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.

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.

Saw it flying as we were passing Warton one day when I was but a lad, beautiful.

I've got "Murder..." up in the loft, best I get it down and treat it a bit better!!!

Doc C

:ok:

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.

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.

Had the project gone ahead.

What would have been the in-service date? And would we still have them now?

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.

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 !

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!

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.

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!!:)

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:ouch:

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!:ok:

Stacker, the only reason a Lightning couldn't keep up with any bomber would be that he had one engine shut down to save fuel!! Other than that, no contest.

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?

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 ??

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:

http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/pictures/tsr2.jpg

Specifically, it appears to have moved to a completely different location altogether...

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?

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)

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:ok:

And frankly, by now, they'd all be on the scrapheap anyway!

There is a discussion regarding the TSR.2 and some design decisions here :-

TSR-2 - Tanknet.org

.

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.

Have your say,

Vote and pass it on!

Petition to: Resurrect the TSR2 Strike Bomber. | Number10.gov.uk

Can we start one to resurrect the Varsity too please, while you're at it?

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 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.

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!

Maybe it was, but your looking at the wrong side of the cold war fence for who leant on him.

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!

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.

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!

There is a difference between dumping and the complete destruction of everything involved in the project. :ugh:

Why waste time and money cutting and burning things that could just be left in a pile?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.