BAC TSR2

[Gridlock]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1958-Avro-Arrow-CF-105-Aircraft-Pilots-Ejection-Seat-Martin-Baker-MkC5-serial-11-/140661959206

 

[AAAdrone]

Gridlock, would you be the sort of lunatic who'd also back the secret export of an Avro Arrow to the UK before the hammer came down, in such a manner that it's still hidden away somewhere? Having one surface in the UK and wind up parked next to the TSR.2 would be the ultimate monument to cancelled projects.

Such an attraction would be sure to rake in a LOT of cash.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

John Farley is a chap I have a great deal of respect for and has mentioned the TSR2's lack of wing area in a few discussions on the type; however the flaws he mentions (long take-off distance, long landing distance, lack of manouevrability) aren't the criticisms I'd make of the final design. The revised (relaxed) spec still had STOL capability of sorts - getting it in and out of a 1,000 meter poor quality runway with a useful war load wasn't to be sniffed at (if BAC coudl have managed it - as their own predictions were nearer 1200m). Manouevring to avoid missiles - well, the idea was never to get shot at, not to be doing fancy flying if you were. Look-down/shoot-down radars in fighters came much, much later and no fighter of the time would have been able to keep up with a fleeing TSR2 at low level in turbulence.

Damien
I've seen some evidence that TSR 2 had a significant problem with its rough runway capability. It was found the NLG was positioned on the fuse forward neutral inflexion node which meant it could provide no pitch damping during take off. There were plans to stiffen the whole fuse in response to the MLG vibration issue - an approx 300lb mass. However the NLG problem only came to light just prior to cancellation and study work was still ongoing so it was unclear if the MLG fuse stiffening would address this issue.
-Ref BAC Weighbridge dynamic dept files still currently held at Filton.

Both Concorde and XB70 suffered from the same problem......Concorde had to be cleared for each individual runway it was to operate from. This process involved pre surveying the runway and then conducting a computer simulation to prove the take off induced pitch and heave loads where within the design envelop.

In my time working in UK aerospace engineering I have spoken to really quite senior 2 engineers (one former TSR2 and one from the very early days of Tornado, well AFVG really) who separately and quite independently expressed similar views to John Farley.

BTW Still think the book is an outstanding peice of work

 

[DamienB]

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that the design was too biased to a comfortable low level ride - I just think there are other criticisms that are more important. For instance, expecting to get mach 2 and a 1,000 mile combat radius from a tactical bomber, and then expecting it to be affordable!

I didn't find any evidence of nose gear issues in my research; I'd be interested to hear more about any files held at Filton (where, contact details etc.).

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

NO I'll tell you what actually happened. One copy each of the Arrow and the TSR 2 were ordered by the US and secretly sent here for testing. They're now hidden in a warehouse here in Texas.

But I have no evidence of that.

 

[SlickDriver]

It is not in Texas - I saw it in Nevada the last time I went to Groom Lake - with the flying saucers.

 

[Richard N]

From the seller of the Avro Arrow Ejection Seat--An opportunity to have your own personal piece of the TSR-2:

BAC TSR2 Olympus 320 Jet Engine

-This is engine number ONE !

-This example is the only privately owned Olympus 320 engine in the world. Other later examples are preserved in large accredited / registered charity museums in the UK but they are unlikely to ever go on sale.
-There are no known TSR2 Olympus 320 engines outside the UK.

This engine was found tucked away on a farm in Southern England and is quite possibly the aviation Barn Find of the decade. It was originally bought for scrap but it’s owner had the foresight to keep and preserve it for generations to come. The engine has just undergone an 18 month restoration and is now ready to display as the ultimate museum exhibit Jet Engine.

Data Plate Reads:

Bristol Siddeley Olympus
Mk: OL320
SERIAL: OL2201 (Olympus type 22 number 01)
AM Number: A666160
​

The rest of the story is here: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/BAC-TSR2-RAF-Aircraft-Olympus-320-Jet-Engine-TSR-2-UNIQUE-Oportunity-/130574234473?pt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&hash=item1e66d4b369

 

[Gridlock]

It is not in Texas - I saw it in Nevada the last time I went to Groom Lake - with the flying saucers.

A man can have his own white whale, no? And based on information, not wholesale imagination (I'm not without interesting friends with interesting stories) and what's life without a few mysteries to investigate?

 

[Stargazer]

Oh dear, oh dear... Aeroplane Monthly's February 2012 has the TSR2 as the subject of one of their 'Database' articles.

Unfortunately, the article is littered with errors (and spelling mistakes):

Apparently the TSR2 was powered by the Olympus 302 (!); Freddie Page was appointed project leader by the government rather than BAC themselves; TSR designation is noted as being made in 1960 rather than 1959 wrongly explains the '2'; claims Vickers wanted to use Brooklands for first flight (never on the cards - Wisley was their choice) and perpetuates a wholly inaccurate account of the arguments about first flight location; reheat system was 'complex' (by far the simplest part of the engine); ejector seats capable up to mach 2 (not even close!); terrain following radar was apparently Blue Parrot (that's the Buccaneer radar, not a TFR); what on earth is the lateral oblique radar?; the C in ECM apparently now means 'communications' rather than 'counter'; pic on p80 miscaptioned as being flight 5 is flight 7; pic at top of p82 miscaptioned as pre-flight attention (but she's tied down!); "all engine problems cured" in January 1965 (not so!); flight 7 saw successful undercarriage retraction (no it didn't, it went wrong - flight 10 was the first successful retraction); one landing was on foam (actually four did); flight 16 had 'several' rolls (pretty sure it was just one, which was foolhardy enough on its own); undercarriage tie struts 'eliminated' vibration problems (not entirely); TSR2 was cancelled 'without prior warning or consultation' (what, apart from the three months worth of consultations and discussions with BAC about getting the price down?). There's more but I've had enough...

It finally dissolves into this: "Documents which may, or may not, give the exact reasons for the cancellation are still hidden away in the archives, and remain untouched because of heavy-handed embargoes." Said documents are available quite freely in various archives and spell out the reasons over and over again. Cost.

Sadly the whole article perpetuates the 'wonder jet' myth, inflating capabilities, ignoring items that were cancelled during development, and brings nothing new to the table at all. A real wasted opportunity and very odd considering the new reference material available in print from myself and others in the last year or so.

Oh dear. Is this really what Aeroplane Monthly has become like? This used to be the most authoritative and well-documented magazine on British aviation... and now it seems like it's run by a bunch of idiots who do not research things before writing, take gossip as fact and have no valuable proofreaders... Hold on, doesn't this description already apply to much of today's journalism, anyway??

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Two words for ya: FOX NEWS.

 

[JFC Fuller]

DamienB,

To try and get this thread back to its original subject I was wondering if you could comment on a couple of numbers that I have seen for considered/suggested/planned TSR-2 procurement:

320: In BSP Jet Bombers Tony Buttler states that: 'there were suggestions for 320'

200: Saki Dockrill states in 'Britain's retreat from east of Suez' that: 'The initial number requested by the RAF in 1959 had been 200 which the Conservative Government had reduced to 158'

I have never seen these numbers anywhere else and i was curious as to whether you had come across them during the course of your obviously extensive research. Also, whilst you lay out the planned distribution of aircraft between bases in your book I interested as to how many squadrons the 158 would have become?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have never seen these numbers anywhere else and i was curious as to whether you had come across them during the course of your obviously extensive research. Also, whilst you lay out the planned distribution of aircraft between bases in your book I interested as to how many squadrons the 158 would have become?

I don't have a copy in front of me but I think in the text near the airbase allocations was mention as to how many squadrons they would equip.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What I was referring to was the in text mention that a TSR2 strike squadron would have 12 units and a TSR2 recce sqn would have 8. I wasn't referring to the 320 or 158 unit force structures and this is all a bit more detailed than I thought what you might have been asking. The 138 and 140 unit force structures detail six strike sqns and four recce sqns in addition to the training squadron and reserve.

 

[DamienB]

DamienB,

To try and get this thread back to its original subject I was wondering if you could comment on a couple of numbers that I have seen for considered/suggested/planned TSR-2 procurement:

320: In BSP Jet Bombers Tony Buttler states that: 'there were suggestions for 320'

200: Saki Dockrill states in 'Britain's retreat from east of Suez' that: 'The initial number requested by the RAF in 1959 had been 200 which the Conservative Government had reduced to 158'

I have never seen these numbers anywhere else and i was curious as to whether you had come across them during the course of your obviously extensive research. Also, whilst you lay out the planned distribution of aircraft between bases in your book I interested as to how many squadrons the 158 would have become?

My sources agree on 300 initially. This was very soon reduced to 170, then to 138 by 1962, then back up to 158 in 1963, then down to 110 in 1965. You tend to find paperwork from one government or RAF department often quotes different figures to others but these are the solid figures picked out of the chaos! I wouldn't be surprised to find 320 or 200 quoted in one place or another as a result.

Squadrons - looks like 10 squadrons plus the OCU given the Spotswood breakdown of numbers.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Damien,

Thanks for the reply. So your research says that the original number was 300 rather than 200? I can understand the ambition given that the Canberra fleet peaked at 390 aircraft in 27 squadrons (1955). Taking into account the P.1154 (8 squadrons) and the 12 Lightning squadrons planned in 1960 that makes for a fast jet force (with 10 squadrons of TSR-2) of 30 squadrons which is only slightly below what the RAF actually hovered around through to the end of the Cold War (low 30s).

 

[davidy12]

BAC TSR2 Olympus 320 Jet Engine

-This is engine number ONE !

-This example is the only privately owned Olympus 320 engine in the world. Other later examples are preserved in large accredited / registered charity museums in the UK but they are unlikely to ever go on sale.
-There are no known TSR2 Olympus 320 engines outside the UK.

This engine was found tucked away on a farm in Southern England and is quite possibly the aviation Barn Find of the decade. It was originally bought for scrap but it’s owner had the foresight to keep and preserve it for generations to come. The engine has just undergone an 18 month restoration and is now ready to display as the ultimate museum exhibit Jet Engine.

How on earth could someone get their hands on an olympus engine and expect to sell it online. I think it should be in a museum.

 

[LowObservable]

This has been posted here under "Interesting websites" but it is pure gold:

StackPath

 

[F-14D]

Just came across the excellent documentary. Had video I had never seen. I don't think anyone else has posted this URL here before.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEtkrZiDDGc

 

[donaldson1]

TSR2-Not unbuilt but certainly unrealised-Full Documentary

The TSR2 was a technological triumph for Britain; a world beating tactical, strike and reconnaissance aircraft years ahead of its time. It carried four on-board digital computers to process radar information. It could deliver its weapons load to a target 1000 nautical miles away from a runway just 600 yards long. Flying at ultra low level at the speed of sound it would have been able to pass under Soviet radar/air defence screen undetected. It would have been the most powerful weapon in the NATO arsenal. And yet it was destined never to see service. Why?

The fascinating story behind the cancellation of the TSR2 project is one of international intrigue and high stake politics. It ended in 1965 when a 200,000,000 pound aircraft project was reduced to just 50,000 pound worth of scrap metal and the future of Britain as a world leader in aviation was put in jeopardy.

When the order came for the TSR2's cancellation, the prototype, construction jigs, design papers and film records were all ordered to be destroyed. Despite this, unique film material did escape destruction and has remained hidden in vaults - until now.

View: http://youtu.be/o53u0X0Ik0w

 

[Bruno Anthony]

A good documentary shat all over itself with the weakly supported argument that the USA(those evil Americans again) knee capped the TSR-2 to protect its F-111.

1. First of all if the USA was scared to death of the TSR-2 why then compromise TFX with Navy requirements?

2. The far superior TSR-2? Against an uncompromising SOR-183, purely USAF TFX? Really?

3. I guess it was American underhandedness that made India purchase Mig-21s in 1962?

4. The far ahead in design TSR-2, that flew what 2 mos before the F-111?

Sounds like stiff upper lip sour grapes to me.
The UK for centuries(as many Western European countries) punched WAY above its weight. By the 60s they still hadn't figured out that the real big boys (USA and USSR) were ahead of it, if not tied with it in at least aerospace matters.

 

[J.A.W.]

Surely - if the TSR-2 was that good, there would be a close Soviet analogue/clone built too?

Along the lines of the MiG 25 amalgam of NAA XF-108/RA -5 ideas?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Surely - if the TSR-2 was that good, there would be a close Soviet analogue/clone built too?

Along the lines of the MiG 25 amalgam of NAA XF-108/RA -5 ideas?

Erm... Su-24 first version?

 

[sferrin]

Yep. T-6. Pretty much a mini-TSR2 in concept. (Itty bitty, highly loaded wing for low-altitude flight.)

 

[J.A.W.]

Aha, & thanks chaps..

Seems like the Su-24 developed an amalgam of TSR & TFX ideas too..

 

[Hot Breath]

Re: TSR2-Not unbuilt but certainly unrealised-Full Documentary

It carried four on-board digital computers to process radar information.

Excuse me, my understanding was that it carried analogue computers. These must have been remarkably primitive digital ones, considering the design and construction period.

 

[Void]

A good documentary shat all over itself with the weakly supported argument that the USA(those evil Americans again) knee capped the TSR-2 to protect its F-111.

It's like the British Avro Arrow! ;D

 

[J.A.W.]

It's like the British Avro Arrow! ;D

'Cept for the Bomarc..

Hey, now there's an idea, a Mach 3+ G2G cruise-missile..

But I think I saw it on an episode of 'Stingray', back in the `60s..

Curiously too, the BAC brochure produced for the TSR 2 - also has a decidedly G & S Anderson look..

 

[JFC Fuller]

Re: TSR2-Not unbuilt but certainly unrealised-Full Documentary

Excuse me, my understanding was that it carried analogue computers. These must have been remarkably primitive digital ones, considering the design and construction period.

The nav-attack system used the NAA Autonetics VERDAN computer which I understand to have been digital. It was actually a major cause of the programmes problems, the computer not really being up to what the RAF requirements needed it to do.

GEC and the RAE had been working on digital computer technology since the mid-late 1950s.

 

[alertken]

#61, D1: given where you live, your view on this is understandable. It is however simply wrong. UK was not a world leader, no intrigue, no high stake politics. Much simpler: blank cheque, drifting schedule, changed Mission, avionics techno-evolution (see at Cosford the vastness of the steaming equipment bay: fuselage was (suitably) Lancastrian-length). PM Wilson offered to buy 50 within a maximum price/penalty on delay; Geo.Edwards declined. End of...

An offset to the F-111K Option was US "assistance" in Magic Carpet: that settled, 12/65 as massive contracts for Northrop...and BAC, divvying up the Saudi Air Defense System: No Saudi Lightning...no BAC after struggling to make TSR.2 work at all/on time/forget on budget or Spec...AFVG to spare capacity at HSAL, so MRCA to HSAL...no Warton as BAES Centre of Military Excellence. Not building chunks of 50 TSR.2...good riddance. RAF OR.355 for its replacement (eventually Tornado) was dated 10/61

Sources: RAF Historical Society Journal,24.01,P.10, and Weapons, by R.W.Howe,P.687.

 

[alertken]

Offset was intended to cause 50 F-111K to be neutral across the Exchanges. $400Mn. exports were secured, inc. TF41 and Elliott HUD in 1,078 A-7D/E/H/K. 300 HP.137 Jetstream C-10A were anticipated, but they were chopped for C-12 King Airs.

 

[Hot Breath]

Re: TSR2-Not unbuilt but certainly unrealised-Full Documentary

Excuse me, my understanding was that it carried analogue computers. These must have been remarkably primitive digital ones, considering the design and construction period.

The nav-attack system used the NAA Autonetics VERDAN computer which I understand to have been digital. It was actually a major cause of the programmes problems, the computer not really being up to what the RAF requirements needed it to do.

GEC and the RAE had been working on digital computer technology since the mid-late 1950s.

Working on and actually fielding something can and often are two very different things. The VERDAN system was digital but as I suggested quite primitive at the time. The TSR2 was stretching the envelope considerably. I wonder just how successful such an aircraft with marginal avionics really could have been. It may have gone like the clappers but it more than likely couldn't have found the target it was meant to.

 

[thefrecklepuny]

Sure I read somewhere that TSR2 was considered with A-5 Vigilante style wedge air intakes. Any images of TSR2 in this configuration knocking around?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Re: TSR2-Not unbuilt but certainly unrealised-Full Documentary

Despite this, unique film material did escape destruction and has remained hidden in vaults - until now.
http://youtu.be/o53u0X0Ik0w

I found this documentary really disappointing as a number of statements made by by some former senior people on the project are somewhere between misleading and incorrect. For example take Roland Beaumont statements about the engine where he claims the Bristol engine was new and unflown whereas the RR engine proposal was not. Its unusual for a new aircraft type to use an unmodified off the shelf engine and I understand the rationale for preferring a known type with as little modification as possible. However the proposal brochure from the time clearly show the RR engine to be a reheated RB142 Medway. The Medway was destined never to fly in anything. However the Bristol proposal was a modification of its already flying Olympus 301(Steel/Ti compressor, delete the intershaft bearing and add reheat). In the end they struggled with the intershaft bearing deletion.

Also Stephen Hastings claim that Vickers was a civil aircraft company with one exception the Valiant. In reality a good number of there TSR 2 staff came from the Vickers Supermarine with experience from Spitfire to Scimitar.

I can't help but feel that this doc was made to promote a popular view with little or no research.

 

[CJGibson]

Re: TSR2-Not unbuilt but certainly unrealised-Full Documentary



I can't help but feel that this doc was made to promote a popular view with little or no research.

[/quote]

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Realistically, you (and fellow SPF members) are probably only 0.005% of the viewers. The remainder don't know or care. Wasn't telly described by some worthy as "chewing gum for the eyes"?

Chris

 

[CJGibson]

It was Father Ted!

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZsyGmhrfFM


Chris

 

[pathology_doc]

Curiously too, the BAC brochure produced for the TSR 2 - also has a decidedly G & S Anderson look..

I remarked to Chris Gibson once that reading "British Secret Projects, Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles" had put me in mind of a lot of things I'd seen in Thunderbirds. IIRC, his reply was to the effect that one of the guys responsible for Thunderbirds vehicle concept design had an aerospace background & had seen stuff. So it's little wonder there's some "bleed-through".


All I know is that when I can eventually trust my kids with my Secret Projects books (they're aged 3 and not quite 5, so not for a while yet), they're almost certainly going to have the same reaction. ;D

 

[Hobbes]

Just came across the excellent documentary. Had video I had never seen. I don't think anyone else has posted this URL here before.

Anyone know what the title of this video was? It's been removed from YouTube.

 

[steelpillow]

What did the downward turned wingtips do for the aircraft?

According to Barrie Hygate, British Experimental Jet Aircraft, Argus (1990), page 248, "to improve lateral stability, the tips were given a marked downwards angle." Lateral stability is stability in roll, the resistance to dropping a wingtip. I find this odd, as "improve" usually means "increase", while the stability of such high-mounted swept or sort-of-delta wings is usually excessive and they are given downwards anhedral to reduce it. In the light of other replies, I wonder whether Hygate means to "improve" by reducing excessive stability.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is some unbuilt BAC TSR2 projects,STOL,Baby TSR2,VTOL and VG versions;


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZoR8AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSR2:+Britain's+Lost+Bomber&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ljgUVJiZB8GsPPXTgPgD&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=TSR2%3A%20Britain's%20Lost%20Bomber&f=false

 

[kaiserbill]

British Pathe earlier this year uploaded tens of thousands of film onto youtube to be perused by the general public.

Here is one of the TSR2 doing taxi trials.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWs8elKm98k