TSR2
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
TSR2
Mods, not being a long term visitor to this site, this may not be appropriate due to historical postings, but I invested an hour in this YTube, and the effect has been to make me start a new thread rather than leave a side-discussion buried in the Hawker Hunter (called Kermit?) crash thread.
I was edge-of-my-seat enthralled for almost all the <hour's reporting of all the questions I'd long wondered about. To have Roland Beamont's in depth reminiscing was wonderful. Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins gave in depth and I felt, honest, recall on the government's deeply detailed research on the matter. It left me with the feeling that Wilson was a lone player much of the time. Circa 50 mins in, Jenkins' whole mood and body language changed as he revealed probably rather private opinion on the crucial moments. It was about our disproportionate investment in aviation and advance research rather than making aircraft we know we can sell to the world. Frankly, I'd been astonished by James Hamilton-Paterson's revelations of our gargantuan investment so soon after the war.
My comment on the Hunter thread about the complexity of the on board electronics I think is probably near the mark. This film shows a lot of the boxes in situ with the weight of each unit. Pie in the sky in 1960? But then, a moon landing would have taken much the same processing, though not as much of it.
Nothing explains the destruction, and you see it in miserable reality. Then Roland Beamont's closing words . . .
I was edge-of-my-seat enthralled for almost all the <hour's reporting of all the questions I'd long wondered about. To have Roland Beamont's in depth reminiscing was wonderful. Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins gave in depth and I felt, honest, recall on the government's deeply detailed research on the matter. It left me with the feeling that Wilson was a lone player much of the time. Circa 50 mins in, Jenkins' whole mood and body language changed as he revealed probably rather private opinion on the crucial moments. It was about our disproportionate investment in aviation and advance research rather than making aircraft we know we can sell to the world. Frankly, I'd been astonished by James Hamilton-Paterson's revelations of our gargantuan investment so soon after the war.
My comment on the Hunter thread about the complexity of the on board electronics I think is probably near the mark. This film shows a lot of the boxes in situ with the weight of each unit. Pie in the sky in 1960? But then, a moon landing would have taken much the same processing, though not as much of it.
Nothing explains the destruction, and you see it in miserable reality. Then Roland Beamont's closing words . . .
I'm posting another book recommendation and its "TSR2 - Britain's Lost Bomber by Damien Burke - Crowood Press 2010 - a very detailed and perhaps the definitive account of the project.
The Feb 1965 edition of 'Air Pictorial' features on its cover a Chris Wren cartoon bewailing the cancellation of the TSR-2 &c and includes editorial condemnation of the new Government's decision.
Thanks for sharing this.
If MRCA had gone the same way I would probably have earned my living in the building trade instead of aerospace. There seemed to be quite a few parallels between the two programs but, unlike TSR2, MRCA survived and had a long service life.
If MRCA had gone the same way I would probably have earned my living in the building trade instead of aerospace. There seemed to be quite a few parallels between the two programs but, unlike TSR2, MRCA survived and had a long service life.
IIRC the AIr Staff also had a good share of the blame - they just slogged on , adding tasks to the aircraft, seemingly oblivious to the cost issues and the growing political storm
Some of the delay (and cost escalation) was due to sorting out undercarriage problems. Why was the geometry and retraction mechanism so complex? Why didn't they choose the conventional 1-axle-2-wheel configuration, which would also (perhaps) have obviated vibration probs.
That would have been fine if in their infinite wisdom Operational Requirements hadn't specified the ability to take off from firm grass.
After they added the extra link, as seen on XR222 at Duxford I think, I believe the problem was solved.
Considering how advanced the specification was, personally I think it was amazing that they were well on their way to complying with most, if not all, of the requirements.
After they added the extra link, as seen on XR222 at Duxford I think, I believe the problem was solved.
Considering how advanced the specification was, personally I think it was amazing that they were well on their way to complying with most, if not all, of the requirements.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
The undercarriage horrified me. An all-in wrestler born with the legs of a ballerina.
As a very young, very junior officer, in the very early '60's I was (amazingly!) about to relinquish my PR Canberra tour and become a very small "cog" in the TSR2 programme. In retrospect I guess that it was to my advantage that it all turned to "worms" and I carried on as normal! However, you always wonder about the alternative!
Odd to think that if we had bought TSR2 it would have bee out of service by now - probably replaced by the F-35.
I was on a Civil Service College course in the '90s where the MoD guy running it claimed to have been involved in TSR2 (his age made it plausible) - he was very pro the cancellation, in his opinion it would never have worked - IIRC he said the avionics units were too large to work without mutual interference in the available space.
I thought the "bomber" designation went out with the Vulcan - since then it's always been Strike - which of course was the second letter of the TSR2 - it wasn't a TBR2