TSR-2 (Merged a few times)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Am I the only one that finds it quite ugly and out of proportion?
A Fantastic aircraft - I'd love to see it fly again...
If only..
Dir. PPRuNe Line Service
One of my earliest memories is of my dad, RAF Chief Tech. Jim "Yanto" Butler, being angry at the cancellation of the TSR-2. At the time we lived very near Warton.
He never did tell me exactly what his involvment was, and he died 31 years ago so I'll never know. However, what my dad didn't know about gas turbines wasn't worth knowing.
I still have an original (now faded) photograph of XR219 on my study wall....
He never did tell me exactly what his involvment was, and he died 31 years ago so I'll never know. However, what my dad didn't know about gas turbines wasn't worth knowing.
I still have an original (now faded) photograph of XR219 on my study wall....
What fantastic film, kokpit - thanks for digging that up. There seems to be other good stuff on sonicbomb.com as well.
One of the many fascinating things, to me, in the TSR2 film, was the amount the undercarriage oleos scrunch up when the weight comes on them. (Which perhaps partly accounts for the rather dorky look when the dunlops are dangling) Anyway, if I remember right, part of the spec required TSR2 to be able to operate from grass strips - and this from an aircraft (with short stubby wings) that rotated at about 180kts! Hence one of the problems was how to make an undercarriage that could cope with that.
It certainly seemed to be able to bounce ok......
Anyway - a fascinating glimpse of 'if only' - and don't forget this was supposed to replace the Canberra, amongst others!
Another lovely touch - the chase aircraft, a Frightning and a Meatbox. Wonderful pics - and all to some rather appropriate music. And the scrapyard ending, too - that made my blood boil.
Thanks again kokpit.
airsound
PS If you haven't done so, do go and see the TSR2 at the Museum at Cosford. When you stand beside it, it's unbelievably huge, and it definitely looks the db.
One of the many fascinating things, to me, in the TSR2 film, was the amount the undercarriage oleos scrunch up when the weight comes on them. (Which perhaps partly accounts for the rather dorky look when the dunlops are dangling) Anyway, if I remember right, part of the spec required TSR2 to be able to operate from grass strips - and this from an aircraft (with short stubby wings) that rotated at about 180kts! Hence one of the problems was how to make an undercarriage that could cope with that.
It certainly seemed to be able to bounce ok......
Anyway - a fascinating glimpse of 'if only' - and don't forget this was supposed to replace the Canberra, amongst others!
Another lovely touch - the chase aircraft, a Frightning and a Meatbox. Wonderful pics - and all to some rather appropriate music. And the scrapyard ending, too - that made my blood boil.
Thanks again kokpit.
airsound
PS If you haven't done so, do go and see the TSR2 at the Museum at Cosford. When you stand beside it, it's unbelievably huge, and it definitely looks the db.
Last edited by airsound; 10th Feb 2008 at 09:59. Reason: added Museum thought
Am I the only one that finds it quite ugly and out of proportion?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantastic footage....Which I watched, despite owning the video it comes from!
Maybe I'm way off the mark here, but if we had lived with a government that had actually wanted TSR2, then maybe we would would have ended up keeping P1154 as well. Then possibly we could have "son of P1154" right now out in the sandy places.....rather than waiting for "Dave" to show up one day.
(just think how much WEBF would have loved a super fast SHAR!)
This is not in any disrespect to any flyers we have have now doing a stirling job. But it seems to me that the UK was getting quite a few things right at that time of aircraft production (despite the government of the day)
The video/DVD the footage comes from is "TSR2 the untold story" available from DDHE, catalogue number (hopefully) DD1092
Barnstormer 1968
Maybe I'm way off the mark here, but if we had lived with a government that had actually wanted TSR2, then maybe we would would have ended up keeping P1154 as well. Then possibly we could have "son of P1154" right now out in the sandy places.....rather than waiting for "Dave" to show up one day.
(just think how much WEBF would have loved a super fast SHAR!)
This is not in any disrespect to any flyers we have have now doing a stirling job. But it seems to me that the UK was getting quite a few things right at that time of aircraft production (despite the government of the day)
The video/DVD the footage comes from is "TSR2 the untold story" available from DDHE, catalogue number (hopefully) DD1092
Barnstormer 1968
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lot bigger than i thought,fanarr etc. seriously though, is there any substance in the stories about the yanks leaning on wilson to cancel and just how far ahead of the curve was she ( i love that phrase)!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjN3PE4ICj0
eta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8kx-...eature=related
eta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8kx-...eature=related
Last edited by Al R; 10th Feb 2008 at 18:53.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Apparently the TSR-2 had once left its Lightning chase aircraft struggling to keep up with only one reheat lit. A bit quick then!
Apologies if this is slightly off thread but ...
Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of "TSR2 with Hindsight" ISBN 0 9519824 8 6 published by the RAF Historical Society 1998?
Pse PM me if you can help
Many thanks
FZ
BTW ... the RAFHS has none for sale
Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of "TSR2 with Hindsight" ISBN 0 9519824 8 6 published by the RAF Historical Society 1998?
Pse PM me if you can help
Many thanks
FZ
BTW ... the RAFHS has none for sale
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I've seen it at Cosford many years ago and I remember being awestruck by the size of it - it is much bigger than I had imagined. The members of the Wilson government who are still alive should be hanging their heads in shame although Lord Mountbatten had something to do with it as I recall - I think he was CDS at the time
Had she reached squadron service there would have been probably: No F4s in RAF service in the strike role; No Buccaneers in RAF service; No Jaguars in the strike role; No Tornado. There certainly would have been no brief flirtation with the F-111 and AFVG. Britain would have built something else (better than the F4 and Tornado F3) to replace the lightning or, perhaps more likely, bought F15s from the US.
With the TSR2's range and likely payload, The RAF of the 1970s onwards to the end of the cold war would have been quite different and much more potent. That was probably the reason for its demise.
I wonder what name it would have had?
Had she reached squadron service there would have been probably: No F4s in RAF service in the strike role; No Buccaneers in RAF service; No Jaguars in the strike role; No Tornado. There certainly would have been no brief flirtation with the F-111 and AFVG. Britain would have built something else (better than the F4 and Tornado F3) to replace the lightning or, perhaps more likely, bought F15s from the US.
With the TSR2's range and likely payload, The RAF of the 1970s onwards to the end of the cold war would have been quite different and much more potent. That was probably the reason for its demise.
I wonder what name it would have had?
I wonder what name it would have had?
Craig.
The two landings at 2.40 - 3.00 look entertaining. Was the first one the legendary tiptoe landing? Does not look like it, but that bounce and roll must have given the guys religion. The next landing's like an F-15: hold nose high for a long time to help slow down.
Definitely a cool-looking jet. A bit Vigilante, a bit of F-104/U-2 lines as well. Big internal weapon bay, tiny wings, hugely blown flaps, farging big tails, monster pure turbojets. The landing gear looks huge... a little bit of insanity going in the requirements department if they were really serious about grass strips.
Craig.
The two landings at 2.40 - 3.00 look entertaining. Was the first one the legendary tiptoe landing? Does not look like it, but that bounce and roll must have given the guys religion. The next landing's like an F-15: hold nose high for a long time to help slow down.
Definitely a cool-looking jet. A bit Vigilante, a bit of F-104/U-2 lines as well. Big internal weapon bay, tiny wings, hugely blown flaps, farging big tails, monster pure turbojets. The landing gear looks huge... a little bit of insanity going in the requirements department if they were really serious about grass strips.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I've read, the U.S. certainly put great pressure on to scrub the project, and Mountbatten was indeed involved in ending it along with the P1154.
Whether it would have been any good or not is open to debate ( forever ) - if relying on low level laydown for conventional attacks, then as the Tornado proved, it wouldn't have passed muster in WW2 - seems it took a lot for some people to realise jamming systems don't save one from a lot of lead thrown in the air above a target.
If it was purely to deliver nuclear bombs, the sub / ICBM had already come up with a system much more likely to succeed.
I agree re. the looks, slab sided & dubious looking wings - what was it like at medium / high level ?
I always understood the Jaguar inherited some aspects of the TSR2, notably the gear, empennage etc - look & compare the two.
As for the P1154 someone mentioned, and 'we might have had that too', I've always thought that was over ambitous even before the bickering service requirements knobbled it, and we had a lucky escape, going instead for what was to become the much more viable Harrier ( the Harrier GR1 received the INS & HUD intended for P1154 ).
If you want to talk about missed VSTOL opportunities see the late 1980's Kingston P1216 projects - various versions offered, my favourite was a twin tailboom type with an F-35 style nozzle between, and shutters forward rather than nozzles, to avoid drag.
There was even a forward swept wing version, using carbon fibre manufactured in such a way that the wingtips CONVERGED under aerodynamic load - now THAT is what we should have instead of the JSF !
There was a full scale mock-up at Kingston, which the prime minister of the day was shown around and promptly rejected the project - Margaret Thatcher...
Whether it would have been any good or not is open to debate ( forever ) - if relying on low level laydown for conventional attacks, then as the Tornado proved, it wouldn't have passed muster in WW2 - seems it took a lot for some people to realise jamming systems don't save one from a lot of lead thrown in the air above a target.
If it was purely to deliver nuclear bombs, the sub / ICBM had already come up with a system much more likely to succeed.
I agree re. the looks, slab sided & dubious looking wings - what was it like at medium / high level ?
I always understood the Jaguar inherited some aspects of the TSR2, notably the gear, empennage etc - look & compare the two.
As for the P1154 someone mentioned, and 'we might have had that too', I've always thought that was over ambitous even before the bickering service requirements knobbled it, and we had a lucky escape, going instead for what was to become the much more viable Harrier ( the Harrier GR1 received the INS & HUD intended for P1154 ).
If you want to talk about missed VSTOL opportunities see the late 1980's Kingston P1216 projects - various versions offered, my favourite was a twin tailboom type with an F-35 style nozzle between, and shutters forward rather than nozzles, to avoid drag.
There was even a forward swept wing version, using carbon fibre manufactured in such a way that the wingtips CONVERGED under aerodynamic load - now THAT is what we should have instead of the JSF !
There was a full scale mock-up at Kingston, which the prime minister of the day was shown around and promptly rejected the project - Margaret Thatcher...
I was waiting with baited breath for this one to pop-up!!!
Let me, if I may be so bold, to express my opinion on the matter of the infamous claims of "superiority" of the TSR2 over, well, every aircraft that has ever existed.
Firstly, I would like to retort in Haiku:
Fabled British Plane,
Uglier Than Sin Itself,
Total Piece Of Sh!t
And, if the meaning of the Haiku is too obscure for some, here is a metaphor I think is very appropriate: About 40 years ago, whilst out fishing in a tinnie in Port Phillip Bay, I caught a Blue Whale using 10 pound line and a hand reel. You may not have seen this but, trust me when I tell you (and my friend's brother Davo who was on the tinnie will back me up) it was without out a doubt the greatest fishing event EVER. Okay, now when I say I caught the whale, whilst not ever actually landing it on the tinnie (the fisheries department came along just as I was hauling it in & demanded I release it immediately) it was as good as in the boat. And when I say I hooked it, well, it never actually took the bait, but it gave it a loooong hard look. And when I say it was a blue whale, well, it er, umm... looked like a blue whale. It may have in fact been a flathead... but it was (may have been) a BIG one!! TRUST ME!
My point is this. Everyone has a "one that got away" story that grows in stature as the years pass. The TSR2 story seems to posess an especially exaggerated list of capabilities. Here are some of the things over the years I have heard the TSR2 was capable of:
DISCLAIMER: I have flown the Pig hence have a soft spot for it, & of course I never flew the TSR 2. (nor do I know anyone who did). Also, I am no Aero Eng or TP but I reckon I'm a good judge of "horse flesh", and the old adage that "if it looks good it flies good" is true more often than not. Based on this and an up close and personal inspection of the airframe at Duxford Air Museum I feel confident in saying that the TSR2 was/would have been a total frickin' dog!!.
For a tactical/interdiction strike aircraft this thing was ENORMOUS...
* with a hideous slab sided rectangular fuselage and the smallest freakin' wing area for an aircraft of its size I have ever seen!!
* For its size (about 20% larger than a Pig) its internal weapons bay (an overly complex arrangement if ever there was one) was quite small.
* The tiny wings probably resulted in a wing loading higher than that of an F-104 (and we all know how well that turns!) and were clearly incapable of carrying large external stores, IF anything at all.
* Landing Gear?? I think you could have completed a Rubik's cube before the complex arrangement would have retracted.
*The Olympus engines, impressively large and powerful as they were, would have chewed through the juice like a fat chick with a Maccas shake and
any substantial fuel reserves (which I don't think it had) would have been for nought.
Anyway, the TSR2 is dead... Long live the TSR2!!
Let me, if I may be so bold, to express my opinion on the matter of the infamous claims of "superiority" of the TSR2 over, well, every aircraft that has ever existed.
Firstly, I would like to retort in Haiku:
Fabled British Plane,
Uglier Than Sin Itself,
Total Piece Of Sh!t
And, if the meaning of the Haiku is too obscure for some, here is a metaphor I think is very appropriate: About 40 years ago, whilst out fishing in a tinnie in Port Phillip Bay, I caught a Blue Whale using 10 pound line and a hand reel. You may not have seen this but, trust me when I tell you (and my friend's brother Davo who was on the tinnie will back me up) it was without out a doubt the greatest fishing event EVER. Okay, now when I say I caught the whale, whilst not ever actually landing it on the tinnie (the fisheries department came along just as I was hauling it in & demanded I release it immediately) it was as good as in the boat. And when I say I hooked it, well, it never actually took the bait, but it gave it a loooong hard look. And when I say it was a blue whale, well, it er, umm... looked like a blue whale. It may have in fact been a flathead... but it was (may have been) a BIG one!! TRUST ME!
My point is this. Everyone has a "one that got away" story that grows in stature as the years pass. The TSR2 story seems to posess an especially exaggerated list of capabilities. Here are some of the things over the years I have heard the TSR2 was capable of:
- Ability to create World Peace
- Could make two atoms occupy the same quantum space
- solving Degasperis-Procesi equations
- perfect cold-fusion
- write a Pulitzer award-winning novel.
DISCLAIMER: I have flown the Pig hence have a soft spot for it, & of course I never flew the TSR 2. (nor do I know anyone who did). Also, I am no Aero Eng or TP but I reckon I'm a good judge of "horse flesh", and the old adage that "if it looks good it flies good" is true more often than not. Based on this and an up close and personal inspection of the airframe at Duxford Air Museum I feel confident in saying that the TSR2 was/would have been a total frickin' dog!!.
For a tactical/interdiction strike aircraft this thing was ENORMOUS...
* with a hideous slab sided rectangular fuselage and the smallest freakin' wing area for an aircraft of its size I have ever seen!!
* For its size (about 20% larger than a Pig) its internal weapons bay (an overly complex arrangement if ever there was one) was quite small.
* The tiny wings probably resulted in a wing loading higher than that of an F-104 (and we all know how well that turns!) and were clearly incapable of carrying large external stores, IF anything at all.
* Landing Gear?? I think you could have completed a Rubik's cube before the complex arrangement would have retracted.
*The Olympus engines, impressively large and powerful as they were, would have chewed through the juice like a fat chick with a Maccas shake and
any substantial fuel reserves (which I don't think it had) would have been for nought.
Anyway, the TSR2 is dead... Long live the TSR2!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tsr2/f111
Booger.
I understand you are a fan of the pig (as most pilots who flew her are it seems) but let not get carried away.
From memory the F111 had more initial problems than the TSR2, and took longer to get off the ground. So while it is/was a very capable aircraft, the TSR2 may well have been also. Many of the components of the TSR2 have gone on to be very successful in other aircraft or other technologies (ISTR that the F111 used many of the systems the TSR2 would have, i.e. terrain following radar).
IMHO the F111 succeeded, due to a proactive U.S. government, while the TSR2 failed due to lacklustre and spineless British ones.
If the TSR2 had gone on to have a long and useful career we will never know. We do know it was MUCH faster than an F111 (useful if being chased by a Mig 21 at the time). It is also VERY apparent that no matter how good the F111 may have been, it never became an export success, and was hardly a NATO standard, such as the F4, F16 etc. Even the Lighting had a better market in sales!
Anyway rant over
Like most Brits, my venom is not directed at anyone outside of the British government of the day.
Booger, I envy you in having flown an aircraft, someone had the Bo**ocks to fund in the first place.
Barnstormer1968
I understand you are a fan of the pig (as most pilots who flew her are it seems) but let not get carried away.
From memory the F111 had more initial problems than the TSR2, and took longer to get off the ground. So while it is/was a very capable aircraft, the TSR2 may well have been also. Many of the components of the TSR2 have gone on to be very successful in other aircraft or other technologies (ISTR that the F111 used many of the systems the TSR2 would have, i.e. terrain following radar).
IMHO the F111 succeeded, due to a proactive U.S. government, while the TSR2 failed due to lacklustre and spineless British ones.
If the TSR2 had gone on to have a long and useful career we will never know. We do know it was MUCH faster than an F111 (useful if being chased by a Mig 21 at the time). It is also VERY apparent that no matter how good the F111 may have been, it never became an export success, and was hardly a NATO standard, such as the F4, F16 etc. Even the Lighting had a better market in sales!
Anyway rant over
Like most Brits, my venom is not directed at anyone outside of the British government of the day.
Booger, I envy you in having flown an aircraft, someone had the Bo**ocks to fund in the first place.
Barnstormer1968