TSR-2 (Merged a few times)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR-2 - Tanknet.org link not working 
Err, no. Deterrence was/is the main duty. On the scrapheap? Why? Is the B52 on the scrapheap. If the thing could trundle away from a Lightning then it was probably quite good.
So if we'd had a war,then it might have had a chance to perform it's only duty, killing our enemy.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wilts
Age: 67
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have your say,
Vote and pass it on!
Petition to: Resurrect the TSR2 Strike Bomber. | Number10.gov.uk
Vote and pass it on!
Petition to: Resurrect the TSR2 Strike Bomber. | Number10.gov.uk
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much a I think that the TSR2 was a beautiful (in an ugly sort of way) aircraft, it was designed in the sixties. I do not think that you could just do a "quick" update of the systems to bring it into the modern world. You would really have to start from scratch and I can see too many problems. There is also the problem of who would build it. In the sixties we still had a manufacturing base, today we do not.
I also disagree with Tim McLelland, bring back the Sunderland, not the Varsity.
I also disagree with Tim McLelland, bring back the Sunderland, not the Varsity.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once had the great pleasure of sitting in the TSR2 currently at the aerospace museum at Cosford. The rear cockpit was extremely roomy (even though there was no forward visibility) and the front had a fantastic amount of forward vision. I remember sitting there thinking "With the sort of avionics we have today it would be easy to really make something of this airframe" Unfortunately withthe paperwork required it would take 10 years just to get it ready to fly! I've signed the petition, and would lvoe to see it fly again.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it's natural to dismiss references to the political beliefs of the people who made up the Labour Government at the time the TSR2 was scrapped.
Unfortunately for those who scoff at the talk of political sabotage, the break up of the USSR opened up access to information which indicates that there were Soviet agents and sympathisers in the Labour Party at that time.
What other country in the West would have had a former card-carrying Communist in charge of its Defences? The same Denis Healey who claimed he left the Party in 1939 became Secretary of State for Defence in 1964 and stayed in that job for six long years until Labour lost the 1972 election.
He was the longest serving Defence Minister ever and would normally have been promoted into a higher ministerial position.
Of course the Prime Minister at that time was Harold Wilson who has been directly accused of being a Soviet agent by defecting KGB officers.
It was Harold Wilson who, it is claimed, ordered the destruction of jigs, tools, blueprints etc so that any incoming Tory government could never restart the TSR2 programme.
So, how successful was Denis Healey during those six years?
Dunno, but I'll bet the Russians thought he did a great job!
Unfortunately for those who scoff at the talk of political sabotage, the break up of the USSR opened up access to information which indicates that there were Soviet agents and sympathisers in the Labour Party at that time.
What other country in the West would have had a former card-carrying Communist in charge of its Defences? The same Denis Healey who claimed he left the Party in 1939 became Secretary of State for Defence in 1964 and stayed in that job for six long years until Labour lost the 1972 election.
He was the longest serving Defence Minister ever and would normally have been promoted into a higher ministerial position.
Of course the Prime Minister at that time was Harold Wilson who has been directly accused of being a Soviet agent by defecting KGB officers.
It was Harold Wilson who, it is claimed, ordered the destruction of jigs, tools, blueprints etc so that any incoming Tory government could never restart the TSR2 programme.
So, how successful was Denis Healey during those six years?
Dunno, but I'll bet the Russians thought he did a great job!
It was Harold Wilson who, it is claimed, ordered the destruction of jigs, tools, blueprints etc so that any incoming Tory government could never restart the TSR2 programme.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case anyone has been patiently waiting, the much-advertised Aerofax book on the TSR2 (by Joe Cherrie) will not be getting published. The various adverts on Amazon and the like are based on a dummy cover and I'm afraid that's all that actually exists of the book, so don't bother placing an order!
It has long since been abandoned and we're hoping to produce a replacement book (not an Aerofax title though). However, due to various circumstances, even this has been put on-hold for a while so I don't know when or if the book will finally appear (plus I'd have to write it first, doh!).
Incdentally, the notion that information on the TSR2 still exists is optimistic to say the least. In actual fact, virtually nothing seems to have survived. BAE Heritage have rescued some stuff but it amounts to no more than a few papers and brochures. I have copies of every photograph that was ever taken (save for about four pictures it seems; the total comes to about 300 images but most of these are construction shots) and a copy of the provisional Aircrew Manual, and that, alas, is just about all there is. No conspiracy theory here though, it's just that in time-honoured tradition, once the project was dumped, the manufacturer hadn't got the slightest interest in hanging-on to any of the material associated with it and most of it was simply binned.
As for the age-old stories of dark plots and political manoeuvrings, I'm afraid most of this is also fantasy. The truth of the matter seems to be pretty clear - the project was just hideously unaffordable, partly because the aircraft represented the beginnings of a new era when all such weapons systems are by their very nature monumentally expensive, but also because the project was seriously mis-managed, largely due to the company shake-up which resulted in two companies supposedly acting as one, but effectively conflicting or duplicating. When you mix-in the "Ministry" input, you see that the aircraft was simply a victim of circumstances - the right aircraft at the wrong time. You also have to accept that despite all the hype, the aircraft was never some all-powerful "superplane" and the F-111 would have done the same job just was well. In many respects, the Buccaneer was a perfectly acceptable replacement and it's a pity that this fact wasn't accepted a lot sooner than it was. But whatever might or might not have happened, the TSR2 would now be a Museum exhibit no matter what.
Sad business!
It has long since been abandoned and we're hoping to produce a replacement book (not an Aerofax title though). However, due to various circumstances, even this has been put on-hold for a while so I don't know when or if the book will finally appear (plus I'd have to write it first, doh!).
Incdentally, the notion that information on the TSR2 still exists is optimistic to say the least. In actual fact, virtually nothing seems to have survived. BAE Heritage have rescued some stuff but it amounts to no more than a few papers and brochures. I have copies of every photograph that was ever taken (save for about four pictures it seems; the total comes to about 300 images but most of these are construction shots) and a copy of the provisional Aircrew Manual, and that, alas, is just about all there is. No conspiracy theory here though, it's just that in time-honoured tradition, once the project was dumped, the manufacturer hadn't got the slightest interest in hanging-on to any of the material associated with it and most of it was simply binned.
As for the age-old stories of dark plots and political manoeuvrings, I'm afraid most of this is also fantasy. The truth of the matter seems to be pretty clear - the project was just hideously unaffordable, partly because the aircraft represented the beginnings of a new era when all such weapons systems are by their very nature monumentally expensive, but also because the project was seriously mis-managed, largely due to the company shake-up which resulted in two companies supposedly acting as one, but effectively conflicting or duplicating. When you mix-in the "Ministry" input, you see that the aircraft was simply a victim of circumstances - the right aircraft at the wrong time. You also have to accept that despite all the hype, the aircraft was never some all-powerful "superplane" and the F-111 would have done the same job just was well. In many respects, the Buccaneer was a perfectly acceptable replacement and it's a pity that this fact wasn't accepted a lot sooner than it was. But whatever might or might not have happened, the TSR2 would now be a Museum exhibit no matter what.
Sad business!
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 17th Jan 2009 at 11:10.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very true Tim.
The tragic saga of the UK Aerospace industry fromthe late 1950s onwards is real story.
TSR2 was a notable victim of monumentally poor planning and project management. It was the icon it became because unlike most of the other cancelled projects, it had actually flown and there was some room for optimism. All the others were just drawings.
The financial state of the UK at the time meant we could not afford anything of any scale. Remember that Harold Wilson tried to pull out of the Concorde project, but the contractual terms were too tight for him to wriggle out of it.
I just wish I felt that governments had learned this lesson from history, but, sadly, they haven't.
You'll see in the Military section a regular item asking why the UK insist on 'UK-ising' any aircraft purchased from the US or elsewhere. The F4, C130, F-III were all made more expensive thanks to this policy.
The tragic saga of the UK Aerospace industry fromthe late 1950s onwards is real story.
TSR2 was a notable victim of monumentally poor planning and project management. It was the icon it became because unlike most of the other cancelled projects, it had actually flown and there was some room for optimism. All the others were just drawings.
The financial state of the UK at the time meant we could not afford anything of any scale. Remember that Harold Wilson tried to pull out of the Concorde project, but the contractual terms were too tight for him to wriggle out of it.
I just wish I felt that governments had learned this lesson from history, but, sadly, they haven't.
You'll see in the Military section a regular item asking why the UK insist on 'UK-ising' any aircraft purchased from the US or elsewhere. The F4, C130, F-III were all made more expensive thanks to this policy.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as I'm sure you know, the "make it British" business is all to do with politics, on the basis that a purchase can be presented to the public as being somehow more acceptable if a significant proportion of the aircraft is British. Of course it's absolute folly, as the purchases would be either less expensive or more practical if they were simply "off the shelf" from the US... but try convincing a politician of that!
The Phantom was one of the best examples of how stupid the concept is. A waste of money putting British engines into an aircraft which performed just as well (better in some respects) with the standard US engines.
The poor old TSR2 was just unfortunate to come along at precisely the wrong time when the Government was running out of money, and thought that they could bully the various aerospace companies into merging, in the hope of saving cash. The result was that an aircraft which could have been easily produced by English Electric, became the victim of a never-ending series of committee decisions and inter-company squabbles, primarly because Vickers evidently thought that the project was essentially theirs - or at least that it should be. When you add that situation to the unavoidable cost of developing such a complex aircraft, the difficulty of relying on completely new and untried engines, and pressure from America to buy their product, then the aircraft was under attack from all angles and it's hardly surprising that it got chopped.
There's no real mystery to the saga at all - it was just a classic case of gross mismanagement. The notion that there was some dark motive behind the hasty destruction of the TSR2 jigs and surviving airframes doesn't bear scrutiny either. Obviously, once a project is abandoned, then everything associated with the aircraft is dumped. It seems entirely reasonable that Warton and Weybridge would clear everything away when they had other projects which needed the space (for example, Warton had to shift some parts of the Lightning programme in order to make space for TSR2). Likewise, the notion of using the two flyable TSR2's on test duties was considered and it was only the cost of doing it which seems to have discouraged the Government from going ahead. It's easy to say that there was some dark plot to destroy everything either to keep America happy or to spitefully ensure that an incoming Tory government couldn't resurrect the project but in reality, America probably didn't care about TSR2 that much, and no incoming government would have seriously considered re-starting the programme in any case.
Ultimately, the TSR2 saga has suffered from the "Elvis Presley Syndrome" with all kinds of myths being attached to it because it was cut-short at just the moment when it started to show some promise. It's easy to speculate on what might have been when there's no chance of ever finding-out! Being dead is always a great career move!
The Phantom was one of the best examples of how stupid the concept is. A waste of money putting British engines into an aircraft which performed just as well (better in some respects) with the standard US engines.
The poor old TSR2 was just unfortunate to come along at precisely the wrong time when the Government was running out of money, and thought that they could bully the various aerospace companies into merging, in the hope of saving cash. The result was that an aircraft which could have been easily produced by English Electric, became the victim of a never-ending series of committee decisions and inter-company squabbles, primarly because Vickers evidently thought that the project was essentially theirs - or at least that it should be. When you add that situation to the unavoidable cost of developing such a complex aircraft, the difficulty of relying on completely new and untried engines, and pressure from America to buy their product, then the aircraft was under attack from all angles and it's hardly surprising that it got chopped.
There's no real mystery to the saga at all - it was just a classic case of gross mismanagement. The notion that there was some dark motive behind the hasty destruction of the TSR2 jigs and surviving airframes doesn't bear scrutiny either. Obviously, once a project is abandoned, then everything associated with the aircraft is dumped. It seems entirely reasonable that Warton and Weybridge would clear everything away when they had other projects which needed the space (for example, Warton had to shift some parts of the Lightning programme in order to make space for TSR2). Likewise, the notion of using the two flyable TSR2's on test duties was considered and it was only the cost of doing it which seems to have discouraged the Government from going ahead. It's easy to say that there was some dark plot to destroy everything either to keep America happy or to spitefully ensure that an incoming Tory government couldn't resurrect the project but in reality, America probably didn't care about TSR2 that much, and no incoming government would have seriously considered re-starting the programme in any case.
Ultimately, the TSR2 saga has suffered from the "Elvis Presley Syndrome" with all kinds of myths being attached to it because it was cut-short at just the moment when it started to show some promise. It's easy to speculate on what might have been when there's no chance of ever finding-out! Being dead is always a great career move!
Why waste time and money cutting and burning things that could just be left in a pile?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think we can guess why that would be - after all the controversy surrounding the project at the time, I doubt if anyone had the appetite for leaving anything laying-about. Besides, I guess it depends on what u mean by "complete destruction" - all that happened was that the jigs were dismantled and the wooden mock-up burnt - the partically completed airframes were sold for scrap and the the rest is history. There's nothing suspicious about it really, it's just that so many people have tried to paint it that way.
I'm with ZH875, the jigs wern't just dismantled, they wewe cut up in pieces with torches.
Is there much difference between what we do (did) to bought in aircraft and what we now sell abroad, like the Jag or Hawk to India. Offsets as they call them now are a necessity. I remember when I started my apprenticeship the training school was next to the Phantom rear fuse assemly line, so I didn't consider it a 'foreign' aircraft.
Is there much difference between what we do (did) to bought in aircraft and what we now sell abroad, like the Jag or Hawk to India. Offsets as they call them now are a necessity. I remember when I started my apprenticeship the training school was next to the Phantom rear fuse assemly line, so I didn't consider it a 'foreign' aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Death of TSR2
If the cancellation was not political, why were we instructed to cut up all tools immediately.
That prevented any resurrection. I was working at a subcontractor at the time.
That prevented any resurrection. I was working at a subcontractor at the time.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there was a common denominator to the TSR2, AW681, P1154 and Fairy Rotodyne cancellations and that is the industry was out of control contractually as it was wedded to cost plus contracts (which were never going to make designers stop and think before they cracked on with some pet notion).
From my point of view I believe all these four projects were technically flawed although I do accept that the Government did not cancel them because of that.
TSR2 not enough wing, AW681 a VL transport just to take a P1154 engine into a field (why not a chopper?), P1154 silly exhaust gas temperatures and velocities preventing any operating site flexibility (to say nothing of immersing the fuselage and tail in said exhaust in conventional flight) while the Rotodyne was 'designed' to operate from a city centre (Hyde Park Corner and the Champs-Elysées) using a rotor driven by tip jets.
IMHO cost plus had a lot to answer for.
From my point of view I believe all these four projects were technically flawed although I do accept that the Government did not cancel them because of that.
TSR2 not enough wing, AW681 a VL transport just to take a P1154 engine into a field (why not a chopper?), P1154 silly exhaust gas temperatures and velocities preventing any operating site flexibility (to say nothing of immersing the fuselage and tail in said exhaust in conventional flight) while the Rotodyne was 'designed' to operate from a city centre (Hyde Park Corner and the Champs-Elysées) using a rotor driven by tip jets.
IMHO cost plus had a lot to answer for.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said in my last post, I guess it's all down to how you choose to perceive such things. I accept that the story has gone-around for decades that BAC were "instructed to destroy" everything but like so many of these stories, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it. It seems entirely reasonable that BAC would want everything cut-up, burned and cleared-out as soon as the project was scrubbed because they had other programmes that needed the space and manpower. I guess the way to look at it is to reverse the situation and ask why they wouldn't want to do that? What advantage would there be in hanging-on to what was effectively a pile of junk?
Like I said before, I think this story is based on the premise that there was either political (and financial) pressure from the US to get-rid of the aircraft. It's a good theory but there's no evidence to support it. Let's be realistic - no matter how many "dark deals" might have been struck, it would be stretching credibility to suggest that the US had enough influence to force a foreign government/manufacturer into destroying every bit of a project just because they thought it might be some sort of commercial threat to the F-111. Besides, if that situation was in any way likely, then how come this only applied to the TSR2 and not other aircraft too? It just doesn't add up.
Likewise, the only other possible explanation would be if the Government wanted to ensure that any incoming Tory government couldn't resurrect the project. But again, there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence that this was ever going to be a possibility. What government would want to re-start a hideously over-expensive project which had already caused so much embarrassment? Again, it just seems like a non-starter and there's never been so much as a mutter to suggest that the Conservatives had even entertained the idea.
I know it's a symptom of human nature to enjoy fantasies of dark political wranglings (heaven knows there are plenty of 'em!) but the more you look at this saga with a clear head, you have to conclude that all the conspiracy theories are simply down to gossip and sensationalism. The TSR2 was a brilliant piece of technology and engineering but it would be wrong to make the aircraft into something it wasn't. It showed great promise but it was just too expensive, thanks to the way in which it was created and managed. Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to suppose that it wasn't dumped because of that very fact. The other stories sound great but like so many stories, the truth was probably much more mundane.
Okay, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but as I've said before - where is the evidence? It's a bit like the M.52 thread I've been following on here and the Flypast forum - the same stories of political conspiracies and destruction of jigs, transfers of data and so on, but no evidence to support it, indeed one former Miles man insists that it's just not true. And yet the stories continue, with even the great Eric Brown planning to write a book on the subject, perpetuating the same myths (although I hear there are efforts being made to ensure that he doesn't fall into this trap!).
Frankly, I'd be quite happy if the TSR2 saga did contain some dark conspiracy as it would make my job as a writer more interesting, but what should I do? Simply re-trace the same comments made by everyone else over so many years, without stopping to ask on what basis these comments have been made? It's pointless to write "facts" on the basis that they've merely been written before, and even worse to base "facts" on what seems to be mostly personal opinion and gossip.
I fear the TSR2 saga will never be resolved one way or the other, but my own view is that it is better to re-tell the story as it was, without any need for conspiracies. The simple story of how a brilliant design can fall victim to the people who manage it is enough in itself don't you think?!
PS, just noticed the post above from the great JF - I'm firmly with his view there!
Like I said before, I think this story is based on the premise that there was either political (and financial) pressure from the US to get-rid of the aircraft. It's a good theory but there's no evidence to support it. Let's be realistic - no matter how many "dark deals" might have been struck, it would be stretching credibility to suggest that the US had enough influence to force a foreign government/manufacturer into destroying every bit of a project just because they thought it might be some sort of commercial threat to the F-111. Besides, if that situation was in any way likely, then how come this only applied to the TSR2 and not other aircraft too? It just doesn't add up.
Likewise, the only other possible explanation would be if the Government wanted to ensure that any incoming Tory government couldn't resurrect the project. But again, there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence that this was ever going to be a possibility. What government would want to re-start a hideously over-expensive project which had already caused so much embarrassment? Again, it just seems like a non-starter and there's never been so much as a mutter to suggest that the Conservatives had even entertained the idea.
I know it's a symptom of human nature to enjoy fantasies of dark political wranglings (heaven knows there are plenty of 'em!) but the more you look at this saga with a clear head, you have to conclude that all the conspiracy theories are simply down to gossip and sensationalism. The TSR2 was a brilliant piece of technology and engineering but it would be wrong to make the aircraft into something it wasn't. It showed great promise but it was just too expensive, thanks to the way in which it was created and managed. Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to suppose that it wasn't dumped because of that very fact. The other stories sound great but like so many stories, the truth was probably much more mundane.
Okay, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but as I've said before - where is the evidence? It's a bit like the M.52 thread I've been following on here and the Flypast forum - the same stories of political conspiracies and destruction of jigs, transfers of data and so on, but no evidence to support it, indeed one former Miles man insists that it's just not true. And yet the stories continue, with even the great Eric Brown planning to write a book on the subject, perpetuating the same myths (although I hear there are efforts being made to ensure that he doesn't fall into this trap!).
Frankly, I'd be quite happy if the TSR2 saga did contain some dark conspiracy as it would make my job as a writer more interesting, but what should I do? Simply re-trace the same comments made by everyone else over so many years, without stopping to ask on what basis these comments have been made? It's pointless to write "facts" on the basis that they've merely been written before, and even worse to base "facts" on what seems to be mostly personal opinion and gossip.
I fear the TSR2 saga will never be resolved one way or the other, but my own view is that it is better to re-tell the story as it was, without any need for conspiracies. The simple story of how a brilliant design can fall victim to the people who manage it is enough in itself don't you think?!
PS, just noticed the post above from the great JF - I'm firmly with his view there!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chessington, Surrey
Age: 76
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
Freedom of Information in the USA has finally revealed the truth behind the cancellation of the Avro Arrow- yes "pressure" from the Eisenhower administration, plus the "excuse" by the Canadian PM, Diefenbaker, that the project was too expensive.
Remembering the enormous political row in 1965, my guess is possible de-classification of documents after 50 years, a variation of the 30 year rule, in 2015 or total silence!
Stranger things have happened.
Why was the crash report following the death of Harry Hawker kept secret for 50 years?
Ciarain.
Ps.
I do not subscribe to various conspiracy theories, it was a badly managed project, as much the fault of BAC as the brain dead Air Marshalls who concocted the ridiculous specification in the first place.
Freedom of Information in the USA has finally revealed the truth behind the cancellation of the Avro Arrow- yes "pressure" from the Eisenhower administration, plus the "excuse" by the Canadian PM, Diefenbaker, that the project was too expensive.
Remembering the enormous political row in 1965, my guess is possible de-classification of documents after 50 years, a variation of the 30 year rule, in 2015 or total silence!
Stranger things have happened.
Why was the crash report following the death of Harry Hawker kept secret for 50 years?
Ciarain.
Ps.
I do not subscribe to various conspiracy theories, it was a badly managed project, as much the fault of BAC as the brain dead Air Marshalls who concocted the ridiculous specification in the first place.
Last edited by Kieron Kirk; 18th Jan 2009 at 21:08.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I know nothing about the Arrow project but I'd be inclined to think that maybe the same comments apply? Okay, if information has become available through FoI then that's one thing, but precisely what information and where? Are you talking about direct transcripts or someone's report? I say that because this is often the problem with such stories - they sound like facts but when you trace them back you find that you reach a dead-end. There's a big difference between finding conclusive "conspiracy" dealings through FoI for yourself, and reading about such material having been found - inevitably, in the latter case, you find that when you check, the original source of the information doesn't actually say what people claim it said.
It's okay though - I don't want to start a thread about the Arrow, I'm sure you know what I'm getting-at - just the general principle of how these stories often develop.
I'm at risk of going-off at a tangent here, but one classic example I'm currently looking at (for my Lightning book) is the infamous story of how a USAF exchange officer supposedly chased a UFO. When you look into it, all the reports and information are complete nonsense but they keep getting repeated as if they're factual. The only thing that comes close to "fact" is the transcript of the R/T conversation which the BBC has published on their web site, and when you read through that you see that absolutely nothing unusual is reported and even the transcript looks a little suspect in parts! I guess it's a manifestation of the way in which the internet allows a simple piece of information to grow and develop until it bears no relation to the original point!
It's okay though - I don't want to start a thread about the Arrow, I'm sure you know what I'm getting-at - just the general principle of how these stories often develop.
I'm at risk of going-off at a tangent here, but one classic example I'm currently looking at (for my Lightning book) is the infamous story of how a USAF exchange officer supposedly chased a UFO. When you look into it, all the reports and information are complete nonsense but they keep getting repeated as if they're factual. The only thing that comes close to "fact" is the transcript of the R/T conversation which the BBC has published on their web site, and when you read through that you see that absolutely nothing unusual is reported and even the transcript looks a little suspect in parts! I guess it's a manifestation of the way in which the internet allows a simple piece of information to grow and develop until it bears no relation to the original point!
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 18th Jan 2009 at 22:36.
I'm looking for information about the main U/C retract mechanics. Certainly it was a relatively complex operation looking at the size of the main bogies and the space available.
Ideally it would be great to get hold of some video where the U/C was actually retracted but seems unlikely to exist?
Why?
Ideally it would be great to get hold of some video where the U/C was actually retracted but seems unlikely to exist?
Why?
Did you find what you were looking for, here is a TSR-2 video showing the U/C retracting at around 0.50 into it.