tone this down some more by shooting some highly thinned white over the top.

 

Cheers,

Bill

If my experience on the Super VC10 is any indication, it's super easy to go too dark with a panel line wash on a white surface, and kind of hard to work backwards to get a good contrast back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2018 at 4:24 PM, Navy Bird said:

 

The trailing edge flaps on the tailplanes were for additional pitch authority at low speed. They could only be operated when the wing flaps were down. When the wing flaps were retracted, the tailplane flaps were locked in neutral position.

 

 

Purely by accident as i was reading through one of my magazines on the Buccaneer, i learned that it's (Blown) horizontal tailplane had an identical feature; it went to trailing edge-up when the flaperons went down.

Now, i know TSR-2 had a highly "blown" wing trailing edge but not sure if the tailplanes had BLC as well.

 

Seems to have been a uniquely British phenomenon; haven't seen any equivalent American aircraft equipped with such a setup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, David H said:

Purely by accident as i was reading through one of my magazines on the Buccaneer, i learned that it's (Blown) horizontal tailplane had an identical feature; it went to trailing edge-up when the flaperons went down.

Now, i know TSR-2 had a highly "blown" wing trailing edge but not sure if the tailplanes had BLC as well.

 

Seems to have been a uniquely British phenomenon; haven't seen any equivalent American aircraft equipped with such a setup.

 

The Buccaneer had very highly blown surfaces due to it's need to land on the smaller Brittish Aircraft Carriers so it needed as much help as it could get which is why both the wings and tail surfaces were blown.

 

The TSR2 was to have short rough field performance which also meant that it needed to land in a short space, but not as short as a Brittish Aircraft Carrier deck. The tail surfaces on the TSR2 were not blown, almost any cut away drawing will show that the tail surfaces were fixed to the rear fuselage with pivots which can also be seen in some photographs if memory serves me.

 

It's not a unequally Brittish thing, we just happen to be quite good at it :rolleyes:

 

Gondor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gondor44 said:

 

The Buccaneer had very highly blown surfaces due to it's need to land on the smaller Brittish Aircraft Carriers so it needed as much help as it could get which is why both the wings and tail surfaces were blown.

 

The TSR2 was to have short rough field performance which also meant that it needed to land in a short space, but not as short as a Brittish Aircraft Carrier deck. The tail surfaces on the TSR2 were not blown, almost any cut away drawing will show that the tail surfaces were fixed to the rear fuselage with pivots which can also be seen in some photographs if memory serves me.

 

It's not a unequally Brittish thing, we just happen to be quite good at it :rolleyes:

 

Gondor

One thing that the Buccaneer and TSR 2 have in common is the all-moving tailplane (taileron in the case of the latter) so ducting (very) hot air into a moving surface is quite do-able and could have been on TSR 2 had the need arisen.  One significant difference between the two types is that the elevator on the Buccaneer only moves upwards (to counter the strong nag nose-down trim change with flaps down) whereas the geared tabs on the TSR 2 could move in either direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, stever219 said:

One thing that the Buccaneer and TSR 2 have in common is the all-moving tailplane (taileron in the case of the latter) so ducting (very) hot air into a moving surface is quite do-able and could have been on TSR 2 had the need arisen.  One significant difference between the two types is that the elevator on the Buccaneer only moves upwards (to counter the strong nag nose-down trim change with flaps down) whereas the geared tabs on the TSR 2 could move in either direction.

I always wondered what the purpose of the tabs was; at first i thought it might be high speed roll trim; then after seeing pics of the Buccanneer i figured it was blown. Does it just boil down to increasing the degree of camber, which increased the downwards "lifting" force at low speeds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David H said:

I always wondered what the purpose of the tabs was; at first i thought it might be high speed roll trim; then after seeing pics of the Buccanneer i figured it was blown. Does it just boil down to increasing the degree of camber, which increased the downwards "lifting" force at low speeds?

Sorry, no.  It was to increase elevator authority in the full flaps and undercarriage down configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...