TSR-2 (Merged a few times)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Booger, ignoring most of your post which is of no substance and skipping to the last para - the TSR2 wing is substantially larger than that of a Tornado, and stores trials were going to be carried out on the 3rd airframe (I think - the one at Cosford anyway). You can still see the pylon mount points on it and I've seen pylons and bombs and tanks hung under a mockup in a couple of books now. Don't let the wing's size in comparison to the airframe mislead you into thinking that is a small wing. Sure it's highly loaded, it was meant to be for a good solid ride down low.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pathfinder country
Age: 49
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the initial TSR2 engines was a tendency to explode at maximum power. (A fact known to the pilot when carrying out the first take-off). This was caused by a cooling airflow on the HP turbine setting up a vibration causing catastrophic faliure. The problem was sorted however and a development of the engine was used in the Concorde.
Booger
Never let the truth get in the way of a good rumour.....
I will leave you to do the maths as to how many lbs/kgs that is?
What was the F111's internal + external fuel capacity? 7400 gallons-ish? US gallons??
Of course the F111 is a paragon of stealth, isn't it?
TSR 2 Weapons Bay
F111 Weapons Bay
Looks narrower but deeper to me.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good rumour.....
The tiny wings probably resulted in a wing loading higher than that of an F-104 and were clearly incapable of carrying large external stores, IF anything at all.
Total internal fuel capacity was 5588 gallons. Extra fuel was available in the form of 450 gallon under-wing drop tanks, a 570 gallon tank in the weapons bay and a jettisonable ventral tank holding 1000 gallons under the fuselage. Production aircraft would have had an in-flight refuelling capability. (From Target Lock)
What was the F111's internal + external fuel capacity? 7400 gallons-ish? US gallons??
with a hideous slab sided rectangular fuselage
For its size its internal weapons bay (an overly complex arrangement if ever there was one) was quite small
F111 Weapons Bay
Looks narrower but deeper to me.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barnstormer1968,
With respect I hardly think the F-111 used any TFR developed for the TSR2 !
I also am intrigued by the latter's capability to carry anything on the wings, not just for their relatively tiny size & high loading, also for aerodynamic effect - carrying & releasing / firing tanks or as might have come along, Sidewinders cleanly seems interesting.
As for the wings being 'larger than a Tornado' well I should certainly hope so, as the thing's several factors the size & weight ( & Tornado's don't exactly worry F-16's ).
No-one's answered my query as to what the TSR2 would have been like at altitude (the obvious guess being 'bloody useless' ) which as the Tornado found out is where to be if having any desire to return relatively safely.
Even if the thing was a go-er, we would now - and ideally long since - be arguing about it's replacement - not Tornado, with similar defects to an extent, as inflicted by committee.
Much more likely increasingly stealthy & intelligent cruise missiles & possibly UCAV's - I will never say Duncan Sandys was ahead of his time, he was just a misguided prat - but hey presto, we're in the 21st century.
And on the ' if it looks right it is right' scale, - Yes, it was ugly.
With respect I hardly think the F-111 used any TFR developed for the TSR2 !
I also am intrigued by the latter's capability to carry anything on the wings, not just for their relatively tiny size & high loading, also for aerodynamic effect - carrying & releasing / firing tanks or as might have come along, Sidewinders cleanly seems interesting.
As for the wings being 'larger than a Tornado' well I should certainly hope so, as the thing's several factors the size & weight ( & Tornado's don't exactly worry F-16's ).
No-one's answered my query as to what the TSR2 would have been like at altitude (the obvious guess being 'bloody useless' ) which as the Tornado found out is where to be if having any desire to return relatively safely.
Even if the thing was a go-er, we would now - and ideally long since - be arguing about it's replacement - not Tornado, with similar defects to an extent, as inflicted by committee.
Much more likely increasingly stealthy & intelligent cruise missiles & possibly UCAV's - I will never say Duncan Sandys was ahead of his time, he was just a misguided prat - but hey presto, we're in the 21st century.
And on the ' if it looks right it is right' scale, - Yes, it was ugly.
Last edited by Double Zero; 30th Jul 2008 at 14:34.
Barnstormer
I don't think that the F-111 would ever have any difficulties out running a MiG-21. A MiG-23, yes, but not a Fishbed. Also, the APQ-110 TFR was built by Texas Instruments specifically for the F-111, not the TSR.2.
You were correct that the F-111 was troubled (to say the least) in its early days, and the F-111C that the Aussies bought took 5 years to be delivered from the time it was ordered.
I don't think that the F-111 would ever have any difficulties out running a MiG-21. A MiG-23, yes, but not a Fishbed. Also, the APQ-110 TFR was built by Texas Instruments specifically for the F-111, not the TSR.2.
You were correct that the F-111 was troubled (to say the least) in its early days, and the F-111C that the Aussies bought took 5 years to be delivered from the time it was ordered.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ewan,
Are you sure you got the MIG -21 & 23 the right way round ? Or is this a low-level thing...
One interesting little idea has just sprung to mind; what use would the TSR2 have been on long range trips to the Falklands a la Black Buck ?
I'm no particular Vulcan fan, though every bit of me applauds the efforts of the team who've got her back airborne, - I can guess, but I'll leave you worthy gents to discuss.
Incidentally, someone working on a grounded Concorde ( at Brooklands I think ) found structural evidence of a half-plan to fit hard points, presumably for 'Skybolt' etc of the time as a plan B -it's nice to know someone somewhere has a little forethought, though maybe not the knowledge of weapons carriage / separation / firing trials, let alone a guidance system !
Have a nasty feeling things were along the A-12 mode / ( later SR71 ) - chuck a Hughes nuke warhead among the incoming reds !
Are you sure you got the MIG -21 & 23 the right way round ? Or is this a low-level thing...
One interesting little idea has just sprung to mind; what use would the TSR2 have been on long range trips to the Falklands a la Black Buck ?
I'm no particular Vulcan fan, though every bit of me applauds the efforts of the team who've got her back airborne, - I can guess, but I'll leave you worthy gents to discuss.
Incidentally, someone working on a grounded Concorde ( at Brooklands I think ) found structural evidence of a half-plan to fit hard points, presumably for 'Skybolt' etc of the time as a plan B -it's nice to know someone somewhere has a little forethought, though maybe not the knowledge of weapons carriage / separation / firing trials, let alone a guidance system !
Have a nasty feeling things were along the A-12 mode / ( later SR71 ) - chuck a Hughes nuke warhead among the incoming reds !
Last edited by Double Zero; 30th Jul 2008 at 16:14.
DZ
I was thinking in the low-level environment.
Guys I have talked to who flew MiG-21s and MiG-23s during CONSTANT PEG in the 1980s say that while the MiG-21F-13 could initially out-accelerate most types in a drag race, it would soon be left behind by the likes of the F-16, F-15, F/A-18 etc. As for the MiG-23BN/MS, they claimed it was untouchable in terms of raw speed and acceleration.
The fastest Blue Air type at the time was the F-model F-111 with the TF30-P100 motors, and the Flogger easily out accelerated them and had a higher top end speed.
One guy told me that he's had more than 850 knots from a Flogger on the deck, and that it had still been accelerating when he realised his speed and promptly raised the nose and simultaneously throttled back. This incident occurred when he had been making a stern conversion on two F-111s under GCI control; he'd started five miles behind them, but was seven miles in front of them by the time he popped back up for GCI to give him a new vector!
I was thinking in the low-level environment.
Guys I have talked to who flew MiG-21s and MiG-23s during CONSTANT PEG in the 1980s say that while the MiG-21F-13 could initially out-accelerate most types in a drag race, it would soon be left behind by the likes of the F-16, F-15, F/A-18 etc. As for the MiG-23BN/MS, they claimed it was untouchable in terms of raw speed and acceleration.
The fastest Blue Air type at the time was the F-model F-111 with the TF30-P100 motors, and the Flogger easily out accelerated them and had a higher top end speed.
One guy told me that he's had more than 850 knots from a Flogger on the deck, and that it had still been accelerating when he realised his speed and promptly raised the nose and simultaneously throttled back. This incident occurred when he had been making a stern conversion on two F-111s under GCI control; he'd started five miles behind them, but was seven miles in front of them by the time he popped back up for GCI to give him a new vector!
Booger
You have BLASPHEMED!
Seriously... You're right that the TSR2 was very early in development when it was chopped. It's probably fair to guess that the avionics would have given at least as much trouble as they did on the F-111, which didn't really work properly until they got to the F-111E, but the UK would never have had the luxury of building lots of As and Ds.
Otherwise - from an aeropropulsion viewpoint the TSR2 was a way to meet an F-111-like requirement without swing wings or augmented turbofans. The result was a bigger aircraft, but I had never thought of it as a bad design. It had its flaws but so did the F-111. (You see a lot of airplanes around with dual exhaust ejectors and quarter-cone underwing inlets, don't you?) The wing was not optimized for high altitude but the idea was that there was enough dry thrust (the weak point of the Tonka) to push the airplane along and enough fuel to keep the engines running.
You have BLASPHEMED!
Seriously... You're right that the TSR2 was very early in development when it was chopped. It's probably fair to guess that the avionics would have given at least as much trouble as they did on the F-111, which didn't really work properly until they got to the F-111E, but the UK would never have had the luxury of building lots of As and Ds.
Otherwise - from an aeropropulsion viewpoint the TSR2 was a way to meet an F-111-like requirement without swing wings or augmented turbofans. The result was a bigger aircraft, but I had never thought of it as a bad design. It had its flaws but so did the F-111. (You see a lot of airplanes around with dual exhaust ejectors and quarter-cone underwing inlets, don't you?) The wing was not optimized for high altitude but the idea was that there was enough dry thrust (the weak point of the Tonka) to push the airplane along and enough fuel to keep the engines running.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wilson scrapping the TSR-2.
I heard that Wilson went to the Americans to borrow money as we were in so much debt and they would let us have some as long as we cancelled Concorde. He agreed, but when he got back and tried to tell the French they refused to let us scrap concorde, so Wilson went back to the Americans and offered to scrap TSR-2 instead and buy F-111s. The Americans liked that idea so gave us the money, hence no TSR-2.
The F-111s had just gone operational in Vietnam and lost quite a few in the first few weeks, so the RAF said no we don't want that pile of rubbish, and the very nice lads in the navy suggested the Bucc.
And so history was rewritten!!
The F-111s had just gone operational in Vietnam and lost quite a few in the first few weeks, so the RAF said no we don't want that pile of rubbish, and the very nice lads in the navy suggested the Bucc.
And so history was rewritten!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double zero and Ewan Whosearmy
In my above post I was trying (and seemingly failing) to point out that the theoretical (according to Booger) capabilities for the TSR2 were the same kind of things the Americans strived to put into the F111. Obviously the systems were totally different, but the point was supposed to be that it seems a bit silly to slander the TSR2 in comparison to the F111 when both aircraft were not too dissimilar in concept.
Also I never once stated that an F111 could not outrun a Mig21, but merely suggested that the TSR2 could do it easier. After all, many of us have seen the TSR2 totally outrun (on film or video) a Lightning with only one afterburner lit. ISTR it was Jimmy Dell in the Lightning at the time (but it is very late, and I'm far too tired to be sure)
Barnstormer1968
Also I never once stated that an F111 could not outrun a Mig21, but merely suggested that the TSR2 could do it easier. After all, many of us have seen the TSR2 totally outrun (on film or video) a Lightning with only one afterburner lit. ISTR it was Jimmy Dell in the Lightning at the time (but it is very late, and I'm far too tired to be sure)
Barnstormer1968
Roland Pulfrew - I would just like to take the time to say that is a superb moniker. Now, enough mutual masturbation - allow me to retort!!
Fuel: Thanks to my "Seppofication", I've never been good with IMP Gallons and litres et al. All I know is the Piggy would carry 32,000lbs internally (~14,500kgs??) and a sh!t tin more under the wings. Suffice to say in order to minimise the 'rhhoids we hardly EVER carried external fuel. Combine that fuel load with the TF30 turbofan optomised for LL (as opposed to the undoubtedly higher SFCing turbojet for the Olympus) meant the Piggy had a darn fine range/payload combo.
Weapons bays: as per my original quote, I said "for its size" the TSR2 had a "relatively small" weapons bay. I've stood in both (slipped under the rope at Duxford - naughty naughty!!) and I stand by my comment. I guesstimate the TSR2 is about 20% larger than the Pig overall, but its weapon bay is comparable in volume.
"Hideous slab-sided fuselage": It's true, the TSR2 DOES have a hideous slab-sided fuselage!! But I digress, the point of this comment was not an observation on either aircraft's LO qualities (no pun intended). Let's face it, apart from the SR71, LO wasn't high on aircraft designer's list of priorities in the 50s/60s. The point I was trying to make was meant to be aerodynamic - with wings fully swept for super flight, the Pig lost about about 25% of it's wing surface area (into the underwing fairing). But here's the kicker, supersonic, the Pig developed around 80% of its lift from the ogival, semi-blended fuselage! Now THAT's aerody efficiency for you. No such chance on the TSR2 with that fuselage/wing combo that looks like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle.
Now lets not bicker about whose aircraft is better that whose... It's all for nought. Lets just accept that the TSR2 COULD have been the greatest aircraft that ever graced the face of the planet, but that it WASN'T!
Fuel: Thanks to my "Seppofication", I've never been good with IMP Gallons and litres et al. All I know is the Piggy would carry 32,000lbs internally (~14,500kgs??) and a sh!t tin more under the wings. Suffice to say in order to minimise the 'rhhoids we hardly EVER carried external fuel. Combine that fuel load with the TF30 turbofan optomised for LL (as opposed to the undoubtedly higher SFCing turbojet for the Olympus) meant the Piggy had a darn fine range/payload combo.
Weapons bays: as per my original quote, I said "for its size" the TSR2 had a "relatively small" weapons bay. I've stood in both (slipped under the rope at Duxford - naughty naughty!!) and I stand by my comment. I guesstimate the TSR2 is about 20% larger than the Pig overall, but its weapon bay is comparable in volume.
"Hideous slab-sided fuselage": It's true, the TSR2 DOES have a hideous slab-sided fuselage!! But I digress, the point of this comment was not an observation on either aircraft's LO qualities (no pun intended). Let's face it, apart from the SR71, LO wasn't high on aircraft designer's list of priorities in the 50s/60s. The point I was trying to make was meant to be aerodynamic - with wings fully swept for super flight, the Pig lost about about 25% of it's wing surface area (into the underwing fairing). But here's the kicker, supersonic, the Pig developed around 80% of its lift from the ogival, semi-blended fuselage! Now THAT's aerody efficiency for you. No such chance on the TSR2 with that fuselage/wing combo that looks like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle.
Now lets not bicker about whose aircraft is better that whose... It's all for nought. Lets just accept that the TSR2 COULD have been the greatest aircraft that ever graced the face of the planet, but that it WASN'T!
I thought I knew quite a bit about the TSR-2, including hearing Bee Beamont give speech at a UAS Annual Dinner, but it was only after viewing the movie, that I noticed that it had an all-moving fin. Is there any other aircraft that had this feature?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Asia's Fine City
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the RA5C Vigilante had this feature from memory ? Probably not. This aircraft seems to have been forgotten yet seems to have similarities to TSR2.
I wonder if the RA5C design influenced the TSR2 in any way ? RA5C slightly older design of course. In many ways both aircraft have a similar configuration (slab sided, twin reheat engines), fuse length and mission profile (well originally for the A5 - ultra low level, high speed, nuke delivery). As a recce aircraft of course if was very successful in Vietnam.
A cursery glimpse at the performance stats also indicate a similarity. Food for thought.
What do you guys think ?
Interestingly I read that a few were shot down at low level by "lead clouds" - maybeTSR2 ultimately could have ended up in a similar recce or medium level bomb delivery role if introduced ? A5 appears to have been more manoubreable with its larger wing.
Love the TSR2 footage - looks very predatory with the wing tip anhedral and flat top - "Peregrine" seems appropriate as a name. Awesome looking aircraft - wondered if the nose cone would have been modified in service - ala Harrier Gr3 ??
I wonder if the RA5C design influenced the TSR2 in any way ? RA5C slightly older design of course. In many ways both aircraft have a similar configuration (slab sided, twin reheat engines), fuse length and mission profile (well originally for the A5 - ultra low level, high speed, nuke delivery). As a recce aircraft of course if was very successful in Vietnam.
A cursery glimpse at the performance stats also indicate a similarity. Food for thought.
What do you guys think ?
Interestingly I read that a few were shot down at low level by "lead clouds" - maybeTSR2 ultimately could have ended up in a similar recce or medium level bomb delivery role if introduced ? A5 appears to have been more manoubreable with its larger wing.
Love the TSR2 footage - looks very predatory with the wing tip anhedral and flat top - "Peregrine" seems appropriate as a name. Awesome looking aircraft - wondered if the nose cone would have been modified in service - ala Harrier Gr3 ??
Last edited by kluge; 1st Aug 2008 at 05:05.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 58
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I42 - I was idly looking through the 'directory of british aircraft' site and noticed this pic of XR220 at Cosford, regarding the all-moving fin:
Specifically, it appears to have moved to a completely different location altogether...
Specifically, it appears to have moved to a completely different location altogether...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Age: 44
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello chaps,
Have a look at this 'what if' vid on youtube.
YouTube - Tsr.2 || what it was...and what it could have been ||
If only eh?
Have a look at this 'what if' vid on youtube.
YouTube - Tsr.2 || what it was...and what it could have been ||
If only eh?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How good was the TSR2?
Read the test pilots' comments
The Beamont Files
about 3/4 down the webpage (the rest is a good read)
Read the test pilots' comments
The Beamont Files
about 3/4 down the webpage (the rest is a good read)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's the main thing with TSR.2
It may or may not have been a cracking warfightin' aeroplane!
So if we'd had a war,thenit might have had a chance to perform it's only duty, killing our enemy.
No such war occurred.
So either our leaders were thickies- and should have ordered buckets of the things- which would have done NO GOOD AT ALL- as war was avoided
Or (heaven forbid) they reckoned the war wasn't coming, so just bought a load of F-4 on the cheap.
At least it flew
And frankly, by now, they'd all be on the scrapheap anyway!
It may or may not have been a cracking warfightin' aeroplane!
So if we'd had a war,thenit might have had a chance to perform it's only duty, killing our enemy.
No such war occurred.
So either our leaders were thickies- and should have ordered buckets of the things- which would have done NO GOOD AT ALL- as war was avoided
Or (heaven forbid) they reckoned the war wasn't coming, so just bought a load of F-4 on the cheap.
At least it flew
And frankly, by now, they'd all be on the scrapheap anyway!