TSR2 in Depron

[Tony Bennett]

i see my fireflash is up for sale on ebay.

**LINK**

still looks good after all these years. sigh

[Andrew Price 2]

Signed in Terry. Is that the chuck model as recommended by Colin, or what?

You can find some good TSR2 stuff on youtube by the way.

I seem to recall that only two TSR2 airframes survived from that awful "top secret" scrap heap!!! One seems to be at Cosford. One at Duxford. Didn't they also have one at Henlow? Is it still there? Has it been moved? If so, to where? By way Henlow used to have two EE Lightning prototypes in fantastic condition on the parade ground - behind the saluting base. Where are they now? OR What happened to them?

[Colin Leighfield]

Two built and one flown, no more. Apparently parts for 40 in process but everything was destroyed by order of the government, drawings, jigs, everything obliterated to make absolutely sure that the project couldn't be re-started.

[Erfolg]

I would guess that one is in the Manchester air and space Museum. It is definitely a P1, no belly tank etc, the rather anemic air intake, rather than the muscular stance that the airframe achieved.

 

tony

I do admire your initiative, I will watch this to see if it sells. It is a pity it does not fly (well), although it does taxi well.

Edited By Erfolg on 12/08/2014 23:27:02

[Colin Leighfield]

The P1A is at Cosford. ( Or was).

[Tony Bennett]

i sold the fireflash 3 years ago to a collector, it's him who is selling it not me.

anyway back to the tsr2.

need to sort how to fit the taiplane next at the correct angle.

[Mark Kettle 1]

TSR2 - is a nice project - great work.

[Erfolg]

Here is a picture of the Manchester P1, the first of the prototypes I understand.

In some respects the EE TSR 2 has similarities with the Douglas X3.

In that it had very small wing area relative to the body length, more significantly, there were problems with inertia, described as "roll coupling". Of course this could be just a high speed issue, that would not affect a model.

It will be very interesting to see how your model handles. I guess part of the secret to good handling (or the best that can be achieved) is keeping the masses concentrated around the CG.

I imagine the small wing area issue will be addressed by flaps or variable camber wing? Or will you just accept that relative to the wing area and lowest weight practical, a faster than usual landing and take of speed may be necessary?

I have dreams of a X3 or F 104, EDF, on that basis, your build and flight will be watched with great interest

Edited By Erfolg on 13/08/2014 10:36:11

Edited By Erfolg on 13/08/2014 10:37:20

Edited By Erfolg on 13/08/2014 10:57:10

[Tony Bennett]

i plan to have flaperons set up to help with take off and landings and if i can work out how to do it, air brakes as well.

all the servos are going in under the main wing and roughly on the c o g point if i can work out where that will be.

i want to get all the structure built up so i can play with positioning of all the parts before i sheet it up, that way i can move things to get the best balance with the least extra weight needed.

retracts will be fun to do.

plus i think a flight stabiliser might not be a bad idea for the first few flights.

[Erfolg]

Tony, I have a flight stabilisation thing, a HK model aeroplane gyro system. I have never used it, as from reading about those that have used that particular one, setting it up, appear to be quite an accomplishment, in itself. It is as if you need to get the model to fly well under ideal conditions before you can tell if the gyro package is set up correctly.

Then again, I am both careful and a coward.

With respect to flaps etc, it has surprised me how little flap has been used on model gliders, to improve the sink rate. From what I have seen on scale models in the past, and the flight simulators I have had, like Airbus, the flap on take of has been quite high, from memory about 5-10 degrees. There will be a reason, why the differences seem appropriate, relative to what is wanted, I just do not know it.

Edited By Erfolg on 13/08/2014 11:07:23

[Andrew Price 2]

Thank you Colin & Erfoig for the info on TSR2's and Lightnings.

I can remember the headline writ large over a pic of a very large heap of jigs and bits of aircraft Colin. "The Top Secret Scrapheap". You and others have, interestingly, related stories of post war disposals. You can attempt to explain and understand those. The TSR2 "event" was criminal damage on a grand scale, no further research, nothing, carried out by the same sort of people who also "mysteriously" cancelled the M52!!

Re my memory of a Henlow TSR2. I was hoping/expecting that an erk would surface with good quality gen. May still happen. I live in hope!

Erfoig. The photo you kindly posted shows a very familiar looking aircraft. Hopefully Colin has identified the fate of the other prototype. Great, great that they also were not just scraped.

I had always thought the x3 looked like some fantasy I would have doddled during a boring double maths lesson. I still have daydreams. They've changed over the years however!!!!

[Colin Leighfield]

The TSR2 is challenging, I think the X3 would be a nightmare. The full size one certainly was, apart from being underpowered to the degree that it could only exceed Mach 1 in a dive, there were the roll coupling issues that Erfolg describes, I'm inclined to think that would not be just a high speed issue. Time for the chuck-glider!

I've got an Avro 730 chuck glider flying quite well and that's got a length/span ratio of 3:1.

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 14/08/2014 19:33:17

[Erfolg]

At a personal level, once the TSR 2 is flying, I will undertake some simple comparisons of the TSR2 proportions to the X3 I suspect that the differences by proportion are possibly not great. The X3 has a very pointy nose and long, whereas the TSR 2 has a long beefy nose. It would not surprise me that wing area as a proportion of the moment arm will not be very different.

I was very young when Harold Wilson came to Trafford Park, to make an election speech. There were literally thousands of workers there, on spare ground. He spoke about a white hot technology revolution, the support of industry, and so on. I believed it all. When elected, he cancelled TSR2, encouraged and paved the way for GEC to take over both AEI then EE, which were then asset stripped. Harold Wilson did more damage to the UK manufacturing industry than even Margaret Thatcher managed, with a lot less fuss.

So keep turning the clock back Tony, remind us of what could have been.

[Daithi O Buitigh]

The cancellation was more down to Solly Zuckerman who was the 'scientific adviser' to Wilson. Now as an eminent zoologist, he was hardly qualified to pass judgement on aircraft design and he also believed that US technology (in the shape of the F111) was 'superior'. He was responsible for starting the destruction of the aircraft indusrty with both the TSR2 cancellation along with the Hawker P1154 (the P1127 was a 'test of concept' and was pressed into production as the Harrier. The P1154 would have been similar but with supersonic capability and other goodies.

His attitude was that it would be cheaper to buy from the US - overlooking the loss of tax revenue (and the cost to the social welfare) of all the workers made redundant

[Colin Leighfield]

Erfolg, X3 67 ft. long, wing area 167 /squ.ft. TSR2 89 ft. long, wing area 703 squ.ft. I've not measured the moment arm but they're both close coupled. I imagine that the TSR2 would have much better longitudinal damping though with that broad chord delta wing. Don't know about the inertia roll coupling, but I would have thought the X3 might be more extreme in that respect. The TSR2 was auto-stabilised I'm sure, don't think the X3 was.

[Colin Leighfield]

Daithi, that fits in with my recollection. Don't forgot the advanced carriers as well, the first of two was well on the way when that bunch of clowns cancelled and scrapped it. After M52, I think that was Winkle Brown's biggest heartache because the design was largely his conception.

[Colin Leighfield]

The long nose in front of the wing on this must create a lot of moment inertia, but the fore plane, although very small, damps it out so that it's stable longitudinally. It rocks a bit laterally but continually self-corrects and flies well. i think it will be good on a catapult. The X3 is beyond me, I think. Must drop this now, it's Tony's TSR2 thread, after all. (Sorry about photo quality, small and fast in poor light and heavily cropped).

[Tony Bennett]

looks nice colin

you better get building then.

[Colin Leighfield]

This is likely to be fourth in line, I'm getting as bad as you, but much slower, I'm afraid.

[Erfolg]

I have been looking at drawings of both aircraft which I have printed out, There are is one thing that is common to both aircraft that has surprised me.

The first surprise is that you find the 30% chord line on both aircraft, to establish the CG, it apparently lies behind the rear landing wheels. This would indicate that both real aircraft had a very much forward CG. A lot less than the average 30% chord.

I decided that I would equate both areas of the wings. On that basis the side area of the nose on X3 is 1.56 that of the TSR2. So that is favourable.

The moment arm to the tailplane is not as simple and will require a few simple sums, as the arm itself is approx (+) *2 on the X3, but the area of the tailplane is much less.

Unfortunately I have not much time to day, nor over the next week, but will do a check out of curiosity. I would post the print outs but that would be side tracking the thread.

What is apparent when viewing the TSR" drawing. is how wide and big the body is relative to the wing area. If anything like a scale wing were made, the model will benefit from minimising weight.

It also struck me that the TSR2 is similar to the NA Vigilante, when casually looking,, but with a smaller wing by proportion

[Tony Bennett]

have put this on hold now till after the nats, i need to finish the vulcan asap.

looked at the jet intakes yesterday though.

wont take long to get to the fitting out and sheeting stage now though.

[Martian]

you do very clean accurate work Tony look forward to you continuing after the NATS meanwhile have a pleasant time

[Erfolg]

I am very interested in this build. With a particular view to building, sometime in the future an X3.

On that basis i have undertaken some comparisons, using drawings form the Internet, the images are roughly the same size.

the type of comparison I have made are side areas, where I am making an assumption that there is a relationship between area and area. On that basis the TSR2 when compared to the X3 is pretty much identical. When the wing area is lower for the X3. On that basis if the wing areas were to be equalised (as sketched) then you might expect both models to behave in a similar manner due to inertia.

I have also used a on line calculator to obtain the tailplane volumes.

What is a little disturbing is that the tailplane vol margin is massively lower for the TSR2. Principally a consequence of the moment arm.

From the point of view of the TSR2, there are many (at least one) models of the TSR2 flying on U-tube. The one concern could be that amount of thrust that is available from EDFs, which could limit the speed, particularly on take of, which limits the amount lift available? It could be that provision for an alternative larger wing could be useful. I always thought that was an issue with the Thunderflash, it could have flown, if it could have only gone a lot faster.

I am assuming that the TSR2 will fly, and could well provide a lot of info on how to build a X3 (semi scale) that could also fly, as they are not as far apart as would first appear, when wing areas are equalised. Even the duct lengths are broadly similar.

[Colin Leighfield]

I think you need to look at the tail areas as well, the fin is very small on the X3, particularly in proportion to the side area of the wing in front of the cg. The wide flat fuselage might have the same implications for tailplane area as well.Also the TSR2 is almost a delta with a tailplane and probably inherently more stable than the X3. The tailplane functioned as "tailerons" with no ailerons on the wings and I'm sure that's the right way to set up a model of it. To me the X3 looks a lot trickier, but I understand your interest, the series of X-planes always fascinated me and this is one of the least successful of them. It apparently wasn't that nice to fly.

[Erfolg]

I would not disagree that the fin area is also in need of consideration. Although the moment arm is significantly longer on the X3.

In this instance, I am just considering, is it possible.

More importantly it is access to building experiences, of others that potentially saves many hours of gaining experiences of what and not to do.

Tony's model seems pretty big though, by my standards.

The TSR2 is one of those aircraft which I have never read about in depth. The other issue is that it is a dim memory, who appeared to be the principal players. I do vaguely remember Zuckerman as an advisor, I also do vaguely remember some of the politics, in the electronics aspect being not fully developed, with typical airframe problems and a the very generous offer of GD F111, at higher costs and much longer delivery. It seems a perfect study for a History Phd.