Hello, this is my first post to this forum – be gentle! 🙂
I’ve already done a search here and although the subject has been covered, those threads did not cover my requirements. I’ve got plenty of reference for the Princess herself however (the model is almost complete) 🙂
I am attempting a what-if scenario to be rendered with computer graphics of what might have been if the Princess had been taken up by BOAC and used as intended.
My questions:
1) Does anyone know if plans had been made for the construction of a flying boat port specifically for this? I’m interested in the architecture here. If not, does anyone know of any examples of specifically built buildings and dockside for such a purpose on this scale?
2) This is more in relation to the plane itself. The control surfaces are segmented, the rudder is made of 3 sections, the elevators 2 and the ailerons have 3 a piece. Why is this and how were they utilised? Were they synchronised or offset in anyway?
Lastly, here’s an ad I obtained which has a naive depiction of what I have planned. I really want to depict it’s use as a civilian craft in a more realistic situation.
Many thanks!
Matt
PS. I’ve already taken a look at the SARO website but it appears to be largely dead, at least the forum is – otherwise I would have asked there first.
By: Matty - 2nd February 2007 at 17:08
Yeah, I’ve already checked out Pathe, it was the first port of call. I’ve now got a DVD with quite a bit of colour footage but after scouring that I still couldn’t make out how the control surfaces work, almost all footage has it in straight flight. It’s like the thing never turned! 🙁
By: wv838 - 2nd February 2007 at 16:52
Don’t know if this will be of any help, but whilst grepping through archives at http://www.britishpathe.com/ I did find some clips of the princess. Might be worth browsing to see her in action (?).
By: Matty - 2nd February 2007 at 16:12
Ah! That’s great. Sort of. So, what does that all mean in real terms. By that I mean, how might they have moved? In unison or in sequence? Differing angles even?
I’ve attached a picture, you can see the flaps are segmented also yet the wing is not curved. The ailerons are not built in yet. Once I’ve got more info on them I’ll build them in.
I’ve got some video footage now, but this sort of detail is not apparent. At least not on the ailerons. The flaps seem to move in unison, but they don’t appear to be particularly precise, they’re often slightly out of line with each other.
cheers!
By: low'n'slow - 19th January 2007 at 19:24
[ That would be great if you could get that info from Mr Stratton. I should amend my original statement – the flaps were segmented into the 3, the ailerons into 4.
From the pictures the play on the ailerons is so subtle as to be not be noticeable but the flaps are fully extended in a number of shots – but the segmented sections appear to be aligned each time.
Sorry for not getting back to you for a month – or three! – but I eventually got a chance to talk to Mr. Stratton this week.
Apparently the segmented ailerons were as a result of the Princess’s pioneering power-servo control system. It was effectively fly by wire fifty years before the Americans “invented” it!
The main aileron controls were actuated by servo tabs, which operated in the opposite sense, to “drive” the ailerons in the right direction. There was a concern that a runaway in the actuating system might involuntarily force the ailerons to a full control deflection, so additional manually driven servo tabs were fitted as well, although they’d only have been used in emergencies.
I hope that makes it a little clearer. I gather that Mr. Stratton is due to be a guest speaker at the Milton Keynes Aviation Society in June, so if you need more information, you can hear it from him direct. As well as talking about the Princess, he’ll also be talking about his work on the SR53 – it’ll be a cracking talk!
By: Matty - 3rd December 2006 at 20:00
whilst somthing may look straight on a drawing, it may have a surface curvature which would not allow for feasible actuator geometry. I guess only the horses mouth can really tell us!
That’s quite true, and I do hope so. 🙂
By: coanda - 3rd December 2006 at 18:33
whilst somthing may look straight on a drawing, it may have a surface curvature which would not allow for feasible actuator geometry. I guess only the horses mouth can really tell us!
By: Matty - 3rd December 2006 at 01:29
pure geometry may not allow actuators across the control surface (such as the flap to operate in harmony.
another reason could be redundancy but i would have thought the first would be more likely, along with manufacturing constraints etc etc.
The wings in all the reference I can find are quite straight. I did think maybe the wings had a slight curve and were segmented like an F4U, but it doesn’t appear to be the case.
And if length was a problem I’m sure they wouldn’t have that problem on much smaller surfaces like the elevators and rudder.
Along the lines of your second thought, I did consider they might only be like this on the prototype. The following ships might have done without this complexity…. Honestly I’m more interested in the operation rather than the reasons behind it.
Unless I hear otherwise I’m tempted to offset them all just to add to it visually – I’d just like to be accurate if I could though. 🙂
By: coanda - 2nd December 2006 at 21:54
pure geometry may not allow actuators across the control surface (such as the flap to operate in harmony.
another reason could be redundancy but i would have thought the first would be more likely, along with manufacturing constraints etc etc.
By: Matty - 2nd December 2006 at 16:43
Thanks guys. Wow, this forum really moves, I’ve been away 2 days and I’m on page 3 already!
low’n’slow: That would be great if you could get that info from Mr Stratton. I should amend my original statement – the flaps were segmented into the 3, the ailerons into 4.
From the pictures the play on the ailerons is so subtle as to be not be noticeable but the flaps are fully extended in a number of shots – but the segmented sections appear to be aligned each time.
Philip: Thanks very much for the photo there. I popped down to Southampton a few months back on a recce but sadly could find little information – that photo you’ve got there is the best reference I have so far. Do you know of other places to look for similar reference?
You mentioned birth 50, do you know of where BOAC had planned for the Princess to operate?
If I can’t find specific reference for a 1950’s era flying boat port, what airports where built during this period that I might take reference from and extrapolate?
(Of course I could find this out myself, I’m just wondering what you chaps might think is more suitable in this instance).
Thanks once again.
By: low'n'slow - 30th November 2006 at 16:00
Actually, according to D:ck Stratten, the real nightmare of Princess operations was persuading all ten Proteus engines to start on the same day!
He gleefully will tell you that the day of the first flight was the first day he’d managed to get all ten going simultaneously!
By: Philip Morten - 30th November 2006 at 11:45
I imagine that docking scenario as pictured would have been a nighmare in real life. Flying boat hulls are not of the thickness and strength of ship hulls and the constant bumping against the “wharf” would have holed it pretty quick.
Normal flying boat mooring was to buoys so that they could swing around the buoy with wind changes and loading of passengers was by launch. The swinging with the wind is caused by the inbuilt weathercocking effect of the vertical tail.
That pictured system could only have been used in an absolutely flat calm and even then tidal effects would have to be accounted for.
A scheme much like this ( but with the aircraft tail-in ) was actually used at BOAC’s terminal at 50 Berth at Southampton, there is a picture here: www.plimsoll.org/Resources/SCCMuseums/10192.asp
By: Malcolm McKay - 30th November 2006 at 11:08
On the contrary, Saunders Roe had developed a multi-cable system which would have allowed the boats to be winched into a cushioned landing dock.
The passengers woud then have boarded the aeroplane via what look remarkably like the ‘air gates’ we use today.
I stand corrected – I was unaware that they had done that 🙂
Looks like it might have worked – the Princess was a lovely aircraft.
By: low'n'slow - 30th November 2006 at 10:46
Hi Matty. Welcome to the forum.
I imagine that docking scenario as pictured would have been a nighmare in real life. Flying boat hulls are not of the thickness and strength of ship hulls and the constant bumping against the “wharf” would have holed it pretty quick.
On the contrary, Saunders Roe had developed a multi-cable system which would have allowed the boats to be winched into a cushioned landing dock.
The passengers woud then have boarded the aeroplane via what look remarkably like the ‘air gates’ we use today.
The segmented control surfaces were I guess part of the Princesses’ powered control system. Richard Stratton, the design engineer responsible for them is still (at 80-something) a regular at our gliding club at Bicester. If he’s around this weekend I’ll quiz him for you!
By: Malcolm McKay - 30th November 2006 at 05:54
I imagine that docking scenario as pictured would have been a nighmare in real life. Flying boat hulls are not of the thickness and strength of ship hulls and the constant bumping against the “wharf” would have holed it pretty quick.
Normal flying boat mooring was to buoys so that they could swing around the buoy with wind changes and loading of passengers was by launch. The swinging with the wind is caused by the inbuilt weathercocking effect of the vertical tail.
That pictured system could only have been used in an absolutely flat calm and even then tidal effects would have to be accounted for.
Sign In
November 30, 2006 at 3:19 am