GOR.339, OR.343, TSR.2 design proposals ...

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Joe - I can clean those scans up for you if you like. Email me higher res copies.

 

[PMN1]

On Page 109 of BSP, it says

'However, from the moment Watkinson raised the issue of a strategic nuclear role, TSR.2's performance requirements were gradually expanded (instead of simplifying the aircraft's systems to keep the costs down).'

Any guesses as to what would have happened if this strategic role had not been included?

Also any guesses as to what would have happened if the original GOR.339 requirements had been kept and not replaced by OR.343?

 

[JFC Fuller]

1959: Original RAF request was for 200 aircraft, however this was scaled back to 158 by the Conservative government. Healy then scaled this back to 110. There was then a slightly odd proposal for 50 TSR-2's and 50 F-111K's which was in turn scaled back to 50 F-111K's which finally became no TSR-2s and no F-111K's. Does anybody know where Gunston got his: '...there were suggestions for 320' from?

However, if anybody knows how many AW.681's were initially requested for the RAF I would be fascinated to know!?

 

[Rickshaw]

In the 1980s...a project was initiated into looking about bringing the TSR.2 back. Surely this is a canard (Ha!). Ex-BAC TSR.2 team members Freddie Page/B.O.Heath, now BAe. seniors, were preoccupied with deployment of Tornado and with the Saudi side of that programme, upon which BAe. was utterly dependent. Just what benefit, to anybody, could be inferred in resurrecting a 1958 notion, long superseded in avionics, structures, aerodynamic technologies? What could a Vulcan-sized nuclear strike/recce type do that Tornado (and applications from the EAP/ACA studies, to become Typhoon) could not?

Fly further? Tornado has notoriously short legs, even compared to the Buccaneer.

 

[alertken]

PMN1: GOR change: the assertion is that the new OR was merely a device to escape EE's tie-up with Short's (who we owned), so that the EE+V-A solution could be taken.

SLL: When the Tender was issued, 9/57, optimists may have hoped to approach the 390 Canberras in RAF front line April,’55 in 27 Bomber and 5 PR Sqdns. But much of that cost had been picked up as US MSP. By contract award, 12/59 we had: RAFG/64xB(I)6/8; NEAF/to be 32xB.15/16 by 1962; FEAF/to be 8xB.15; Saceur's TBF/64xB.6, planned to be replaced by 7/61 by 24xValiant. All plus recce Canberra/Valiant B(PR)1...but each TSR.2 airframe was to be multi-role, musical stores. Until Skybolt chop, 12/62, this was a Tactical asset; then a) its cost had soared, b) it was the sole platform on which to retain any Strategic manned capability. Shopping-list numbers gently declined from 150. New CAS Elworthy, late-1964 acquiesced in its deletion from RAFG, preferring 175 F-4D; PM Wilson in Feb.1965 offered to buy 50 if V-A cared to offer a meaningful price, and he took a fall-back option for 10 F-111K T.1+40 S.2, for, I believe, Coningsby+Indian O. forward operating bases. This was instead of/not additional to 50 TSR.2.
So, the A to your Q is: which week did you have in mind?

HS.681 had a very brief life and I am aware of no firm Force plans, or indeed of a coherent operating doctrine. In 1958 Argosy had been procured instead of C.160 Transall (a camel) or C-130E (no $), as interim lift pending NBMR.4 and OR.351, issued in 1959. The V/STOL aspect was tied to FRG's perceptions that autobahns could be bases. In March,1963 MoA funded 681 (20%, Shorts), later choosing Medway, all in order to lock in UK's distinctive requirements to avoid taking Do.31. In January,1965 Elworthy happily settled for C-130K: presumably the first order, for 48, was a one-for-one substitute for (56 Argosy, then) HS.681.

Tornado's legs: short on purpose. We had quit distant climes. Let ASEAN look after themselves - they could afford it.

 

[Spark]

Anyone know what kind of thrust figures were being banded around at the time for the RR RB.142R engines which were pitched for a lot of these designs?
Also as a side note, anyone know how much of a study was done in the early 80's to resurrect the TSR.2? I know there was a general look at the viability but how much technical assesment was done, especially in the engine department as Olympus technology had moved on quite a bit by then (over 40,000lb dry which was in the pipeline for Concorde before ongoing development funds were cut, though geared for hi altitude efficiency) or was a move to turbofan looked at (originally an option anyway). ? Any info would be interesting as it is quite hard to find out any specifics other than a project was initiated into looking about bringing the TSR.2 back.

Hi Norseman,

The original TSR2 Olympus engine was required to be able to cruise for 40 minutes at mach 2.79, so a more developed engine would have been very interesting. gives an insight to the actual expected operational performance.

 

[PMN1]

British Secret Projects: Bombers Since 1949, Tony Buttler

Page 112

A month later (November 1963) the Germans showed an interest in the aircraft as a replacement for the F104G; possibly 400 aircraft might be needed. Federal Minister of Defence Herr von Hassel and his party saw the prototype at Weybridge in May 1964 but there were concerns in the British Cabinet about repercussions in the UK if the Germans were allowed to buy an aircraft capable of delivering nuclear bombs, despite the fact they were still under United States custodial arrangements.


Anyone know what the Germans thought of the aircraft?

 

[Pirate Pete]

Today, during a "sort out", I came across an article from an old "Air Pictorial" which talks about the Governments (then CURRENT) investigation into reviving TSR.2.
If members are interested, I'll try to transcribe it for posting.

 

[OM]

While the GOR 339 submissions have been well illustrated by Tony Buttler, there are more details to be revealed.

...Note to Scott: an FP kit of the concept image Overscan attached would definitely be bought by yours truly. The damn thing's so absurd that it deserved to have at least gotten a test flight!

 

[starviking]

Today, during a "sort out", I came across an article from an old "Air Pictorial" which talks about the Governments (then CURRENT) investigation into reviving TSR.2.
If members are interested, I'll try to transcribe it for posting.

It has recently been posted over at the Key Aviation Forums, so this link might save you some typing:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1518652&postcount=7

 

[Pirate Pete]

Starviking.

Thanks for that!
It is indeed the same article, that's saved my poor old fingers a LOT of work!!

 

[shedofdread]

Has there ever been any published artists impressions / drawings of the 're-vamped TSR2'? I've searched and never come across anything. Obviously it isn't going to be widly different for all the reasons the above linked to article lays out but it would be interesting to see.

S

 

[Spark]

British Secret Projects: Bombers Since 1949, Tony Buttler

Page 112

A month later (November 1963) the Germans showed an interest in the aircraft as a replacement for the F104G; possibly 400 aircraft might be needed. Federal Minister of Defence Herr von Hassel and his party saw the prototype at Weybridge in May 1964 but there were concerns in the British Cabinet about repercussions in the UK if the Germans were allowed to buy an aircraft capable of delivering nuclear bombs, despite the fact they were still under United States custodial arrangements.


Anyone know what the Germans thought of the aircraft?

What they thought of it I do not know, but I do know that they would not have been buying 400 of them.

Hi

but there were concerns in the British Cabinet about repercussions in the UK if the Germans were allowed to buy an aircraft capable of delivering nuclear bombs,
What was the purpose of the Starfighter?

 

[Rickshaw]

In the 1980s...a project was initiated into looking about bringing the TSR.2 back. Surely this is a canard (Ha!). Ex-BAC TSR.2 team members Freddie Page/B.O.Heath, now BAe. seniors, were preoccupied with deployment of Tornado and with the Saudi side of that programme, upon which BAe. was utterly dependent. Just what benefit, to anybody, could be inferred in resurrecting a 1958 notion, long superseded in avionics, structures, aerodynamic technologies? What could a Vulcan-sized nuclear strike/recce type do that Tornado (and applications from the EAP/ACA studies, to become Typhoon) could not?

Fly further? Tornado has notoriously short legs, even compared to the Buccaneer.

And that makes up for all the other issues does it?

To a large extent, yes. If you can't reach your targets, whats the point of all the gee, whiz-bang stuff?

 

[alertken]

rs: but it could. Central Front for Luftwaffe and RAFG, Baltic for Bundesmarine, S.Flank of Sovs'. central thrust, for Italian AF. Into Iran for Saudis. Your perceptions of "short legs" are post-demise of the design Threat.

 

[Rickshaw]

rs: but it could. Central Front for Luftwaffe and RAFG, Baltic for Bundesmarine, S.Flank of Sovs'. central thrust, for Italian AF. Into Iran for Saudis. Your perceptions of "short legs" are post-demise of the design Threat.

Not really. I'm basing it upon comments about Buccaneers having to accompany Tonkas on their flights to the eastern Mediterranean and back in order to refuel them. Something the Buccs could do apparently with ease. Last time I checked, the eastern Med remains part of NATO even today. As I said, the Tonka has notoriously short legs.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Anyone know what kind of thrust figures were being banded around at the time for the RR RB.142R engines which were pitched for a lot of these designs?
Also as a side note, anyone know how much of a study was done in the early 80's to resurrect the TSR.2? I know there was a general look at the viability but how much technical assesment was done, especially in the engine department as Olympus technology had moved on quite a bit by then (over 40,000lb dry which was in the pipeline for Concorde before ongoing development funds were cut, though geared for hi altitude efficiency) or was a move to turbofan looked at (originally an option anyway). ? Any info would be interesting as it is quite hard to find out any specifics other than a project was initiated into looking about bringing the TSR.2 back.

From: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%201969.html?search=RB.142

'As development work has proceeded the engine's power potential
has shown considerable promise. Already running has reached
thrusts of the order of 17,5001b, and it is possible that, with nottoo-
fundamental modifications, such as minor juggling with one or
two compressor and turbine stages, the engine could be brought up
to the 22,000-23,0001b thrust class required by the Super VC10.
Bypass ratio of the developed Medway would be much higher than
the 0.6 of the Conway 42 or 43 (the engines, respectively, of the
Standard and Super VC10) and would be of the order of 0.8.'

I must admit to not being fully aware of the logic behind the selection of the Olympus over the Medway (or even a BS.100 derivative) as it would seem that a Turbofan option would offer better fuel consumption?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not really. I'm basing it upon comments about Buccaneers having to accompany Tonkas on their flights to the eastern Mediterranean and back in order to refuel them. Something the Buccs could do apparently with ease. Last time I checked, the eastern Med remains part of NATO even today. As I said, the Tonka has notoriously short legs.

That would be ferry flights from bases in the UK and RAFG to Cyprus for live fire weapons training? Not really a likely operational mission during a war campaign in central Europe… The Buccaneer had legs because it was designed to fly over the seas searching for Soviet cruisers. The Tornado sacrificed this range so it could fly nap of earth to get under Soviet air defences for battlefield air interdiction against the world’s biggest mechanised army on your doorstep.

 

[alertken]

SLL: turbofan: do you prefer legs or va-va-voom? GOR.339 was defined Autumn,1957, just, indeed, as low by-pass ratio engines were being revived (W.2/700 had been schemed in 1943). Vulcan's Olympus (to be) Mk.101 was less problematic then than Sapphire, Gyrons, or most Avons. Oomph, reheated thrust, was seen as more relevant than a nominal dry cruise payload/range increment of a turbofan over a turbojet. The idea did not appeal of hanging dash-reheat on a turbofan: UK was not then good at hot back ends.

During 1958 big wet Avon was on test for (to be) Lightning, having displaced Sapphire in P.1B, 2/54; bigger, wetter Medway was baseline of P.17A English Electric/Short bid to GOR.339 not for operational reasons, but for a business one: the financial/industrial impact of the withering of defence production. MSP Korean funds had dried (Avon Mk.100s had been quadruple-sourced in UK with $: RR, plus Bristol(240)/Napier(200)/Standard(410)); Macmillan/Sandys were taking a Peace Dividend before a General Election so we could know we had never had it so good: 768 Canberras part-MSP-funded would be succeeded by <150 OR.339s carved-up in teams. Fiscal strength became as central as designer flair: Hives' lot might have flair, but less fiscal than the owners of ASM (Hawker Siddeley Group) and Bristol Aero-engines. If EE's boss,George Nelson, were to choose ASM power for P.17A he would be yet strengthening the owner of competitors to his airframes - AWA flying-/Gloster delta-/Hawker swept-wing. Sandys had tried very hard to kill (to be) Lightning. So EE chose Medway over Olympus. So did Camm on P.1129 to OR.339, even over cousin ASM. But they weren't doing the paying and risking.

In 1958 (TSR.2 airframe ITP was 15/12/58) NGTE/Pyestock interfaced with industry exactly as RAE did with airframers, RRE with sparks: as saddened tutors of unruly urchins deaf to their seniors and betters. NGTE judged the least risk was to meld the reliability of Olympus with (once MetroVick, very RAE-responsive) ASM; schemes labelled RB141R Medway were by an outfit without reheat competence, which had prejudiced Defence of the Realm when Korea had been invaded while nothing Avon-powered worked. Ministers did not de-select turbofan; they accepted advice that 1+1=3, that Bristol+ASM would do the business on-time, on-price, on-Spec. Ah, well.

 

[Stargazer]

Original model for Bristol Type 204 for GOR. 339 (source: Air Enthusiast, August 1971).

 

[Stargazer]

Three-view drawing of Bristol Type 204 for GOR. 339 (source: Air Enthusiast, August 1971).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Some wind tunnel models of early P.17.

Credit: BAE Systems Heritage Centre Warton via Kate Yates

 

[hesham]

Nice find my dear Paul.

 

[Jemiba]

I've rarley seen such a detailed landing gear on a wind tunnel model. Was it really used
for testing, or just to turn that model into a kind of manufacturers model for presentations ?

 

[TomS]

Perhaps they were examining something specific to the landing charcteristics of the design?

 

[Jemiba]

Yep, you're probably right, I found other models with detailes landing gear.
And it seems to depend on the size of the model, smaller and older ones
(which mostly were smaller, I think) seem to have used more simplified
depictions of the landing gear.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

One of TSR2 early flight test problems was the bogie would not rotate into the stowed position. Upon investigation it was discovered that the local airflow exerted a moment which was in the opposite direction to that which was originally predicted. This required increasingly more detailed landing gear models being wind tunnel testing to recreate the local airflow.

I believe the twin wheel bicycle MLG was not a feature of the P17 and was only introduced into the TSR2 after the EE and Vickers designs were merged.

Hence my guess is this is a redundant model which was representative enough on the lower fuselage to investigate the TSR2 MLG local airflow.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Bristol Type 204 GOR.339 model at RAF Museum, Cosford. Photos by forum member Hobbes.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Fairey P.75 GOR.339 at RAF Museum Cosford 2013. Photos by forum member Hobbes.

 

[hesham]

Fairey P.75 GOR.339 at RAF Museum Cosford 2013. Photos by forum member Hobbes.

Nice photos my dear Paul.

 

[sferrin]

Fairey P.75 GOR.339 at RAF Museum Cosford 2013. Photos by forum member Hobbes.

That's pretty sweet.

 

[dan_inbox]

Thanks for those photos, Hobbes and Paul. Very valuable for those of us who can't travel to Cosford.
Much appreciated.

 

[DamienB]

Thanks for ripping off my work! Reported to moderator

 

[Jemiba]

Those two members were given a break, so some time for them to think about
copyrights. Not enough, that copyrighted material from a book, that's still available
was posted en masse, but not even the correct source was given to credit the author !
Those posts were removed, if there still are pictures, I've overlooked, please tell me.
Damien, please accept my apologies !

 

[sienar]

Hawker P.1129

STOCK IMAGE - Three-view drawing of the Hawker P1129 project by www.DIOMEDIA.com

Three-view drawing of the hawker p1129 project. Millions of premium Stock photos and illustrations created by leading commercial photographers, world-famous Museums, Historical Archives and Private Collections. Image ID: 01ATG1MK

www.diomedia.com

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Short PD17.

 

[hesham]

For Shorts PD.25/4,I sent it before,here;

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/shorts-vertical-take-off-aircraft.1134/#post-231017

 

[nuuumannn]

Just a wee note to freshen up on our history of this significant project, as per that fascinating drawing that Blackkite posted (thanks for that, I've never seen that before), TSR.2 was not built to GOR.339. The Canberra replacement was to be built to it. TSR.2 was a combination of two entries that were designed to GOR.339, but itself was built to GOR.343.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Fairey GOR.339 submission.
Length : 100ft 9in, Span : 34ft8in, Height : 17ft9in, Gross wing area : 600square feet.
Max speed : about Mach2
1000nm mission could be performed .(only internal fuel)
Gross weight : 55,900lb
Engine : Two Rolls-Royce RB.142R with variable reheat and downward angle of 5°.
Alternate Olympus 15R.
Source : AIR Enthusiast No.59 (TONY BUTTLER-SAN) and....

The TSR2: The Greatest Plane Never Built.

Definately, all the competitors for the G.O.R aircraft were good looking. 8) I wasnt kidding actually, RAF Avro Vulcan did bomb the argentine garrison, but the probabilities of succesfully penetrated enemy aerospace in the TRS2 wer a lot better, was supersonic at low altitude and had very...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

https://flic.kr/p/nnEzMX