winchweight Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It's a CGI sequence from Youtube, but it's superb. A true vision of what might have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ashby - Moderator Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 That's nice Shaun, assume that's from a flight sim of some sort? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchweight Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I guess so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lloyd Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Some people just have too much time on their hands! Thanks for sharing that one Shaun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 A spectacular looking plane (a tricky EDF!) but it should be remembered that the TSR2 did indeed fly, 24 times in total, albeit with early versions of the afterburning Olympus and without the complete radar equipment. It was the predicted cost of completing the development that really caused the cancellation in favour of a British spec version of the F111. After time & cost overuns (totalling at least as much as TSR2 would have needed to finish) the government cancelled our version of the F111. So all of the cost and absolutely nothing to show for it. What a shambles! It is reputed that the Americans took pity and "allowed" us Polaris instead. At least some of the Olympus afterburning technology ended up in that next marvel of technology (but never profit!) - Concorde. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchweight Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 There's a complete one at Cosford too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Rieden Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 TSR-2 was abandonned because the aircraft systems integration task was beyond the technology of the day. You'll find the story documented in many places, but for a full blow-by-blow account I recommend "project Cancelled" by Derek Wood. The entire operational concept of TSR2 hinged on two things - the ability to travel for long distances at low level at Mach 1.2, and the use of a fully-integrated nav-attack system. The drag numbers came out too high for the former, and the integrated nav-attack system was always just a pipe-dream. Having seen the design requirements documents for what they were trying to achieve I have to say it's something that we wouldn't consider a trivial task with *today's* technology and experience. 45 years ago the understanding of systems engineering science just didn't exist, and the data-processing hardware wasn't even vaguely up to the task - they'd bitten of so much more than they could chew that they didn't even appreciate how unachievable their design goals were until just before the programme was cancelled. The airframe flew, and the flight systems worked, but without the low-level range and integrated nav-attack system is was just another fast jet bomber - too big for tactical work and with insufficient weapons stations for medium-level bombing. The imaginative video shown above shows the aircraft with multiple weapons stations on the wing. Even if the structure had been redesigned to accomodate these the resulting drag numbers with external stores would have dropped the range even further and probably essentially removed the supersonic capabilities altogether (as happened with the B1-B). The programme was NOT a wasted effort though. Pretty well all the British military aircraft that followed used elements of the nav-attack system, including the Jag and the Harriers GR1-3. The lessons learned on systems engineering were applied to all subsequent projects, and the fundamental lesson (don't try to spread the work around too many companies and locations for political reasons) was identified, although not fully acknowledged and implemented until after the Nimrod AEW fiasco. £0.05 supplied, PDR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ashby - Moderator Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 That's interesting PDR, thanks for that. A number of TV programmes I've seen just blame the penny pinching government of the day without going into the technical side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Jane Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Well despite the technological issues, it sure was pretty When I saw XR222 at Duxford many years ago it was just a shell, no engines no avionics and stored outside. What a sad sight. Glad to say it is now restored, must go over and see it some time. A taste of the real thing: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keiran Arnold Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Went to Duxford last year and XR222 looked great next to the Tornado, it seemed to be the better bomber. Made me feel old seeing a tonka I serviced in the 80s in a museum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David E Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I've long suspected that there were other issues behind the cancellation, perhaps political pressure from the USA. I have thought this because of the rather underhanded way the cancellation was announced to prevent political discussion. From what I had read, the actual airframe performance was exceptionally good, but there were indeed significant issues around systems engineering still to be overcome. It was indeed a fantastic looking plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchweight Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 There's a Wessex helicopter in Cosford that I flew in on ops! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Rieden Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I was looking at the one in Cosford back in November (we use the "bunker" in the cold war hangar as a conference facility every year). As one whose day job involves trying to squeeze ever more capability into every nook and cranny of the Harrier I was extremely envious of the main avionics bay. I could get a whole avionic DESIGN TEAM in that space - it's probably larger than my office!! PDR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave S. Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It probably needed all that space to fit the fine British all-valve technology of the day in it, Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Rieden Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Ah. I assumed it was an officer's mess, with a bar and a stewerd.... PDR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 43 years ago I worked for an aircraft parts manufacturer and the TSR2 was spoken of in heroic terms.To see Gemmas video of the actual A/C flying was very pleasing and interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 let me join in --check out the LMA site(under construction) to see a 23ft fuz nearly completed of a TSR2-being built by a couple of fine lads who i know personally--all credit to them and there wives-i would be looking for lodgings by now. ken anderson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I find this thread fascinating Especially Gemmas video of the real thing flying then and Peters explanation why it actually was a failure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Did TSR2 stand for anything,how many were built,I thought only 1 flew, but IN gemmas video the 1 taking off is219 and the one at the end is220,did both of these fly?What engines were fitted and although instructions were made that all should be destroyed were the engines used in other aircraft and were any of the TSR2 designs used in any other aircraft.I understand a lot of the design team went to america,did anything come out of America resembling the TSR2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Jane Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I love the fact you have a passion for this aircraft Stephen. Have a read through this: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.php Only XR219 flew, XR220 almost did as explained on the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Rieden Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Did TSR2 stand for anything TSR is the standard RAF nomenclature designating the role (Tactical Strike Recon, meaning photo and radar recce, conventional bombing and nuclear), the "2" being a mater of convenience. If it had enetered service it would have been given a name - I understand the smart money was on "Python", so its full designation would have been the "Python TSR2". Were the engines used in other aircraft The engines were Olympuses. Various forms of these were subsequently used in the Vulcan (without afterburner), Concorde (with afterburner), various military ships and numerous turbogenerator sets and turbo pump sustems (I believe the Athabasca oil pipeline uses several dozen Olympus-based pumps). Were any of the TSR2 designs used in any other aircraft Various elements of the TSR2 avionics system were used in many subsequent programmes including the Jaguar and Harrier GR1-3. I understand a lot of the design team went to america, Not as far as I know. The airframe teams were the BAC teams at Weybridge and Warton, whilst the avionics work was done by people form dozens of companies. All simply moved on to the next project. Did anything come out of America resembling the TSR2? Not really - the americans weren't really into very long-range, low-level tactical aircraft. The nearest would be the TFX (F-111), but it's not really addressing the same functional requirement. PDR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Thankyou so much Peter,Shauns original find followed by Gemmas video really stirred my interest in theTSR2 which has laid dormant since about 1965 when I joined a small aircraft parts manufacturer.It must have been just after the aircraft had been cancelled and within the company there was so much talk of the considered travisty of the cancellation.Peter how do you have such knowledge of its history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Your link was fascinating Gemma thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.