FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1959
1959 - 1859.PDF
44-45 Tu-114 ROSSI YA . .... FLIGHT, 21 August 1959 Top, the wing, undercarriage fairing and part of the flaps seen from the rear door. Other picture above shows the bifur- cated tailpipes and buffed rear faces of the outboard propeller blades Left, one of the chordwise pipe joints beneath the torsion box outboard of the engines. The dark plugs coyer the spanwise securing bolts Below, the starboard main undercarriage with its over- centre linkage to fold the leg rearwards and the jack to roll the bogie over for stowage. Note the buckled heat shields "Flight" photographs of each bogie—or, possibly, some temperature-sensing element.Considerable evidence of brake heat and wear indicated liberal use of braking during normal operations. The retraction systememploys a fairly massive series of linkages, and a large forged beam so arranged that the bogie rolls over forwards as the legsretract rearwards into their fairings. The retracted bogie appears U> lie inclined above the main leg, and considerable bulges coverthe lower pair of wheels. The main doors pre-closed, while a single door housed the forward-raked supporting strut and wasmechanically linked to the latter, just as were two smaller doors in way of the main leg itself. If die main undercarriage was massive, the nosewheel systemwas by contrast spindly. The twin nosewheels, with zig-zag- treaded tyres, were lever-suspended from a short, fat oleo to whichwere welded two tubular struts at least 14ft long. Successive sections of tubing seemed to be welded together and braced byother supports bolted on with simple forged clamps. Welding was far more in evidence than forgings. A twin-jack hydraulic steer-ing system was fitted on top of the oleo unit, and the whole assembly swung rearwards into a long bay covered by four doors.In this case the doors were not pre-closing and were operated by their own hydraulic jacks. The control to the steering unit con-sisted of a long torque tube running parallel to the.port leg, and presumably direcdy connected to the tiller on the flight deck.Several hydraulic accumulators could be seen inside the nose- wheel bay, together with a large access-hatch with an externalhandle. This hatch may have afforded an alternative crew entry, and if could further serve as a parachute exit for test-flying pur-poses. An unsprung, twin-tyred tail bogie retracted into the rear fuselage. Extensive use of large-bore welded tubing was also a featureof the undercarriage of the 11-18 and Tu-104, and in all cases the assembly was painted dark grey. Both in finish and layout the fuselage structure closely resembledthat of the Tu-104. All doors and hatches were exceptionally small, and (as I was to find later) one has to stoop low when enter-ing the cabin. Passenger doors were provided fore and aft, both to port and starboard. Three freight hatches of conventional sizewere evenly distributed down the starboard side, indicating that most of the under-floor area was used for this purpose. Twopassenger ladders long enough to reach the doors, and the lengthy tow-bar, were produced from the rearmost hold in sections atleast ten feet long. Cabin windows were fairly small and circular, and large reinforcing plates had been riveted round the freightdoors. Freight hatches and other access-panels under the tail were fitted with Yale-type locks. Apparently the wing was based on a very wide torsion-boxformed by one converging and two parallel spars outboard of the engines. Three pipe-joints were visible outboard of theengines and a further massive pipe-joint at the wing root, where the box was formed by four spars. Each wing therefore appearedto be divided into six relatively short spanwise sections, allowing for further joints at each engine nacelle. Many lines of largeflush rivets, and an obviously thick skin, indicated the presence of heavy spanwise stringers. The leading edges did notappear to be detachable and there were even signs that some sections of skin had been welded (L-5611 is probably thefirst prototype). There was no sure indication of leading-edge de-icing, suchas there was in the form of electric or pneumatic boots on the leading edge of the fin, or in the corrugated inner skin of theTu-104. Three long, low fences, one of diem between the engines and the others outboard, extended right to the trailing-edges overthe flaps and ailerons. Available flap area appeared comparable to that of a Boeing B-52, the chord of the inboard sections beingat least 10ft. Each section moved rearwards and downwards, but it was not possible to see whether plain or double slots wereformed. This particular aircraft, which had flown some 300 hr, had at some time made a heavy landing and the port mainwheelfailing had taken a permanent set. I had no opportunity to discuss the control system, but it seemedmost likely that both the ailerons and rudder were spring-tab operated. Their hinges were markedly inset and very large tabswere fitted; smaller tabs on each surface were probably provided for trimming. By contrast, the elevator carried tabs which wereapparently intended solely for trimming, but as its hinges were equally inset it seemed probable that this surface was hydraulic-ally boosted. Various small ram intakes beside the flight deck suggested the provision of artificial feel. The incidence of thetailplane was evidently adjustable, and painted marks indicated a range of travel from 0 to —4 deg. The lack of scratches or wipemarks on the fuselage gave the impression that little use was made of this feature, and it could be mat the tailplane was adjust-able on the ground or by hand only to allow for various loading conditions.It is remarkable that all three of the Russian airliners at Le
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
