TSR2 SLEP

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, binging threads again.

How much bigger was Concorde's Olympus 593?

593: 48" diameter, 159" long.
101: 40" diameter, 127" long. (Can't find specs for the 22R online)

1. We were used to draft Requirements for Replacements to circulate the day after contract for the predecessor, but TSR.2 should have been different when launched 1/1/59 - cost was to be unprecedented; it would only be operable because RAF was to be all-Regular, so able to cope with avionics complexity. Surely to serve for a decade or more. Yet (Joint) OR.346 (inc. for its replacement) was promptly initiated...because TI had publicly displayed silicon chip I.C 12/9/58, landscape changer, (which should have been seen as) eliminating need for the forward fuselage eqpt. cavern and its temp/vibration confusions. So admitting a lighter, smaller, cheaper platform

Or you use all that freed up space for fuel tanks and get your range back!

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Pardon me, binging threads again.

593: 48" diameter, 159" long.
101: 40" diameter, 127" long. (Can't find specs for the 22R online)

Or you use all that freed up space for fuel tanks and get your range back!

593 had a 7 stage Lp compressor
22R had a 6 stage LP compressor
101 had a 6 stage LP compressor

What Bristol’s did was introduce a compressor stage infront of the 101/22R compressor stage 1 which increase a the area hence the mass flow, aka zero stage. So it’s reasonable to assume the diameter of the 101 is the same as the 22R ie 40 inches.

 

[Purpletrouble]

G'day folks, consider this. The TSR2 goes into service and later requires a SLEP, what engines are avaulable and could a big wing be fitted/would it be an improvement?

What TSR2 would need is newer avionics. The wing and engine are things that can and should be left well alone.

Those avionics would in fact be essential to allow it to do what it was required to do.

If you really wanted to do VG (swing wings), TSR2 would have made a better sized platform than Tornado - that was always too small to really benefit from the concept, a cost of the European partners wanting something smaller than what the UK did and what VG technology was predicated on. Just like how Typhoon is also too small. Tbc how FCAS goes…

 

[Scott Kenny]

What TSR2 would need is newer avionics. The wing and engine are things that can and should be left well alone.

Those avionics would in fact be essential to allow it to do what it was required to do.

And probably the 1950s avionics would not be capable of meeting the requirements. Interim avionics, waiting for an update in the 1970s, like F-111A versus -D.

I'm expecting something about like the A-6E TRAM pod, on top of the general avionics update to systems that can fully meet the 1950s requirements. FLIR, I believe a laser target designator, etc.

If you really wanted to do VG (swing wings), TSR2 would have made a better sized platform than Tornado - that was always too small to really benefit from the concept, a cost of the European partners wanting something smaller than what the UK did and what VG technology was predicated on. Just like how Typhoon is also too small. Tbc how FCAS goes…

Adding VG wings to a plane not designed for them would be a massive undertaking...

 

[Purpletrouble]

And probably the 1950s avionics would not be capable of meeting the requirements.

Exactly. They weren’t. Although probably good enough to produce something usable and better than the extant Canberras.

Interim avionics, waiting for an update in the 1970s, like F-111A versus -D.

I'm expecting something about like the A-6E TRAM pod, on top of the general avionics update to systems that can fully meet the 1950s requirements. FLIR, I believe a laser target designator, etc.

Yes, although I’m thinking more like the avionics fit that was developed for Tornado IDS, same role, same industry and fitted later when t became available. Laser designator for the UK was even later although if TSR2 with AAR could reach the Falklands to show how useful it’d be in ‘82 it might have a podded one by 1991.

Adding VG wings to a plane not designed for them would be a massive undertaking...

Oh quite, but its about the only thing that could be considered in terms of wanting to change a wing in that era. I’m not really sure what is considered wrong about the actual wing and engines. Its not like it didnt fly ok or have sufficient performance. Perhaps if you want it to be more F15 like in terms of wingloading for maneouvre then a new much bigger wing is wanted, but then its going to have to be a different aircraft entirely.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Exactly. They weren’t. Although probably good enough to produce something usable and better than the extant Canberras.

A-5s had pretty comparable avionics. At least good enough to serve as the interim type till computers got enough memory to hold the flight path with all the turns plus the bomb IPs. You'd want fully digital electronics plus solid state memory for the full capabilities.

Though a funny idea would be to use a "game cartridge" like unit to hold your terrain data and/or flight paths, then put the bomb IPs into the computer the traditional way.

Oh quite, but its about the only thing that could be considered in terms of wanting to change a wing in that era. I’m not really sure what is considered wrong about the actual wing and engines. Its not like it didnt fly ok or have sufficient performance. Perhaps if you want it to be more F15 like in terms of wingloading for maneouvre then a new much bigger wing is wanted, but then its going to have to be a different aircraft entirely.

Engines could probably use a more fuel-efficient version.

 

[pathology_doc]

Perhaps if you want it to be more F15 like in terms of wingloading for maneouvre then a new much bigger wing is wanted, but then its going to have to be a different aircraft entirely.

It's going to be a CF-105.

Okay, that might be oversimplifying matters a little; but as a rough approximation, that's the sort of aircraft you're looking at.

 

[BlackBat242]

And probably the 1950s avionics would not be capable of meeting the requirements. Interim avionics, waiting for an update in the 1970s, like F-111A versus -D.

I'm expecting something about like the A-6E TRAM pod, on top of the general avionics update to systems that can fully meet the 1950s requirements. FLIR, I believe a laser target designator, etc.

The TRAM (Target Recognition Attack Multisensor) was not a pod, that was the Vietnam-era TRIM (Trails, Roads, Interdiction Multisensor) of the A-6C.

The TRAM was almost entirely internal (due in part to the late-1960s tech upgrade of the A-6's radar etc, which merged the separate AN/APQ-92 search radar and AN/APG-46 for tracking [with separate antennae] of the A-6A/B/C into one AN/APQ-148 multi-mode radar with one antenna that occupied less room on the nose. The only part that was external was the lower 3/4 of the sensor ball turret. The bombing and navigation computer and INS were also replaced. The A-6E entered service in 1972, and the TRAM system (AN/AAS-33A) began being installed in 1979 with yet another new AN/APQ-156 multi-mode radar and computer (basically a repackaged IBM 360).

A-6C TRIM test version:



Production version:







A-6E TRAM turret:

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sorry, mis-wording on my part.

My brain parses the flir turret as a pod for some reason.