BAC TSR2

[kaiserbill]

And another of a test flight.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN325BmqQbA

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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

This is an ebook formatted version of Damien Burke's Crowood volume on TSR.2. Anyone who wants to know more about TSR.2, buy this book.

TSR2: Britain's Lost Bomber by Damien Burke, 9781847972118

Book information for 'TSR2: Britain's Lost Bomber', 9781847972118

www.crowood.com

 

[PlanesPictures]

Some time ago I have baught ebook "From Archangel ...". But it was registered on my notebook from office and I wasn't able to open it on my home comp. What is it format?

 

[hesham]

This is an ebook formatted version of Damien Burke's Crowood volume on TSR.2. Anyone who wants to know more about TSR.2, buy this book.


http://www.crowood.com/details.asp?isbn=9781847972118

OK my dear Paul,


sorry I don't know it is still new.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is an ebook formatted version of Damien Burke's Crowood volume on TSR.2. Anyone who wants to know more about TSR.2, buy this book.

And not just the TSR.2. This book is filled with data on RAF air strike options from the late 1950s.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Shorts PD.17/2 VTOL as TSR2.


http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/NAL/NAL_SC_ACP.pdf

 

[F-14D]

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

This is an ebook formatted version of Damien Burke's Crowood volume on TSR.2. Anyone who wants to know more about TSR.2, buy this book.


http://www.crowood.com/details.asp?isbn=9781847972118

It is also available from Amazon in Kindle format for about 1/2 the price Crowood charges

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the Supermarine Type 571 projects,two proposals submitted to GOR.339.

 

[Jemiba]

... and although mentioned in other recent posts, that probably have the same magazine,
please always mention the source ( Aeroplane Monthly "Supermarine the Company Profile",
I think). It's easy to recognise it today with those other posts, it will be very difficult in a
few weeks or months and we even may run into legal trouble !

 

[blackkite]

Today, BUNRINDO's "famous airplanes of the world, No.164, BAC TSR2" released.
ISBN978-4-89319-232-5
In this book, you can see many color and black white rare pictures, colored drawings and excellent 3 -side view drawing by famous SUZUKI yukio.

 

[TomS]

http://www.hlj.com/product/bunfa164/Air

(Backordered)

 

[blackkite]

Many thanks.
It's a excellent and a economical one, but written in Japanese language.
No problem for me. ;D

 

[pathology_doc]

One is left wondering how things would have gone if EE and Vickers had just got together (as BAC or otherwise) to build EE's airplane as it stood, without any redesign and with avionics taken off the shelf wherever possible. Given the amount of new wine that's gone into old wineskins over the years, so to speak, the aerodynamic performance and the delivery capability would eventually have matured together.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

구일본육군 쌍발 전폭기 가와사키 Ki-102 (川崎 キ-102)

Ki-102의 기본 소체였던 Ki-45 토류가 B-29에 육탄 공격을 가하고 있다. 가와사키사에서 신형 복좌 전투...

memolog.blog.naver.com

 

[skylon]

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?

TSR.2 was a colossal engineering blunder ..An airframe with a life expectancy of 10 years? you must be joking! this secret document released by Air Stuff Target answers all the questions ! The TSR.2 was years too late in conception, years too late in development vastly overbuget and then the shocking news that it would not even meet its design specifications and in addition to all this, an average 10 years life expectancy for the airframe !

https://www.facebook.com/tsr2book/photos/a.894634240575760.1073741825.124165887622603/961338660571984/?type=3&theater

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


Why should the US be scared to death of the TSR.2?? it doesn't have the range to cross the Atlantic and bomb the USA !
as far as the export potential is concerned , it was almost ZERO ! nobody would have bought the TSR.2 , a overpriced bomber designed and developed in accordance with RAF requirements only ..This is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories ever devised..This aircraft was an engineering disaster second to none in the history of British aviation is nothing but a compassion babble. Another example of painfully slow and agonizing death of the brit aero industry. it had to be cancelled before anymore money was lost.


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

The alleged superiority of the TSR-2 over the F-111 has never been proven the F-111 is combat proven bomber served 40 years in two different air forces .its latest version massively outperformed TSR.2 in every flight condition, it flew faster, farther and delivered 40% more payload than this fantasy plane..I am as an aerospace engineer myself at a loss trying to figure out what might have made TSR.2 superior to F-111 ? TRS-2 was a paper plane. Only 4 prototypes were built and none of them achieved full operational capability as they had been experiencing serious technical problems ! Everything about TSR-2 was on the paper. The whole TSR-2 story is highly exaggerated nonsense and has little to do with reality .F-111 had better performance overall..

 

[JFC Fuller]

TSR.2 was a colossal engineering blunder ..An airframe with a life expectancy of 10 years? you must be joking! this secret document released by Air Stuff Target answers all the questions ! The TSR.2 was years too late in conception, years too late in development vastly overbuget and then the shocking news that it would not even meet its design specifications and in addition to all this, an average 10 years life expectancy for the airframe !

https://www.facebook.com/tsr2book/photos/a.894634240575760.1073741825.124165887622603/961338660571984/?type=3&theater

The F-111 had an original design life of 4,000 flight hrs and 10 years service. It was vastly over-budget and and in its initial version did not meet the original requirement. Both programmes had similar objectives and went badly for similar reasons, the USAF just had deeper pockets than the RAF.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Regardless of actual performance, the TSR-2 was just another sad footnote in the downward spiral of purely-British aviation.

 

[skylon]

TSR.2 was a colossal engineering blunder ..An airframe with a life expectancy of 10 years? you must be joking! this secret document released by Air Stuff Target answers all the questions ! The TSR.2 was years too late in conception, years too late in development vastly overbuget and then the shocking news that it would not even meet its design specifications and in addition to all this, an average 10 years life expectancy for the airframe !

https://www.facebook.com/tsr2book/photos/a.894634240575760.1073741825.124165887622603/961338660571984/?type=3&theater

The F-111 had an original design life of 4,000 flight hrs and 10 years service. It was vastly over-budget and and in its initial version did not meet the original requirement. Both programmes had similar objectives and went badly for similar reasons, the USAF just had deeper pockets than the RAF.

That must be the reason why it served 40 years successfully in two Air Forces.. F-111 destroyed more high value targets in 1990 Gulf war than any other bomber.
In the end F-111 became a reality while TSR2 remained a paper plane, hell of a difference I would say..There is nothing to compare here mate..
Remember the 1986 Libya raid ? I am sure you do.. Even the latest,the most upgraded version of a TSR.2 would have needed two more air refuelling for the same mission and most important of all ,delivered 40% less payload than F-111.

Besides, comparing TSR2's outdated ,gas guzzling Bristol Siddeley Olympus engines with that of Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofans in terms of technology,engineering and efficiency would be even a bigger joke..Sorry.

 

[skylon]

Regardless of actual performance, the TSR-2 was just another sad footnote in the downward spiral of purely-British aviation.

This aircraft was an engineering disaster second to none in the history of British aviation with possible exception of De Havilland Comet and is nothing but a compassion babble and has little to do with reality . ( very similar to Miles M52 myth ) Todays TSR2 legend was created by a huge fanboy club in the UK ..If you keep repeating the same old fairy tale for 50 years, people might start believing it !

 

[sferrin]

Regardless of actual performance, the TSR-2 was just another sad footnote in the downward spiral of purely-British aviation.

This aircraft was an engineering disaster second to none in the history of British aviation with possible exception of De Havilland Comet and is nothing but a compassion babble and has little to do with reality . ( very similar to Miles M52 myth ) Todays TSR2 legend was created by a huge fanboy club in the UK ..If you keep repeating the same old fairy tale for 50 years, people might start believing it !

Ouch. I could see that sentiment with the Avro Arrow but I'd thought the TSR2 had more potential. ???

 

[skylon]

That must be the reason why it served 40 years successfully in two Air Forces.. F-111 destroyed more high value targets in 1990 Gulf war than any other bomber.

Original planned service life and actual service life- these are two things that are not the same.

Mate , in this case I assume that the BAC engineers must have failed in their efforts to convince the British MOD who must have been terrified after receipt of this Air Stuff Target report that TSR.2 would have a actual service life much longer than 10 years.
just a guess !

 

[skylon]

Regardless of actual performance, the TSR-2 was just another sad footnote in the downward spiral of purely-British aviation.

This aircraft was an engineering disaster second to none in the history of British aviation with possible exception of De Havilland Comet and is nothing but a compassion babble and has little to do with reality . ( very similar to Miles M52 myth ) Todays TSR2 legend was created by a huge fanboy club in the UK ..If you keep repeating the same old fairy tale for 50 years, people might start believing it !

Ouch. I could see that sentiment with the Avro Arrow but I'd thought the TSR2 had more potential. ???

Avro was another example of a colossal mismanagement, a small country like CANADA initiating a huge project without securing a a single export order before ,who is to blame here? had Canada ordered Avro alone , it would have devoured half of Canadian defence budget for years to come. Actually ,the Brits are not innocent here, the RAF said that they were interested and might order 100 fighters or so but there was no commitment.
It never happened..Again, similar to TSR2 a lot of stuff is still claimed about ‘US interference and pressure’ and a wanton desire to sabotage the fledgling Canadian Aerospace Industry ! complete nonsense of course ..

 

[JFC Fuller]

Mate , in this case I assume that the BAC engineers must have failed in their efforts to convince the British MOD who must have been terrified after receipt of this Air Stuff Target report that TSR.2 would have a actual service life much longer than 10 years.
just a guess !

TSR-2 had a planned 10 year service life, just like the F-111, because that is how long the customer at the time expected it to serve. This was not uncommon at the time and it subsequently became common for aircraft to receive multiple life extensions through airframe modifications as a consequence.

 

[skylon]

Mate , in this case I assume that the BAC engineers must have failed in their efforts to convince the British MOD who must have been terrified after receipt of this Air Stuff Target report that TSR.2 would have a actual service life much longer than 10 years.
just a guess !

TSR-2 had a planned 10 year service life, just like the F-111, because that is how long the customer at the time expected it to serve. This was not uncommon at the time and it subsequently became common for aircraft to receive multiple life extensions through airframe modifications as a consequence.

I read again the Air Stuff Target report which cleary says replacement in 10 years and not modification or extention ! since I am not a native speaker and therefore my comprehension skills might me somewhat limited but replacement is not extension or modification, I know the difference..
I am quite sure that this report was the first document landing on the table of Mr. Dennis Healey, the new defence secretary after the labour party won the election in 1964, and it must have been quite a shock ....

 

[JFC Fuller]

I read again the Air Stuff Target report which cleary says replacement in 10 years and not modification or extention ! since I am not a native speaker and therefore my comprehension skills might me somewhat limited but replacement is not extension or modification, I know the difference..
I am quite sure that this report was the first document landing on the table of Mr. Dennis Healey, the new defence secretary after the labour party won the election in 1964, and it must have been quite a shock ....

That document isn't a report, it is the second issue of OR.355 (an actual requirement) which was issued in 1961-2 and abandoned in 1963, it had no role in the cancellation of TSR-2.

 

[skylon]

I read again the Air Stuff Target report which cleary says replacement in 10 years and not modification or extention ! since I am not a native speaker and therefore my comprehension skills might me somewhat limited but replacement is not extension or modification, I know the difference..
I am quite sure that this report was the first document landing on the table of Mr. Dennis Healey, the new defence secretary after the labour party won the election in 1964, and it must have been quite a shock ....

That document isn't a report, it is the second issue of OR.355 (an actual requirement) which was issued in 1961-2 and abandoned in 1963, it had no role in the cancellation of TSR-2.

Undoubtably one of the main reasons for cancellation ,labour came to power in 1964 and cancelled it in 1965 , the others were:

1- Rising costs , mounting technical problems , coupled with the sudden realization that outside the UK nobody would buy it and an assembly line for 50-60 bombers only would never justify a production, steady improvements in Soviet Air Defence and and and ..It was the right decision anyway. One can easily forget the fact that when it was cancelled in 1965, British economy was the sick man of Europe, experiencing the worst industrial decline since ww2 in sharp contrast to Germany and France whose economies were called ''tigers of europe''
There are always many factors leading to such decision but this paper must have had an impact !

The best solution would have been for the RAF to buy the French Mirage IV.. A wonderful, proven delta wing, dropped the first French A-BOMB and cheaper than F-111

 

[sferrin]

The best solution would have been for the RAF to buy the French Mirage IV.. A wonderful, proven delta wing, dropped the first French A-BOMB and cheaper than F-111

But much less versatile and capable than the F-111.

 

[CJGibson]

'The best solution would have been for the RAF to buy the French Mirage IV.. A wonderful, proven delta wing, dropped the first French A-BOMB and cheaper than F-111'

Errr...no. Mirage IV was to be re-engined with Speys and fitted with Avro's W.130 as a deterrent carrier, not as a TSR.2 alternative. So, comparisons with TSR.2 are not relevant.

JFCF is correct in saying that the AST isn't a 'paper' it's an AST, a wishlist for the next generation of aircraft to replace TSR.2. Is that the one that mentions laser weapons? If the Air Staff didn't produce such 'papers' they'd be remiss.

Chris

PS Before I get accused of being Francophobic (again) I'm not a Union Flag-waving TSR.2 fan.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

No-one expected combat aircraft to last more than 10 years in service in 1962.

Nothing interesting to see here.

 

[steelpillow]

Errr...no. Mirage IV was to be re-engined with Speys and fitted with Avro's W.130 as a deterrent carrier, not as a TSR.2 alternative. So, comparisons with TSR.2 are not relevant.

What little I have seen suggests that the Mirage IV project was to include an enlarged fuselage to accommodate much of TSR-2's electronics fit. That might in turn suggest a comparable role. Is there an accessible source document for the actual planned role?

 

[sferrin]

No-one expected combat aircraft to last more than 10 years in service in 1962.

Nothing interesting to see here.

Yep. Hell, with the F-102 they developed it's replacement (the F-106) almost in tandem.

 

[Apophenia]

Yep. Hell, with the F-102 they developed it's replacement (the F-106) almost in tandem.

Kinda. The F-102A was considered an 'interim' J57-powered variant of the 'ultimate' J67-powered F-102B/F-106* (and Hughes MX1179).

*OT: I assume that that re-designation from F-102B to F-106A corresponds with the decision to switch to P&W J75?

 

[TomS]

[
*OT: I assume that that re-designation from F-102B to F-106A corresponds with the decision to switch to P&W J75?

Probably not. The engine change happened in early 1955, the redesignation not until mid-1956.

 

[Pirate Pete]

I may be wrong here, and if I am I bow to others greater knowledge, but as far as a '10-year' lifespan is concerned, as already stated, this was thought of as a 'standard' at the time, especially when you think of the rapid changes which occurred to aircraft performance in the 1950's. It was therefore quite acceptable to make such a 'statement'.
I seem to recall reading that the RAF/Air Staff (?) started to think of the replacement for the English Electric Canberra even as it was starting to enter service.

 

[JohnR]

And the reverse side of that coin is the MRCA acronym for Tornado was by some felt to mean 'Must Refurbish Canberra Again'.

The Air Staff and industry were working on specs for TSR2 replacement at the same time as TSR2 was being developed as listed in Tony Buttlers British Secret Projects on Hypersonics.

It's simply a matter of modern economics the more complex and expensive a piece of equipment is the longer it's life expectancy is.

Regards.

 

[CJGibson]

Very true, PF, my copy of OR.355 for TSR.2/Buccaneer Replacement is dated 5th October 1961.

The Air Council were discussing TSR.2 replacement in May 1961.

How would a Mirage IV perform in the <1000ft (<300m) at Mach 0.95 regime?

Chris

 

[Hood]

Everything to say about TSR.2 has been said before many times. Ranty, ill-informed and generalised comments add nothing to the discussion, nor do they allow us to better understand what went wrong.
Why TSR.2 failed was as much to do with other government policies towards the industry and the fruitless attempts by the Ministries to change how they managed accountancy before the first slide rule calculations for TSR.2 were made as it was because of the technical difficulties of the actual project.

Recently I read an academic article that argued that the withdrawal from East of Suez was a conscious economic decision by Wilson and Healey to reshape defence policy and channel more funds into social welfare, even before the devaluation crisis, rather than as an inescapable result of financial weakness. Causes are not always immediately obvious. As Churchill once said, "all things are always on the move simultaneously."

 

[alertken]

Zealots are immune to logic: Skylon #107 right in saying CF.105 "devouring" Can. budget - but let me try some gentle, maybe-unifying logic.

Let us assume that TSR.2 would have resolved its undercarriage, whipping front fuselage, engine and other issues - which is what prototypes are there to do. Let us further assume that, over a long utilisation, an avionics update, even a turbofan swap a la Buccaneer could have emerged.

Politics is the art of the possible. UK had a new Cabinet 16/10/64, greeted by China's A-Bomb Test. Indian PM Shastri came to London 3/12/64 to seek a UK nuclear Guarantee. UK PM Wilson went to LBJ 8/12/64, who invited UK to join US in its SE Asia imbroglio, and offered a credit/fixed price deal on almost anything UK might care to buy...provided UK stayed East of Suez. So, 2/2/65: F-4M, C-130K. Defer TSR.2 for a think. 7/2/65: LBJ bombs the North.

Wilson decided UK would stay EoS and would replace Akrotiri/Tengah Canberra B.15/16 with TSR.2 or F-111 with a UK-built Bomb/ASM. He received an Option for 10 F-111/Trainer plus 40/Strike, fixed price at TF30 baseline, increment for Spey to be determined. He invited BAC to bid to complete R&D and supply 50 TSR.2, fixed price. Geo. Edwards did not understand the words "fixed price", which UK Aero had never attempted on R&D and seldom on first batch production. Of several try-ons (he did not believe Wilson would dare to cancel) he would report to Vickers Ltd.'s Board that he had offered to complete R&D and supply 50 for £430Mn., to take the first overrun as £9Mn. loss, and to forego profit on such overrun. Wilson's "best and final" Offer was £500Mn....to include sunk cost (which emerged as £195Mn.)

So: if: - Vickers Board had not waited to be told after the event, but had seized the negotiation...would they have told any-spout to the Minister, and ratcheted the number up later? Or - if BAC had taken the money, then done a too-big-to-fail...like Lockheed did in 1971 on C-5A?

TSR.2's analogue avionics had a forecast "MTBF measured in minutes". SecDef.McNamara intended to buy >3,300 F-111s: they would operate in SE Asia in USAF/SAC, USAF/TAC, USN, RAAF. Selction of F-111K, inter-operable, fixed price, piles of spares...no brainer.

(Main source: RAF Hist.Soc. Jnl.24)

 

[sferrin]

I may be wrong here, and if I am I bow to others greater knowledge, but as far as a '10-year' lifespan is concerned, as already stated, this was thought of as a 'standard' at the time, especially when you think of the rapid changes which occurred to aircraft performance in the 1950's.

Yep.

 

[skylon]

Mirage IV would have been perfect for RAF requirements especially in terms of price and maintenance costs, TSR.2 would have been a beast to maintain. Brits really didn’t worry much about maintainence when designing aircraft in those days. You can't compare a proven aircraft with a paper plane which TSR2 was.. 4 prototypes were built, 3 were grounded permanently for whatever reason you are free to speculate and the only prototype in the air had accumulated in total 16 hours !! yes you read correct 16 hours and in 16 hours you want to convince the British MOD that you are an exceptional bomber, ahead of its time with world beating capabilities or so ? lets be realistic ,this wouldn't work . The Americans then offered the F-111 with it's stand- off bomb as a package much cheaper than the TSR2. Unfortunately after the British had ordered the F-111 the American stand-off bomb project was cancelled making the F-111 surplus to British requirements, and this one TSR2 prototype in the air has never achieved full operational capability as it had been experiencing serious technical problems when the Project was cancelled.