"I believe the Canadian Arrow was also subject to the complete destruction of all tooling and airframes."

Did the Canadian government owe the yanks like our lot did.

"Sure we'll lend you the money to get you out of the mire but you make sure that 'plane can't be resurected in the future, just protecting our aircraft industry you see"

TSR2 Undercarriage
 

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?
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1673/pict0335jm4.jpg

Ask the guys at Duxford http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.00d00j

They have one there and I'm sure, with a load of photographs of knuckles etc, it'll be possible to work it out.

Hmmm. Maybe it's not as easy as I thought. :eek:


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...9_boscombe.jpg

I have collected a huge quantity of photos and various drawing that show 'this part only on XR219' and others bits marked 'only on XR220' and close ups of the bogies and links etc and TBH its 'doing me 'ead in' :ooh:

Hence the request for any possible video.

Article on TSR.2 Undercarriage
 

The following is an extract from an article on the TRS.2 “Concept versus Reality” written by Frank Barnett-Jones and published in July 1997 copy of “Aeroplane Monthly”:-
“The prime consideration in the undercarriage design was the accommodation of a rough-field landing requirement. This necessitated a landing technique similar to that used by carrier-borne aircraft, so the system had to be strong to withstand a non-flare landing on a semi-prepared surface.
The responsibility for the undercarriage lay with Vickers, which designed the undercarriage with a simple hydraulic telescope tube arrangement, together with a tandem wheel configuration. A similar system was already in use on the Vickers Valiant, so the technicalities were understood. However if one studies the undercarriage on the Valiant it will be seen that while the design characteristics are similar because of the differences in physical layout the results are somewhat different. In the landing phase the weight of the aircraft is transferred from the wing to the undercarriage and the wheel makes vertical contact with the ground at 2ft/sec. Ideally, therefore, the oleo compression should move at the same vertical angle to place less stress on the undercarriage.
On the TRS.2 this was not the case, because the oleos splayed out to accommodate the maximum–track requirement. At the same time the large ankle on the bogie extended the wheels well beyond the point where the vertical weight was being applied. This meant that the compression of the telescopic legs was not vertical, as on the Valiant, but at an angle of approximately 15 degrees. Therefore, as the wheels touched the runway and compression began, the bogies would be dragged inward as the legs compressed. Such a reaction not only imposed stress on the ankle, but also induced a strong weaving effect on the tandem wheels as the aircraft settled on the undercarriage. There was evidence to show that the system was vulnerable when the ankle on XR219 sheared without warning during trial at Shoeburyness.”

I remember years ago a contact in British Aerospace told me it was pressure from the Soviets and not the Americans wanting us to buy the F-111. We never bought the F-111.

Chapman Pincher has some interesting things to say about the Labour Government at that time:-
Chapman Pincher

Their Trade is Treachery:cool:

Fascinating. Were many landings made at Shoeburyness?

There is a DVD available entitled "Classic British Jets TSR.2" do a search on Google and you will quickly find a supplier.

I recall reading that one of the two prototypes had an issue whereby the main u/c bogey, which had to sort of rotate around itself during the retraction sequence to enter the bays, failed to unwrap itself thus at leat one landing was carried out with the bogey inverted. As far as I am aware no serious damage was suffered, but it may well explain, at least in part, why ionagh has the photos illustrating differences in u/c detail.

Golf_bravo_zulu
 

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU stated:- "Fascinating. Were many landings made at Shoeburyness?"
Frank Barnett-Jones wrote "There was evidence to show that the system was vulnerable when the ankle on XR219 sheared without warning during trial at Shoeburyness"
I think you will find what he meant was that the evidence of this failure could be seen at Shoeburyness as XR219, XR221 and XR223 were taken to the shooting range at Shoeburyness to be destroyed as 'damage to aircraft' targets.
The following is a photograph showing the sad end for XR219, shot to pieces at Shoeburyness.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c6...white_city.jpg

MReyn24050

Copied; thanks for clarifying that point.

Lovely model TSR2, ionagh :D
What's the powerplant - is it gas-turbine powered?

I believe the main gears pivoted 180degrees around the 'ankle' joint during retraction - similar to the Russian Tupolev designs, but forward retracting instead of to the rear. The Illyushin 18 turboprop airliner retracts/pivots forward in this manner.
The TSR2 did indeed seem to have quite complicated retraction dynamics, but spare a thought for another supersonic prototype(s) that never made it: The XB-70 Valkyrie. The 4-wheel bogies had to pivot 90 degrees 'sidways', then 90 degrees 'up' before the gear legs swang back into the bays with the bogie effectively lying on it's side in the bay.

Thanks DH106, power is 2 electric ducted fans; about 2,5kw total (around
45N thrust). I think you could buy a small car for the price of putting 2 gas turbines in a model :eek:

Wow - 2.5Kw, they're big ducted fans. Has it flown yet?
I love 'exotic' models - I built a smaller XB-70 Valkyrie years ago with a pusher engine. Now that electrics have moved on so much I'd love a bigger DF version, or if I had the dosh a turbine one.

Any more piccies?

Not flown yet but you can see the building here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=589940

Fans are 90mm types so they are just about limit at this power level.

Thanks for the link. I'll be monitoring. :)

TSR2 Footage
 

Sad, it was never to be :{

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/951799/the_raf_tsr_2/

Wow....

Where's that been hiding?

I always used to think it looked a bit odd from some angles, but when the gear retracts, it suddenly looks the bollocks.

MS

No doubt I will get loads of flak....

Am I the only one that finds it quite ugly and out of proportion?

Yep!

A Fantastic aircraft - I'd love to see it fly again...

If only..

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....

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.

Yes. And let's not forget that (if the TSR 2 fans are to be believed) both the Sovs and US were worried about this jet - just too far ahead of it's time!

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

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)!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjN3PE4ICj0

:{

eta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8kx-...eature=related

Apparently the TSR-2 had once left its Lightning chase aircraft struggling to keep up with only one reheat lit. A bit quick then!

IF you want to cry, try reading "The Murder of the TSR2"...:{ Can't remember the links.....hic
watp,iktch

thanks for posting that - another very sad day for the British aircraft industry

I've ordered the DVD

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

See it at Cosford - it's HUGE! Wilson has a lot to answer for.

Sorry, I disagree, you are all allowing nostalgia to get in the way of reality. BB besides, it was one of the most ugly aircraft the UK has ever produced.

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?

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.

I been looking for a copy of "The Murder of the TSR2" for years. I found one at Farborough this year

Price.......£175.00:eek:

The Murder Of TSR 2 by Stephen Hastings
 

There's currently a copy for sale on E-bay - auction expires on 3 August 2008

Clicky

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...

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:

• 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.
  

I understand the fervour and national pride stirred up in people when it comes to home grown products, but, there has to be a "realism" element in assessing an aircraft that never proceeded pass the prototype stage!! Yes I know it was politics that eventually killed the thing but come on, there wasn't any shortage of problems with it either!! Undercarriage, engines (serious problems with the Olympus fit in the TSR2 from memory) and as a result an almost entirely theoretical list of specs.

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!!:p

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:E

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:ok: