Not just a matter of taste
So, being at the time an aspiring TSR2 pilot (among many) engaged in low-level work, I reckoned it was a real good-looking thoroughbred, with a performance to gasp at and e n j o y ...
As for a "complicated and expensive" undercarriage - try for example the Victor's set-up - retracting up into a box the size of the "wheel chassis" (and very often, at least in its early service life, things called "tip hooks" would fail to engage so the wheels wouldn't go up when you wanted them to and you'd waste what could have been a productive sortie just getting down to Max. landing weight). (Nobody's perfect).
And then look at other designers' solutions (DeH 146 perhaps, Belvedere -with its history - or various Tupolev designs among many others) to the problem of tucking the wheels away tidily while leaving room for fuel and "stuff" ... T'isn't easy ...
P.S. Tornado's system looks eerie too,perhaps but it doesn't have to leave room for a bomb bay
Afterthought(s)
Memory tells me that the TSR2 nose undercarriage had a lengthening function, to give it the necessary angle of attack for short take-offs (see several naval aircraft too), should it be needed (to be determined by fight testing). As far as operating bases went, there were several potentially suitable airfields with runways too short for, e.g. Hunters, in the east of West Germany, and I can think of one at least further west with PSP runway and taxiways, while suitable stretches of autobahn would have come in handy (as Jaguar drivers will remember).
"TSR2 - Phoenix or Folly" by Frank Burnett-Jones is also a "good read", even if somewhat coloured by understandable anger.
Meanwhile, back to contemplation of the 1/72 scale of the elegant and purposeful TSR2 on my mantelshelf ...
Last edited by Jig Peter; 20th Sep 2010 at 17:09.
Reason: Afterthoughts