Like TSR2? Watch this

[Pete Rieden]

The history is all out there for those who ant to look, but people prefer the myths to the reality because it gioves them someone to blame (much like the present focus on bankers rather than the people who had five times their salaries in credit-card debt!). I have the advantage of 20 years in the military aircraft industry. but that just helps me know where to look.

 

A good place to start (and an interesting read) is "Project Cancelled" by Derek Wood.

 

PDR

[Stephen Grigg]

Thanks Peter Im learning as much about using a computer as model A/C on this Forum.Its the first forum ive been on and its helped me in both fields immensely.I do have trouble finding things on a computer but its slowly getting there and you are correct it easier to ask here than struggle finding things onesself and you meet such a lot of very nice helpful people

[Dave Bran]

Re: is it a Simulator........

 

Yes, It's MS Flight Simulator 2004 as stated clearly in the end credits.

 

The plane is available here:-

 

http://www.alphasim3.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=22&products_id=152

 

Comes complete with the fictional schemes shown in the (nicely constructed) video.

[Erfolg]

 When governments cancel projects, rarely do they give the real reason. Why, because they want to limit the political damage to themselves.

 Just as with the APT, the reason given that IT DID NOT WORK, is not really true. A principal reason, is that additional funding was required in railway signalling. This potentially dwarfed the cost of the trains. It is noticeable, that the new trains on order/announced, are just a modern HST. No real improvements.

 With regard to the TSR2, it is very probable that Harold Wilson was initially made a very generous deal to buy the F111. Given that a few short years later the IMF (international Monetary Fund) was called in to bail out a bankrupt UK. Sounds so familiar, we are always better placed than the rest of world it would seem.

 From my own experience, to is often the governments departments Specification, are where the roots of future difficulty lie. Seldom do UK governments get it right R101, where as the R101 got it right, Trident, just not commercial, yet a fine aircraft at what it did (BEA spec, via Mof T), the Brabazon committee, although the Britannia and Dove/Viscount were limited successes. There are many more examples, some to sensitive to go into the detail. Often the USA does have a commercial or military objective, in its private or public offers and deals. Just as any good government has.

 I do believe the TSR2 would have been a fine system, if the avionic concepts were to demanding, they just needed to be ammended to the do able.

Erfolg

[Pete Rieden]

I do believe the TSR2 would have been a fine system, if the avionic concepts were to demanding, they just needed to be ammended to the do able.

 

Well if the avionic requirements were descoped to that extent you'd lose the low-level strike capability, and that was responsible for around 80% of the basic configiration decisions. So what you'd end up with would be an over-sized and very expensive air vehicle with around half the mission capability of the Tornado GR1 (let alone the GR4). So I'm not sure what your definition of a "fine system" would be!

 

PDR

[Gemma Jane]

Well Pete you certainly made me take off my rose tinted glasses when looking at TSR2. Though I think the way things were done politically remains in many peoples memories and many feel it was a major nail in the coffin of our aerospace industry.

[Pete Rieden]

Though I think the way things were done politically remains in many peoples memories and many feel it was a major nail in the coffin of our aerospace industry.

 

Perhaps, but a dose of realism is also required. A military aircraft industry requires a home market (it's almost impossible to sell a military aircraft overseas if it hasn't been bought locally for a number of technical, regulatory and political reasons). Military aircraft programmes are EXTREMELY expensive - even the USA couldn't afford to develop the JSF without overseas partners.

 

If you look back to the UK in the 50s and 60s the place wasn't exactly brimming over with cash. The UK's only hope of funding a full TSR2 programme was to sell to "home" markets like Australia, Canada and South Africa. The technical troubles put the foirst two off, and the third was about to become an international pariah for 40 years. The last full-indiginous military aeroplane developed in the UK would be the Hawk, and that was only possible because it was felt (rightly, fortunately) that there would be a significant export market. The Sea Harrier was the last fully indiginous war-fighter, but it was only possible because it lwas on the back of the largely US-funded P1127/Kestral programme (MDF funding).

 

As for civil aviation yes, there were some bad decisions (like letting BEA wreck the Trident specification) but even changing these would only have extended things by a year or two IMHO. The USA would never have built the post-war airline boom with anything but american-built aircraft no matter what we did. Even now where there is a demonstrable technical/financial advantage the take-up of Airbus products in the US is disappointing.

 

I suspect it is probably truer to say that the UK's aviation industry was unsupportably large, and needed to shrink to fit the domestic pocket.

 

PDR

[Gemma Jane]

All fair comment Pete and I have no doubt you are correct.

[Erfolg]

Peter

 

You are almost certainly correct in your assessement of the size of the UK aircraft industry post war. I do beleive that it should have been possible to have restructured the aircraft industry more effectively than was achieved. Not in the number of companies, but rather in the methodolgy of developing products and markets.

 

One of our major problems is our love affair with burocracy, no amount of government appointed, sponcered or other committees will produce a viable strategy. As we often seem to prove. Not only is the burocracy an issue, but constituancy politics (pork barrel is the USA term), in addition to national politics.

 

With regard to specifications, there is often the hand of the politician in there, protecting the interests of local business, voters and of course the ministries. Rather than the identification of prime requirements, ensuring that the scope does not become over ambitious.  

 

Of course Duncan Sands, played a major part in down sizing, the number of technically fascinating projects. Just as the British Empire collapsed.

 

Still believe the TSR2 was do able.

 

Some of the stories regarding the Nimrod programme, may make good telling, if any one is brave and foolish enough, to repeat.

 

Erfolg 

[Erfolg]

The following link provides the story of the TSR 2. It accords pretty much as I remember it, with the prompting of the narative. Does not reflect well on the government of the day though.



http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/tsr2.php

[Stephen Grigg]

Very interesting Erflog,the whole planning concept seemed doomed from the start

[ken anderson.]

late news-i was in newcastle upon tyne today--model zone shop had a poster in the window-announcing the new release of the airfix plastic kit of the TSR2......................

 

ken anderson........

[BB]

Thanks Gemma.

 

Does anyone know if an RC plan exists?

[IanN]

http://www.parkjets.com/tsr-2.html

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

Has anybody read "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs"?

 

It is written by a former RN Officer and basically eviscerates the entire planning, senior staffing and procurement side of the armed forces by analysing a whole pile of examples in great detail. It is a fascinating and shocking insight into the sheer idiocy and needless waste committed by the government and chiefs of the defence staff due to a culture of protecting vested interests, jobs for the boys, beaurocratic policy wonks making decisions based on local politics and the like.

 

The reson I bring it up is because when I read it, it echoed with the silly decisions of TSR2 and Lightning. Some things simply do not change.

[Erfolg]

I came across this quote which i think may be of interest

 

All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right.”
— Sir Sydney Camm

 

One of the problems of politics, is that government supporters, often try to re-write history to put their party in a favourable light. To that end they will place comments in the newspapers, purporting to be from concerned, knowledgable citizen etc.

 

The TSR 2 has had more than its fair share of these tactics and possibly goes on to this day.

 

Unquestionably a fine aircraft, with hind sight, well suited to the RAFs real needs, worthy of development. The low level Vulcan, not being quite as well suited to the role as the TSR 2. 

[Erfolg]

It was probably Polaris which killed TSR 2.

 

I guess the role would have needed to change from just a nuclear bomber.

 

When I think of the Vulcan and its attack on Port Stanley, I am forced to conclude that the payload was to small, yet a nuclear strike  unthinkable, and would not have achieved the objective.

 

Which makes me remember the Blue Steel rocket on the Vulcan, as it flew out of Woodford. Again scrapped, and yet another story.

 

Which makes me remember Harold Wilson, the IMF. We could not really afford all the projects.

 

Which makes me realise, we had big ideas and a small purse.

 

Ohhh well the Bucaneer at least flew.

[Rick Tee]

Great thread, very interesting reading and nice videos too. Looks to me like the TSR2 would have been a success, but for the failure of British organisation. Nothing new there then.

[Stephen Grigg]

Ken do you know how the build you mentionedon 24 jan is progressing?

[ken anderson.]

hello stephen-the only thing i can tell you-is one of the lad's is recooperating after having a by/pass op-he is well on the way to full health--if you want to have a look at it log on to the LMA web site and look at the under construction page--what i can tell you is it's 23 feet long---with a 9 foot wing span............knowing the two lad's who are building it---it will be something else when it's done....................

 

better still travel up to longhorsley show and you might see it in the flesh........

 

                ken anderson..............

[Stephen Grigg]

THanks Ken ,Blackbushe is 4 miles from work and Im struggling to get there,business is crap and its 7 days ,if Ive earnt enough by Friday 1 of my sons will stand in but I wont have much of a wedge to buy stuff

[Stephen Grigg]

its good to have a look at this thread from time to time.Does anyone know how the gent from the LMC is getting on with his build of the TSR2

[Keith Simmons]

Has anyone actually built and flown a TSR2 RC model  ?  (before this project?)

and if yes, any info. please.

 

 

[ken anderson.]

hello keith - i was in the WHS shop last week there was a mag(QEF)had an article in for a model one...made by chris golds....also think it was either a free plan or plan feature...

 

      ken anderson.........

Edited By ken anderson. on 13/01/2010 09:08:08

[James40]

TSR-2 was a real technology proving ground and streets ahead of it's time, but most of that technology went on to create the Tornado so it wasn't wasted. 

 

Now would Tornado have come into service if the TSR-2  programe hadn't been cancelled is another question, I think we'd just be retiring a very aged fleet of TSR's right now, to be replaced with a Typhoon type multi role aircraft.

 

 

As for Government wasting Billions of pounds in the past on failed aircraft projects, I guess you won't be shocked to hear it's still happening right now !

 

Typhoon- first flew in 1994, into service with the RAF in 2003 and yet it's still not operational yes they've deployed to the Falklands, whoop de dooo, thats a flying club down there, will the Argies invade again, I think not.

 

It has a weapons system that either a) won't release the stores or b) the look down, shoot down helmet system doesn't work as it should.  The result of the Typhoons failings is the Tornado fleet is still out in the war as it has been since 1990.

 

 

But wait, the government has ordered another tranche of Typhoon, more tax payers money on a failed aircraft !  We could have bought into Rafael with the French when they decided the Typhoon was a white elephant, the Rafael being a superb and operational aircraft.

 

A400M, another white elephant, costs have spiraled out of control so the price of a single A400M is now the same as a C-17, why buy something that won't work for a good 10 years after it's brought into service when off the shelf kit is availabe, we are already using it and it works bloody well !

 

As a Military, we are broke, I mean it, we are absolutely skint, we can't afford A400M, we can't afford the Aircraft Carriers, there is no money left in the pot..At all !

I'd expect to see a few major projects scrapped when the Conservatives come into power in the next election.