TSR2
It really isn't of any great significance - if it has come into service it would eventually have replaced several other types and it was clearly designed to
Bomber Command was wound up in '68 IIRC
Bomber Command was wound up in '68 IIRC
Three years after TSR2 was cancelled, and incorporated into Strike Command I believe.
I know what the initials stand for, but as far as I'm concerned an aircraft designed to carry a bomb internally is a bomber, among any other roles it's used or needed for.
I know what the initials stand for, but as far as I'm concerned an aircraft designed to carry a bomb internally is a bomber, among any other roles it's used or needed for.
ahhh but then a B-58 was not a bomber?? 
Aside from the engine and avionics suspect development times, the basic concept of the TSR2 undercarriage having to be 'grass friendly' beggars belief.
The RAF had made the decision pre 1940 that modern monoplane aircraft needed a stable firm surface to operate from, and that situation was most certainly confirmed later when Wisley had to have a runway laid for the Valiant trials. Even today a grass surface can quickly become unsuitable with rain and in the UK that is a factor that must be considered normal. In fact in aircraft performance, information on grass use usually states 'dry grass firm subsoil'.
Just that one factor alone for the TSR2 gives a good picture on the lack of sensible input that seems to have prevailed for the project. Had anyone done the sums for factoring in the take of run required for 'grass use' then it would have been clear that that alone would have sent the very idea into the sin bin. The basic airframe seems to have been suitable, and indeed with a proven reliable powerplant this would have left more time to develop the advanced avionics and terrain following features it needed. Extra power in a true combat situation for t-off could have been provided by rocket packs and then dropped. Of course we ended up with NO CAPABILITY as the 'low level' V force would have been a one shot option, and eventually we had to wait for the Subs to give us cover.
The RAF had made the decision pre 1940 that modern monoplane aircraft needed a stable firm surface to operate from, and that situation was most certainly confirmed later when Wisley had to have a runway laid for the Valiant trials. Even today a grass surface can quickly become unsuitable with rain and in the UK that is a factor that must be considered normal. In fact in aircraft performance, information on grass use usually states 'dry grass firm subsoil'.
Just that one factor alone for the TSR2 gives a good picture on the lack of sensible input that seems to have prevailed for the project. Had anyone done the sums for factoring in the take of run required for 'grass use' then it would have been clear that that alone would have sent the very idea into the sin bin. The basic airframe seems to have been suitable, and indeed with a proven reliable powerplant this would have left more time to develop the advanced avionics and terrain following features it needed. Extra power in a true combat situation for t-off could have been provided by rocket packs and then dropped. Of course we ended up with NO CAPABILITY as the 'low level' V force would have been a one shot option, and eventually we had to wait for the Subs to give us cover.
Don't forget that the length of take-off run was also specified, and even from grass it still had to be "short".
AFAIK, TSR2 never took off from anywhere apart from Boscombe Down and Woodford so nobody knows what would have happened on grass.
Re Asturias56's comment. I didn't say that only aircraft with internal bomb stowage were bombers.
AFAIK, TSR2 never took off from anywhere apart from Boscombe Down and Woodford so nobody knows what would have happened on grass.
Re Asturias56's comment. I didn't say that only aircraft with internal bomb stowage were bombers.
"just that one factor alone for the TSR2 gives a good picture on the lack of sensible input that seems to have prevailed for the project"
years ago I read a commentary that suggested that the TSR2 was seen as the last , greatest , chance for a new manned strategic/bomber/strike/recce aircraft by many in the RAF and so everyone tried to make sure their "specialism" was added to the spec - it truly became a dream aircraft - the practicalities that it would have to meet and the costs of doing all these tasks in one aircraft never seemed to have occurred to anyone
years ago I read a commentary that suggested that the TSR2 was seen as the last , greatest , chance for a new manned strategic/bomber/strike/recce aircraft by many in the RAF and so everyone tried to make sure their "specialism" was added to the spec - it truly became a dream aircraft - the practicalities that it would have to meet and the costs of doing all these tasks in one aircraft never seemed to have occurred to anyone
In order to minimise the take off roll even more the TSR2 also incorporated the ability to extend its nose wheel leg by 0.76m though lack of roll control might have made take offs in a significant crosswind tricky.
In the YouTube video listed above Roland Beamont says the whole project was too ambitious.
In retrospect you wonder whether a joint project with the French or the USA might have been more successful even though that would mean less work for the British aircraft industry.
In the YouTube video listed above Roland Beamont says the whole project was too ambitious.
In retrospect you wonder whether a joint project with the French or the USA might have been more successful even though that would mean less work for the British aircraft industry.
Last edited by Brewster Buffalo; 1st Aug 2023 at 15:00.
My late dad was one of the police motorcycle outriders who escorted TSR2 to Henlow in 1967(?)
As a result, after Dad chatting to somebody, the two of us were allowed to visit Henlow a few weeks later. I don't recall seeing XR220 but we did see many of the aircraft collected for the Battle of Britain film, including the He111 and Ju87 now at Hendon.
XR220 was fully airworthy and due to fly on the afternoon of the day the axe fell.
It took years for me to realise, but it's Beamont, not Beaumont.
As a result, after Dad chatting to somebody, the two of us were allowed to visit Henlow a few weeks later. I don't recall seeing XR220 but we did see many of the aircraft collected for the Battle of Britain film, including the He111 and Ju87 now at Hendon.
XR220 was fully airworthy and due to fly on the afternoon of the day the axe fell.
It took years for me to realise, but it's Beamont, not Beaumont.
No - the one thing you can say its it looked good...................
What is astounding was the absolute vehement prejudice by the RAF against the Buccaneer just because it was FAA.
They eventually had a choice between the Bucc or a Cessna 150 (alledgedly!) and very, very reluctantly adopted the Bucc with a rending of garments and a gnashing of teeth that resounded for years
They eventually had a choice between the Bucc or a Cessna 150 (alledgedly!
) and very, very reluctantly adopted the Bucc with a rending of garments and a gnashing of teeth that resounded for years