Jump to content

BAC TSR-2 - As it might have been ***FINISHED***


PeterB

Recommended Posts

G'day Peter,

 

Ref the u/c door openings, I thought that these aligned with the ducts (the 'nozzles') in each u/c bay to permit exhaust air to be vented out?

I am away from home presently so cannot dig my kits out to have a look for myself. You have sheeted over the door openings, is this based on your reference material?

 

Ref the proposed moveable inlet ramp, several well known designs rely on moveable inlet spikes e.g. Mirages, F-104, Mig-21, SR-21 etc, but these designs do not also have a moveable ramp. Alternatively, the inlet ramp could remain fixed and an internal variable inlet ramp (think F-14/Su-27) could be employed to manage inlet airflow. The movable ramp/variable inlet ramp is really only required if jet is capable of high Mach speeds. The early F/A-18s (A-D) for example have a fixed inlet ramps even though the jet is capable of Mach 1.8. Some inlet spike designs also feature a fixed splitter plate to separate the boundary layer but the TSR.2 would have been unique (and rather complex) if it had both a moveable inlet ramp and an inlet spike.

 

Prototypes often experiment with different design configurations e.g the air brake actuator mechanism re-design you mentioned.  My guess is that they would have opted for one or the other but not both. On the subject of air-brakes some designs will droop open when hyd power is removed. On Mirage IIIs for example both the upper and lower air brakes will be slightly open from flush one hyp pressure bleeds off, same for F-4s. Rather than attempting to get a perfect flush fit, perhaps the back story may be that once hyd power was removed the TSR.2 brakes sagged slightly to open?

 

The F-111A/C and EF-111A all had fixed splitter plates with moveable inlet spikes. The cowls in these variants also 'translated' i.e moved forwards at low speeds to create an additional air inlet to permit additional air to be drawn into the inlet ducts. Later F-111 variants (D/E/F/G) dispensed with the splitter plate / translating cowl combination but retained their inlet spikes.

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some photos of the TSR.2s at Duxford and Cosford. But this wikipedia shot of the Cosford airplane shows the rectangular hole in the door - you can see the light shining through onto the bomb bay door behind.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#/media/File:BAC_TSR2_Cosford-01.jpg

 

A couple of other tidbits that the Warton guys told me were that the airbrakes did indeed fit poorly, and made an annoying howling noise in flight. That whole articulation and actuation system would have needed redesigning altogether.

 

The other was nose gear shimmy - with the pilot so far forward of the nose gear, the shaking in the cockpit was amplified and unbearable when the shimmy hit.

 

Just the usual kind of problems that are dealt with in the  course of the development program, but there were enough flaws that they weren't looking forward to it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys,

 

Pics seem to show that there was perhaps a moveable cover over the aperture in the wheel door - drdjp11's pic shows it as a darker grey/silver colour and there seems to be some sort of "arm" attached so maybe it slid open and closed. Anyway, I have covered it on the inside but left a depression on the outside so it will stand out. As to the intakes, that is an area I know very little about but Graham suggested it might need changing, so I guess it could either be a moveable cone or ramps but not both - I will stick with the kit version. Whilst I am not bad at scratch building, I need to have a drawing to work from, and there are limits to how far I am inclined to go with this plane as I do not normally do "What Ifs", at least not without a solid basis of info! Perhaps I am a little lacking in imagination as far as the actual airframe is concerned.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wing is probably the worst fitting part I have come across to far - either it is too thick, or the cut out on top of the fuselage is too shallow, or maybe a mixture of both! I have thinned the wing down and deepened the cut out but is was still slightly proud of the fuselage, but anyway I filed all the gaps etc with ppp, rubbed them down with my finger, and when that was dry gave it a coat of primer. That showed up quite a bit more work to do as expected so I have put on some normal filler. Once that is set I will sand it down again and re-prime, and so on until I am happy. I may have to do a little re-scribing but frankly the panel lines are so shallow that they appear to have been lost under the primer anyway!

DSC05633-crop

As you can see I have added the Freightdog refuelling probe fairing as shown on Richard Caruna's drawings in McClelland's book. Whether or not it would have looked like that in service is anybody's guess! I have left off the tail surfaces for ease of access but they are primed.

 

So, three cycles of filling, sanding and priming later and I think this is about as good as I am goint to get.

DSC05635-crop

Next up, the undercarriage.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PeterB said:

One thing not shown in the instruction sheet is that Airfix have moulded a rectangular hole in both of the lower forward doors of the undercarriage bay, and at first I thought they were windows, but there are no transparent inserts. However, looking at photos it seems to line up with the black painted “nozzle” on the prominent trunking at the bottom of the bay, though the hole in the door seems to have some sort of cover plate on it – maybe it is some sort of vent or intake for when the engine is running on the ground with the doors closed? The outline is visible on my plans but it does not seem to be clear and Eduard have not provided any etch so I will plate it over with card.

DSC05627-crop

And here it is plated over and you may be able to see how it lines up with the nozzle I mentioned - don't know which is worse white or black but this white plastic makes it difficult at times to see what you are doing due to lack of contrast I guess. I may end up putting some filler in later.

DSC05629-crop

And in spite of this kit's reputation for poor fit I think I must have got lucky with mine.

DSC05631-crop

Since seeing the above pic I have adjusted the end of the lower door so it is flush.  Ok, it is not perfect but I have seen far worse and there is nothing a little swipe of PPP and a gentle sanding should not sort. So that is the bomb doors and the forward main gear doors on - the closed rear section of the nose doors will not go on until the leg is in but if they are no worse than the other doors I will be happy.

 

I will leave it to harden up overnight then will no doubt spend a fair bit of time filling and sanding. Then I will have a shot at sorting out the undercarriage and engines. This is racing ahead, at least for now, but so far I seem to have been lucky.

 

Pete

The openings in the doors are to allow the boundary layer bleed air to vent overboard, via the "nozzles" that you refer to along the bottom edges of the wheel bay walls.  As such they're permanently open and, IIRC,have no cover plates, grilles or guards on 'em.  If they were blocked the engines would ingest turbulent boundary layer air which would produce pressure differences across the engine face and reducing both performance and engine life.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I feel a bit of a fraud with this build - when I started I confidently expected it to take at least a couple of months and I would be filling many pages with details of all the problems I encountered and how I hopefully got round them, but with a bit of common sense, plenty of dry fitting and a few strokes of my trusty files I seem to have made rather better progress than expected, not that I am complaining of course. Anyway, I mentioned earlier when "discussing" the undercarriage with Heather that not only were the main legs angled backwards, but that they were splayed out as well, and that Airfix had got the angle wrong. Like Bill before me, I managed to solve that problem with a bit of judicious filing and the main gear legs are on.

DSC05637-crop

There was one small problem that I don't recall Bill mentioning in his build - with the legs at a lesser angle the small support strut at the bottom inner side fouls the edge of the fuselage cut-out for the wheel bay, so I had to shave a couple of mil off - to be strictly accurate I guess I should add a similar amount to the outer wheel doors so they match! Actually I dropped a bit of a clanger by ignoring the instructions and fitting the bottom fuselage section before more mounting the u/c legs and so had to cut a notch so I could get them in - my bad as they say. That will now be filled and painted, and the various struts, scissors etc added. I should perhaps also mention that although Airfix have not moulded it, because of the STOL requirement then like a number of other planes including the F-4K, the TSR-2 had a tricked up nose leg which could be extended by around an extra 30 inches or so to give a pronounced "nose up" sit.

 

I have added a bit more "What Iffery" as you may have noticed - a pair of chaff/flare dispenser under the rear fuselage as on Buccs and Tornados in the Gulf War, and a couple of pylons under the wings where the tips turn down - I will explain these mods and a few other things later under the "Countermeasures" heading - probably going a bit over the top but what the heck!

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • PeterB changed the title to BAC TSR-2 - As it might have been - Getting There!

With regards to paint schemes, Lucas's book gives some thought to this and includes a BAC painting diagram ref 57900 from November 24th 1964 which shows production models in Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey over White, in what they say are acrylic paints, but although it was intended to switch to that type of paint tests showed it was not practical so in fact the plane would have been painted in Polyurethane Gloss paints of the current standard with what modellers call “D Type” markings. Assuming the TSR-2 in service followed the same path as other RAF planes that actually flew, at some point the underside colour would have changed to Light Sea Grey, probably as a result of DCI 36/69 of August 13th 1969, and in March 1971 an order was issued changing the paint to a flat finish. Markings in some cases then changed to the red/blue only so called “Tactical” ones, though Lucas speculates that the earlier red/white/blue ones would have continued for some time. Since, I think WWII the Commanders of Recce Squadrons had authority to modify paint schemes as appropriate to fit to in with their particular mission and Lucas suggests that some Recce and maybe strike planes would have substituted Medium Sea Grey under surfaces, but the version I am doing is the “wrap around” Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey one instituted on strike aircraft such as the Buccaneer, Tornado and Jaguar and some surviving Vulcans in around 1978, following experience in Red Flag exercises in the US, when violent low level manoeuvres caused the light under surfaces of RAF participants to give away their position. The markings will accordingly be of the tactical variety with no white in either roundels or fin flashes. I have put on a first thin coat of Gunze H331 which is their attempt at Post War RAF Dark Sea grey, which it turns out is almost identical to Halfords' Grey Plastic Primer.

DSC05639-crop

It has had another coat since them and is now ready for the green.

 

In the meantime I have put on my "What If Hat" as it were and had another think about what this plane was going to used for. Initially it was intended to carry either free fall or stand off nukes, but by the time I am modelling it that role would have been taken over by the Navy. I could still carry all the usual range of conventional weapons, for example up to 6x1000lb bombs internally or 3 if the bomb bay fuel tank was in use, and could carry a further 4x1000lb bombs on each of the inboard pylons and a single one on the outboard, again if they were not in use for something else. It could also carry things like Sea Eagle or Martel missiles and even unguided rocket pods, and presumably LGB could be used as well, particularly if the TIALD pod was fitted. As I rather fancy tanks and countermeasures under the wings, I was going to copy Ronald Wong's painting and have it from 617 Squadron, presumably with bombs carried internally, but I have changed my mind! Back in around 1963 plans were drawn up for a dedicated recce pod to be mounted under the bomb doors and it was intended to produce enough for 3 of the Canberra PR squadrons to convert to TSR-2. I seem to remeber somebody, probably Freightdog did an AM resin one but that has long since become unavailabe,  However the shape and spec for the pod look very similar to the Linescan pods pylon mounted under Jaguars and Tornados and I have a couple of those in my Airfix "Hi Tech" Weapons sets so I got my saw out! Looks like it will be goodbye to 617 and hello to 58 Squadron as I have their owl badge left over from my recent Canberra PR.9 build in the "Unarmed" GB. I should end up with a "What If" TSR-2 version of the Tornado GR.1A, which retained some combat capability - maybe even a GR.4A if I use both the under the nose pods for the Laser Ranger and the FLIR that I bought a while back. Given how long the Canberra PR.9 remained in service I think this will certainly justify me thinking 1990's period spec, maybe even later. I am of course postulating that 58 wre not disbanded in 1970 after all, but got a new lease of life along with a new plane.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • PeterB changed the title to BAC TSR-2 - As it might have been - Putting the "R" in TSR.

I added the Eduard PE scissors to the main legs and was thinking of using their bits for the jetpipes and wheels but it involves grinding away the detail Airfix already moulded which is not that bad, so I have decided it is too much hassle. There is of course some touching up to do but the upper surface and side camo is now on – all I have to do is attempt to paint the mirror image on the bottom!

DSC05641-crop

Now you can see the full length of this bird, except for the nose probe of course, and I am waiting for a Master replacement brass one to arrive – the kit one is pretty good but awfully flimsy!

 

Cheers

 

Pete

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's the relatively easy bit done and except for a fair bit of touching up the main camo is on. Next comes the fiddly bit - nose cone, various antennae, the intake cones and leading edges etc.  “Stealth Technology" was a fairly new concept at the time TSR-2 was convceived but some consideration was given to the radar cross section and it was found that the engine intakes accounted for about 50% or the reflected signal. Application of Radar Absorbing material/paint was looked at but at the time the stuff available would not stand the heat so it was abandoned – I have postulated that this problem was at least partially overcome later and will paint a certain amount of black “RAM” on, as per the Xtradecal sheet instructions and my books.

 

DSC05644-crop

I have added a couple more "What If" bits as you will see. From about 1982 Tornados were fitted with a fairing under the nose for the so called "Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker" or LRMTS for short. This was I believe a fixed laser which allowed the plane to paint a target for another plane to to bomb with Laser Guided Weapons as also fitted in the "chisel nose" of certain Jaguar and Harrier versions, but as I understand it  the lack of a moving "head" meant that it could not effectively mark for itself, hence the rushing of the Buccaneers to the Gulf in 1990 to mark for the GR.1. However, the problem was solved by the rapid introduction of the TIALD pod (Thermal Imaging and Laser Designator) which did have a moving head. Later, the upgrade to GR.4 at the start of this century added a second identical looking fairing under the nose containing a "Forward Looking Infra Red" camera (FLIR) and my Freightdog GR.4/4A contains a pair of what appear to be identical fairings. I see no reason why the TSR-2 would not have had at least a LRMTS, though as this is a "What If" I could say that the FLIR entered service in early 1990 I guess, so you can take you pick as to exactly which it is. I was going to mount a TIALD as well, but am working on the assumption that these could be fitted as and when needed rather than being a fixture, so would not be normally on the Recce TSR-2 version.

 

That leads me on to the Recce package which I have also fitted. I have discovered that rather than being a self contained independent unit like the later Line Scan pods, most of the kit - generators, cameras, scanners, etc was mounted in the bomb bay itself, and the opening doors were removed and replaced by a fixed panel which incorporated a fairing on the outside. There was some debate back before TSR-2 was cancelled about how easy it would be to fit the package to any machine - well it could be done in theory but would have taken manpower and time that probably would not be readily available in a war. This seems to be why it was decided to have up to 3 dedicated Recce Squadrons with secondary strike capability using wing mounted weapons, rather than having a pool of recce packs to be used as and when by the strike Squadrons - probably less cost effective but a lot more practical! I suppose another alternative would be to provide each strike Squadron with a couple of recce planes, but that could perhaps have caused crewing and maintenance problems.

 

As I mentioned previously I am not a great fan of "What If" builds but am making an exception in this case for obvious reasons. However I am trying to stick to the sort of changes that might reasonably be expected if the plane had entered service, and am not including any radical structural changes such as more effective intakes or even variable geometry wings, interesting though they may well be in the highly unlikely event I was able to fabricate them - sorry if that makes it a bit boring!😁

 

Pete

 

 

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was going too well - I have had a strange problem with my Dark Sea Grey paint. I have 3 different types to chose from. My favorite is the Xtracrylic I used on my Shackleton a couple of years ago, which went on very well with a hairy stick. The only problem is the tall and relatively narrow necked bottle it comes in which is great for shaking to mix the paint but I always stir it as well - trouble is I cannot get the 1.8cm wide flat brush I use when doing large surfaces into it - yes I could decant it but it is wasteful. I also have 2 different Gunze Dark Sea Greys, one quite light and one about the same as the Xtracrylic, and as I could easily get my brush in I used one of those as mentioned earlier. It went on well enough slightly thinned, but when I needed to do some touching up with a thin brush the new paint dried noticeably darker and glossier or whatever reason. In the end I bit the bullet and completely re-did the grey with the Xtracrylic which touches up pretty well, and actually is a better shade anyway to my eye. Oh well, no harm done -  Gunze Mr Colour Acrylic 0, Xtracrylic 1!

 

Pete

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just about finished the touching up and detailing so I have given it a coat of Pledge (Future substitute) and it is ready for decs - when they arrive!

DSC05646-crop

I am currently working on the drop tanks and the other bits for under the wings. In his book McClelland says that the internal capacity of 5588 Imp Gals could be added to by fitting a fuel tank in the bomb bay of 570 Gal and a jettisonable ventral slipper tank of 1000 Gal, but neither of those options would be available with the Recce pack fitted. That just left the ones on the inner pylons which he says could be up to 450 Gal each or say 1000 Litres. Illustrations in Lucas's book show two types of tank, a relatively narrow parallel sided one and the "Teardrop" shaped ones as produced by Freightdog as below.

DSC05649-crop

I had originally been thinking of early service dates in say the 1970's and would have used the resin ones, but now I am being more ambitious and going for Tornado tanks which are normally 1500 L or around 340 Gal, or the bigger "Hindenburgs" which are 2250 L or 511 Gal - guess which ones I have gone for! Ok, they would probably require some structural strengthening but that's fine. I have no idea what if any speed limit they impose - I suspect the teardrop ones were supersonic capable but I am not sure about the big ones.

 

I mentioned earlier I was considering using small magnets to allow me to change the load-out and I still am but not on this kit. It all started when I saw a build article in a magazine where the chap used tiny neodymium magnets so I bought a few - they are all circular ranging from about 1m to 4mm diameter and around 1mm to 2mm thick and are very powerful. The kit in the article was 1/48 which would make it somewhat easier, but it is not too hard to drill small holes in the wing undersurface and matching holes in the pylon, or maybe the pylon and the tank/weapon - the biggest problem is getting the ruddy polarities correct! Once glued in place you can even paint over them and they still work. I did try it on a test "scrap" kit, and by using more than 2 sets of magnets I could even change the angle to match variable sweep wings. However in this particular case the paint scheme would be wrong for both early and late style tanks so I may leave it for one of my "modern" jets such as the F-15E where there are a multitude of weapons options on the same paintwork.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cockpit was pressurised but provision was made for full or partial pressure suits to be worn and many years ago I seem to remember coming across a mention of a “semi-pressure helmet” or words to that effect – I think that is what Airfix have moulded on their crew figures which I am not using.

The canopy of the TSR-2 – or at least the opening bits were tinted gold and I have found 3 different explanations in my sources. One says that the thin mesh of gold film was sandwiched between the layers of plexiglass and an electric current was passed through it so it acted as a demister – reminds me of my first mini which was of the same vintage. I bought a thin foil grid which did exactly the same when stuck on the rear window, though it did obstruct rear vision slightly! It is also possible that it was an early form of stealth technology to reflect radar waves, but the simplest explanation I have seen is that it was there to reduce the glare from a nuclear explosion,- though apparently production machines were to be fitted with blinds that automatically deployed after a nuclear bomb was dropped – fine if it was just your own bomb but probably no use whatsoever if somebody else dropped one whilst you were in the area!

 

Anyway, the nearest paint I have is Tamiya Clear Orange so I put a thinned coat of that on.

DSC05651-crop

This is the first time I have used Eduard masks but they seem pretty good. The canopy ones worked fine though I had a slight problem aligning the wheel ones.

DSC05653-crop

The tail is just a push fit at the moment as I still have some work to do on it. I have made and fitted the underwing serials so I can make a start on the pylons now - the pods and misiles need some decs which will be fiddly. I have knocked up some 58 Squadron badges as you can see. They were first raised in June 1916 and initially flew BE2c for Home Defence, but in December 1917 they switched to FE2d for night bombing, and continued in that role until 1942 when they switched to Anti Submarine work, first with Whitleys and then Halifaxes. They adopted a badge which in Heraldic Terms is "On a branch an Owl".

58

The motto apparently translates as "On the wings of night"! They were disbanded at the end of WWII and reinstated as a Photo Recce squadron with Canberras, serving in Germany until finally disbanded in 1970, and according to my books they were probably slated to receive the TSR-2 with recce packs.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

V-bomber crews were issued with a eyepatch to wear so that they could lose one eye to a nuclear flash and still continue flying.  Presumably this would also have been true for TSR.2 pilots.  Whether V-bomber co-pilots were issued with two, just in case, I haven't heard.

 

The stealth value of the gold film would have been very highly classified so cover stories would exist.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody else have problems with "stripe" decs for walkways etc? I used a combination of the ones from the Xtradecal TSR-2 sheet and some of their line decs, and they are very prone to breaking up. Admittedly they are a few years old but they have been stored flat in a cool, dry room in a folder so they are not exposed to much if any daylight, and yet after a couple of years they seem to become very fragile even in short lengths, although a coat of MS liquid decal film does help. Anyway I got them on eventually. I guess it is due to the drag getting them to move, combined with their lack of width.

DSC05655-crop

As you can see I have also put decs on the Sky Shadow and BOZ pods, and the undercarriage is on.

DSC05657-crop

It sits very slightly nose down though that may because when I corrected and reduced the splay on the main legs it would have effectively made them very slightly longer! You can see the extra strut fitted at the rear of the undercarriage to damp out the vibration - apparently according to McClelland's book that would have been a permanent feature of production models, and therein lies a story.

 

Like all prototypes there were a few problems as might be expected, but the most serious concerned the engines and the undercarriage. I mentioned earlier that the Olympus engine on a Vulcan test bed blew up destroying the plane - fortunately it was on the ground and the crew got out. It was initially determined that the low pressure turbine shaft failed so it was strengthened, but they kept on failing! They was not enough time to set up another flying test bed so the decision was made to fly the prototypes with a potentially dangerous set of engines, but limited them to 97% thrust as they thought that would minimise the risk. Once flights started they found that one of the engines caused the entire airframe to vibrate violently at the resonant frequency of the pilot's eyeballs causing badly blurred vision. Eventually the cause of the vibration was found and the engines were fixed, but it was very risky at first.

 

Then there was the undercarriage which was quite a complex design due to the STOL requirement. Initially it would not retract properly but that was relatively easy to fix. Then the brakes kept overheating and seizing up, but again that was fixed. However, when landing it began to vibrate badly jarring the crew so they could hardly maintain control. In the end it was decided to add an extra strut at the rear to damp out the vibration and a fixed version was test flown a couple of times with the gear locked down, and the vibration seemed to be cured. If flights had continued a fully operating version would have been fitted it seems, though another solution may have been found later.

 

Other than that the test pilots reported that the handling was very good, and it was said it was like a big Lightning, or even a big version of the later Tornado, but with greater range. Even with derated engines it could accelerate through Mach 1 on dry heat and was tested at 200ft where it was rock steady at Mach 1.12. Even the STOL performance was good, even if it was probably not really needed. All the indications were that it would be an excellent plane, though of course most of the electronics were not fitted and they could have caused problems. It was the most expensive plane produced at that date for the RAF, partly due to the relatively limited production run - I believe the figures were based on just 30 but surely at least 100 would have been built if it had not been cancelled, which might have reduced the cost somewhat. However, that was not to be. The decision soon after to cease operations "East of Suez"  removed some of the need for a plane of this type, but the main reason for the cancellation seems to have been political, based on the need to supposedly save money, and maybe even just to kill off what some perceived as a "prestige project" of the previous government out of spite!

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete this TSR2 has come along splendidly! I have the '48 scale packed up that I built years ago.I know I can hear the strains of"You poor sod" from the gallery.I may just have to retrieve it for restoration,if anything, to correct all the problems Airfix "injected" into their injection moulded subject.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "updated" tail is finished.

DSC05658-crop

I won't glue it on until everything is glued on underneath which will be a  day or two yet. The Master probe has arrived but that will be the last part to be added. That just leaves the pylons which are being painted as I type this, and the gear doors, plus one or two aerials. I seriously expected this to take at least a month, more like two, so I am pleasantly surprised! Mind you I have concentrated on it to the exclusion of a couple of other kits so I must get them moving before long as the deadline for them is looming.

 

I have followed Lucas' "Whif" profiles by keeping the serials on the rear fuselage though they are partly obscured by the wing - Xtradecal's researchers thought it would move up onto the tail.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PeterB said:

Does anybody else have problems with "stripe" decs for walkways etc? I used a combination of the ones from the Xtradecal TSR-2 sheet and some of their line decs, and they are very prone to breaking up. Admittedly they are a few years old but they have been stored flat in a cool, dry room in a folder so they are not exposed to much if any daylight, and yet after a couple of years they seem to become very fragile even in short lengths, although a coat of MS liquid decal film does help. Anyway I got them on eventually. I guess it is due to the drag getting them to move, combined with their lack of width.

Nicely done Pete!  Mine has the same nosedown stance - I like it.

For walkways, I airbrushed the upper surfaces black, marked out my warlkways with thinly sliced contrasting insulation tape, then airbrushed the camo over that.

Demasked, giving perfect walkways - without using decals.

Airfix-TSR2-003.jpg

Airfix-TSR2005.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from a short visit to a slightly damp Cardiff to get some paint and glue - first time in 18 months!

 

Bit of touching up to do but the wheel doors and pylons are on.

DSC05661-crop

Due to the short wings there is a lack of space so the clearances are a bit tight. I may have been better adopting the Tornado GR1 approach where I believe the missile railes are inboard, but I have copied the layout on Ronald Wong's painting. The big Hindenberg tanks may well have been sustitured for smaller ones with less drag and more clearance in time of war and I guess the Squardron insignia would have been overpainted as well, but this is intended to be in peacetime - well that is my excuse! As you can see the FLIR or LRTMS is offset slightly to Starboard to give a clear view past the aerial under the nose which will go on shortly.

 

So, time for the last of my "lectures", this time on countermeasures.

When the original requirement was issued it was a bit vague about countermeasures, saying they should be “appropriate to the threat”. They did want a form of passive RWR with all round coverage and the prototypes were fitted with an aerial under each wing-tip, but that did not give the desired coverage so an extra pair, possibly on the horizontal tail were added. I have updated that to the more normal later tail mounted version. There were various suggestions of jammers, rapid blooming chaff and flare dispensers and also towed decoys, and both the RAF and RN played around with this subject for all of their planes for the next 20 years. Initially it looked like pods for chaff and flares would be mounted on the outer pylons or maybe scabbed on direct to the wing like slipper tanks and I think these were what Freightdog modelled with the early streamlined drop tanks. There was also research into rapidly blooming chaff dispensers and likewise rocket propelled radar decoys. One spec called for a pod weighing up to 1000lb with both jammers and chaff/flares, but this was slimmed down to a jamming pod weighing more like 600lb and a separate chaff/flare dispenser, which became the Sky Shadow and BOZ 107 I will be mounting. Research continued into towed decoys and these were finally fitted to the Typhoon and some Tornados. I had have a look at the ones in my Airfix Typhoon and modified some pods from my spares box to add an “earlier” version at the point where the wing tip droop starts – some sources suggest them on the normal outer pylons where I have put other stores and some even on the actual wingtips as on the Typhoon but this is a “What If” build so I have added them on new outer pylons, perhaps before their time, and may have gone over the top slightly and overdone the countermeasures but what the heck.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 4
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...