TSR2

#1
I know what a beautiful aircraft this was, but more please on just HOW advanced it was, how farking politics killed it, how it was just TOO aggressive, etc, please.
 
#2
I did hear once that Wilson got a personnal thankyou from the chairman of McDonnel Douglas for saving the American aircraft industry when he scuppered the whole thing. :?
 
#3
At the time it was very advanced, and would have been capable of doing what it was designed for, dropping the Nuc. Tactical Strike was a political line.
The Yanks hated it, when Wilson's blew the UK's economy in typical Labour Fashion, they demanned it's death as their Blood Price for bailing UK out again.
john
 
#4
Oh where do we start, glad someone put this thread on here

How's this for starters just picked off the web?

8O Built in the 1960s, but with similar MACH2 performance to the Rockwell B1!

8O Had a blown flaps design to achieve short take off and landing ages before the more complicated swing wing of F111, Tornado ect.

8O Had ground following terrain radar/auto pilot and very high wing loading to improve low speed stability, check out the Jaguar for design cues.

Maximum speed Mach 2.75
Combat range 1150 miles (1850 km)
Ferry range 4256 miles (6850 km)
Service ceiling 54,000 ft (16,459 m)

Imagine how good it would be after 30 years of development, what it might have done in the Falklands or GW1? 8O

But above all it was British, light years ahead of the septics and gorgeous. 8) it's criminal :(

If you want to own your own Airfix are bringing out a model this year
(first ever mainstream kit of the type)

Great website on this http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.html
 
#5
jagman said:
I did hear once that Wilson got a personnal thankyou from the chairman of McDonnel Douglas for saving the American aircraft industry when he scuppered the whole thing. :?
Father-in-Law worked on the project for Vickers. After the dirty deed, many of his colleagues left for the US where they were employed by aircraft manufacturers, giving them the benefit of their expertise.
 
#7
Dads civvie job put our family at RAF Cranwell in 1964.

By chance TSR2 was demonstrated and for 10 minutes we watched speachless as this beast
showed off.

Fantastic! and so different to the trainers and Lightenings I was used to seeing.

Burned itself into my 11 year old brain and still evokes awe to this day
 
#8
The old fella reckoned they'd used one of the prototypes on a range somewhere when he was with 10 para mortars in the 70's
 
#9
I saw a documentary on it some time ago and what struck everyone as strange was that, not only was the project discontinued, but all the prototypes, tooling, drawings and spares were destroyed by order of the government. I saw footage of maybe six or more being dismantled at the factory.

I understand Canada had a similar project going at the same time which was also scrapped.

Very curious indeed.
 
#10
Canada's project was the Avro Arrow and was in the 1950's. It was to be a supersonic high altitude interceptor and it actually got a bit further than TSR2 in development. There are lots of tinfoil hat conspiracy's surrounding its cancelation but many government/airforce bigwigs in USAAF/RAF/RCAF thought that missiles and anti-missiles were the future. Its cancelation came around the same time as the USSR put Sputnik into orbit - hence those that belived in Sandy's whitepaper and fellow belivers in N.America felt that money would be better spent elsewhere.

Here we are 2005 and missiles are still just that - they often miss and UAV's are only starting to become mainstream in a limited way.
 
#11
That's the one. The AVRO Arrow.

I'm nearly sure that TSR2 was scrapped in favour of the Phantom which was already in production and cost a lot less?
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#12
jonwilly said:
At the time it was very advanced, and would have been capable of doing what it was designed for, dropping the Nuc. Tactical Strike was a political line.
The Yanks hated it, when Wilson's blew the UK's economy in typical Labour Fashion, they demanned it's death as their Blood Price for bailing UK out again.
john
Also Mountbatten was dead against it and scuppered any chance we had of selling it to the Aussies - who were very interested in it, but ended up with the F-111.

I've sat in the cockpit of the TSR-2 at Cosford and it is strikingly similar to the Jaguar/Tornado. On closer inspection all of the wiring looms have had their connectors cut off with a hacksaw. It looked like someone was determined to make sure it'd never fly again.
 
#13
Ah Mountbatten ! very intresting chap. He claimed in one TV prog I saw "The Planemakers" that HE and He alone was responsible for putting Helis onto all Frigaites and destroyers.

john
 
#15
The TSR2 was at least 10 years ahead of its time and the production model would have introduced CRT 'glass cockpit' technology ahead of anyone else. Even the prototype had an advanced moving map display in the front and limited CRTs for the nav.



It had an incredible payload, range and performance, and considerable potential for further upgrades which would undoubtedly have seen it still in service and very relevant today. Much of its technology (Terrain Following Radar, moving map, EW, avionics to name but a few) entered service 15 years later on the Tornado GR1. Good as the GR1 was, it's range, performance (particularly at altitude) and payload were far less than the TSR2. Arguably, the only weaknesses of the TSR2 would have suffered was poor visibility and limited access to key items for servicing.

The jet was scrubbed at a time when RAF/RN interservice rivalry was at its worst. Mountbatten's actions regarding TSR2 (and many other world beating UK aircraft projects of the time such as the P1154 supersonic Harrier) were utterly reprehensible and effectively killed the UK aerospace industry. As ever, this rivalry only benefitted the treasury with TSR2, CVA01 and several other key RAF and RN projects axed.

When TSR2 was killed, the RAF were promised the F-111K, several of which were actualy being produced when that order too was cancelled. Instead we got the F-4K and F-4M Phantom variants with the US engines replaced by Rolls Royce Speys, which caused huge airframe integration problems and compromised high altitude performance! Later, the RAF strike role was taken by the Buccaneer, a superb aircraft, but nowhere near a TSR2.

Finally...Mighty Gem, how can this NOT be described as beautiful!!!



A happy and peaceful New Year to everyone,
MM
 
#16
Magic_Mushroom said:
Finally...Mighty Gem, how can this NOT be described as beautiful!!!

I don't think its a partiulalry beautiful or good lookign aircraft. My old man was at BAC (as it was then) and was part of the Lightning team.

He was very very biased toward the lightning and its production, and would often argue black was white and failed to accept that the Typhoons performance surpassed that of the pocket rocket.

He was full of praise for the TSR-2 and said that when it took off it had a 'quality' about it that scared him stiff but filled him with pride.

He said he remembered thinking 'I hope the Soviets have nothing like this'
 
#18
Selective quote my dear fellow. If John Farley says then I listen, very switched on and more knowledge that this board and PPRuuner fully mated.
john
 
#19
The North American F-108 looks an interesting aeroplane too...
 
#20
PartTimePongo said:
The North American F-108 looks an interesting aeroplane too...
Agreed, there is a TSR2 look about it.



I posted this on pprune a few days ago, can't help but think it may have influenced the A-5 too



As a kid I used to drool over piccies of the Vigilante, only ever seen one once, that was Greenham common Airshow in the early 80s
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bravo_Bravo Royal Air Force 249

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top