Hawker Siddeley Trident Tanker

[PR19_Kit]

Also...while you mentioned it ....underwing refuelling points ....how far apart should they be?

That'd depend on a] where the wing strong points were (but you can re-engineer them to be anywhere of course... ) and b] what the wing spans of the projected receivers were.

On most 3 point tankers, like the Victors, the centre reel had a higher flow rate than the wing mounts so they could refuel one big aeroplane off the centre hose or two smaller ones off the wing hoses.

[Gondor]

I would suggest looking at a few head on pictures of various refuelling aircraft which use the pods to get a feel for how far out along the wing they are then go from there.

Gondor

[Knightflyer]

Okay.....

Gondor .....do you know how many head-on pictures of various refuelling pictures there AREN'T out there  

Anyway some basic research ....measuring the model where I'm planning to put the the wing mounted refuelling pods would put them about 16.60 metres apart. The ones on a VC-10 were 29.40 metres apart and the ones on a A330-MRTT look to be 40.20 metres, so the Trident is small! Looking at typical RAF 'fighter' aircraft wingspans of the time, the Lightning comes in at 10.60 metres, the Buccaneer at 13.40 metres and the Javelin at 15.90 metres. I DO NOT think the Trident would be refuelling two Javelins at the same time!  

I thought the Hercules was probably the smallest 'large' aircraft that acts as a tanker that I can think of, and it can refuel a couple of helicopter with a 22.00 metre rotor diameter, from attempting to measure the picture on my computer screen!   I reckon the refuelling pods were 27.00 metres apart, so yes the Trident is small  

Anyway, it's still being built, and now that (like the Canadair Cormorant) it's been identified....here's the state of play so far

[Gondor]

Okay.....

Gondor .....do you know how many head-on pictures of various refuelling pictures there AREN'T out there 

So look for pictures from the rear! Pictures would not need to be EXACTLY head on, just close enough to give you an idea. looking at the KC10 wings should give you a rough comparison to the Tridents to give you an idea to work from.

Gondor

[Knightflyer]

It was a 'tongue in cheek' reply Gondor,  you forgot to include shots from directly overhead which are very useful, my point was that most photos of inflight refuelling tend to be from the side.

Anyway most appear to be 'roughly' 2/3rds of the way out, except for the A310-MRTT, which appears to have them much further out relatively speaking (see below) compared say with the VC10 (below that)

[Knightflyer]

Some further progress yesterday - wing mounted refuelling 'pods' (that's so 'Thunderbirds'!) added, and the first coat of paint to the lower surfaces

Does anybody know off the top of their heads whether a Trident could cruise on two engines ?

[PR19_Kit]

Does anybody know off the top of their heads whether a Trident could cruise on two engines ?

Yes, it's mentioned in one of the numerous books on the Gripper out there. I guess it'd probably depend on the loading and in military service the RAF would almost certainly have specified uprated Speys.

What it COULDN'T do was take-off on two, not for nothing was it nicknamed the 'Ground Gripper'!

[Dizzyfugu]

Chinese or Paksitani markings would be a very good match, too - the Trident was operated there in a military role, and esp. a Chinese tanker on this basis would be plausible?

Looks sweet so far, nevertheless!

[Knightflyer]

Another day, and another step closer to completion 

[Captain Canada]

That looks so good.....love the idea.

[Knightflyer]

Hawker Siddeley HS.121 Trident K.Mk.2A   XT534/TS 'Tripos'

The commitment of the RAF to the conflicts in the Middle East throughout the late 1950s and into the 1960s meant that the Valiant and Victor tanker fleet was rapidly coming to the end of its airframe life. The Ministry of Defence had already committed to the forthcoming VC-10 tanker, but felt that there was also a need for a smaller tanker, to provide a near tactical refuelling resource closer to the zone of operations.
Although relatively small, the HS Trident was chosen, and a fleet of 15 aircraft were purchased. Initially there were three versions; the K.1A with a single fuselage refuelling point, the K.1B with two wing mounted refuelling points and the K.1C with both the fuselage and wing refuelling points. There were initial concerns about the proximity of the fuselage refuelling points to the number two engine exhaust, which meant that only the K.1B version was operated at first. This was overcome by the use of 'biased' refuelling hose technology which meant that the central hose 'sagged' lower and the two wing mounted hoses 'veered' further out from the centre-line, ensuring the safe use of all three points. The upgrading of the whole fleet to K.Mk.2 standard using uprated Speys meant that refuelling could also be done on whilst cruising on just two engines, reducing the risk even further. Addition of the 'Helmsman' navigation system (in the characteristic upper fuselage bulge common to all large RAF aircraft in the 1970s) meant that all aircraft were re-designated K.Mk.2a
The Trident tankers; known universally throughout the RAF as 'Trikes', were based in Cyprus, with forward deployments occurring to Egypt and Aden. Following the infamous remarks of senior officer, who was caught on record stating "If the Sudanese are going to shoot down a tanker aircraft, I'd rather it was one of those p*ddling little trikes than one of my VC-10s" the Trident gained another nickname of 'MiG Meals' although fortunately (except on the one occasion below) no Trikes ever came under attack in the air.

The Tridents were all given individual names beginning with 'Tri...' and the effective use of the Oxford English Dictionary was recognised with Wind Commander Ivor W.HIff receiving an award from the Queen for services to aircraft naming above and beyond normal requirements.



The aircraft depicted is Trident K.Mk.2a XT534/ TS 'Tripos' (which in an overabundance of nicknames was also known as 'Eliot'.)On the 19th October 1972 it was on station in the air between Luxor and Aswan in Egypt, to provide fuel if required to Buccaneers striking targets in northern Sudan. Suddenly MiGs of the Sudanese Air Force were detected heading northwards, in a surprise attempt to down the choice target of one of the RAF's 'MiG Meals' Tripos fled northwards, and although the MiGs were intercepted, an erstwhile AAM launch exploded near enough to the fleeing Tripos to leave a shrapnel fragment embedded in its port tail-plane.



On returning safely to Cairo, the ground-crew painted 'Combat Zone Identification Markings' (commonly known as 'Sudan Stripes') as they felt that although the Trike tanker fleet wasn't authorised to carry them, Tripos as an individual aircraft had earned them (incidentally, it can be seen that the stripes were only painted on the upper surfaces so as not to cause any confusion with the refuelling markings on the lower wing and fuselage surfaces) For a short period of time Tripos also gained two more pieces of graffiti; its name was briefly repainted as 'Tri-Again' (as a message to the Sudanese Air Force) and the slogan 'Not on today's menu' appeared on the forward fuselage as a message to a certain senior officer. The name was quickly repainted and the slogan removed, but Tripos was allowed to continue to wear 'her' 'Sudan Stripes' with pride

And just for comparison purposes ...Trike and his Big BIG brother! 

[NARSES2]

Looks good 

[PR19_Kit]

What a cracking model, really good stuff. 

Neat backstory too, I love it!

[Hobbes]

Nice model, we don't see too many Tridents here   

[Glenn Gilbertson]

Looks beautiful, & I like the backstory.
The size comparison with the VC-10 is an eye-opener.