Page 3 of 3
Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 30 Nov 2008, 09:10
by DispatchDragon
It was a 2 and it had the large fin and rudder -- it also had the ailerons rigged backwards
There is a photo of him standing in front of the Tudor 2 prototype somewhere - you get an ide aof how big the aeroplane
was
I never understood why he didnt put a nosewheel on it
Leif
Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 30 Nov 2008, 10:40
by Lancman
I think that we have to admit that British civil aircraft design was way behind the American at that time and there was a lot of pressure to produce a working airliner as quickly as possible. Avro reckoned that they had an excellent wing/engine combination already available and that to switch to a tricycle undercarriage would have meant moving the main legs aft and a major re-design of the rear spar. It would have delayed the introduction into service but would have led to a much improved take-off performance, and possibly a smaller fin and rudder. A more radical way of thinking was needed before Britain could really compete in the airliner market, the Tudor was really a stopgap design.
Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 01 Dec 2008, 23:29
by kikko
anyway, I love English stop gap planes...may be ugly sometimes but always fascinating...the Sperrin , for istance

Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 02 Dec 2008, 00:00
by Garry Russell
Ah the Sperrin
What can you say about that......err..........ahh.....aeroplane
Interesting would be a polite description
Garry
Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 15 Dec 2008, 17:02
by J0hn
Jens - this aircraft has been fantastic in Air Hauler.
Cheap to purchase, yet a good payload and range for the price.
I tested it with full fuel and payload - nearly ended up in the Solent!
I found that two stages of flap were required to get airbourne - and all the way up to around 2000ft. The instant I put the flaps up a stage (usually at 1000ft), the plane started sinking like a wounded brick!
I just managed to save her with a quick change back to stage 2.
She got me 3,450 nm before the tanks ran dry - that's very good going!
Best of all - she's an absolute joy to fly.
Thank you very much, Jens.
Some stats for those interested:
MTOW 80,450lb
Max fuel: 23,112lb
Max payload: 7,898lb
Fuel burn at max load: 2,034lb/hr or 337.9 gal/hr
Max range at max load: 3450nm
JD
Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 16 Dec 2008, 22:14
by J0hn
Oops - slight typo - make that "2 stages of flap (don't know the degree angles by heart) were needed at MTOW".
I'm getting old... |-)
J0hn

Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 08:59
by bigred1970
I was wondering if any of these were ever converted to corporate or private use. they might have been borderline too small for being a airline, but they had good range and speed which I bet would be nice for the jet setting types. ;-)
Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 21:26
by kikko
The usual crazy way to scrap "history of aviation" chapters , in order to gain a small amount of money , coming from the scrapheap ! AB-SU-RD!"
(and cry a lot of years later, when no examples have been preserved for posterity).
Do you mind a price, for istance, for a Westald Whirlwind, today? Westland flew the last one example, as a Company hack , till the very end of the forties...then they scrapped the plane..
Re: Tudor HU
Posted: 26 Dec 2008, 19:47
by jensbk
Hello John,
>Jens - this aircraft has been fantastic in Air Hauler.
>Cheap to purchase, yet a good payload and range for the price.
>I tested it with full fuel and payload - nearly ended up in the Solent!
I'm not sure what you mean, but if you read the documentation (press F10 in FS9 (shift+F10 in FSX) and select the reference tab) , all settings for takeoff are in there. For takeoff: Flaps stage 2.
Best regards
Jens