The British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 - Excellent Documentary

[PingDit]

Published on 1 Apr 2013


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

The British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 was a cancelled Cold War strike and reconnaissance aircraft developed by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) for the Royal Air Force (RAF) in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The TSR-2 was designed to penetrate a well-defended forward battle area at low altitudes and very high speeds, and then attack high-value targets in the rear with nuclear or conventional weapons. Another aspect of its combat role was to provide high-altitude, high-speed photo reconnaissance, requirements that necessitated incorporating "state-of-the-art" aviation technology that would make it the highest-performing aircraft in these roles. Only one airframe flew and test flights and weight rise during design indicated that the aircraft would be unable to meet its original stringent design specifications. The design specifications had been reduced as the results of flight testing became available.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEtkrZiDDGc

 

[grumpyoldb]

Yep. gets full votes from me. I have it on dvd but it's downloadable from you tube for free. DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Gord]

Similar fate as the AVRO Arrow, Mach 2 plus in the early 60's built here in Canada at about the same time. Cancelled in favour of US misslies that were never feckin' used. A pox on John Diefenbaker the PM of Canada at that time and I hope Wilson the PM of the UK at the time the TR2 was cancelled is still burning in Hell. In fact I hope they are both getting nice and toasty down there.

 

[Malesu]

TSR2 still looks the dogs bo**ocks nowadays.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Read Damien Burke's "TSR2, Britains lost bomber". The most definative written publication of the aircraft. The aircraft design had many faults that would have been unacceptable in service and would have required major redesign to put right, especially for maintainers.

 

[Stevienics]

Read Damien Burke's "TSR2, Britains lost bomber". The most definative written publication of the aircraft. The aircraft design had many faults that would have been unacceptable in service and would have required major redesign to put right, especially for maintainers.

I'm glad you said it.

Apparently, it's like taking a dump in Buddah's open mouth.

 

[Downsizer]

The aircraft design had many faults that would have been unacceptable in service and would have required major redesign to put right, especially for maintainers.

Whoa, whoa, whoa......don't let the truth get in the way of the fanboys on here and other internet sites!

 

[Kryten]

Read Damien Burke's "TSR2, Britains lost bomber". The most definative written publication of the aircraft. The aircraft design had many faults that would have been unacceptable in service and would have required major redesign to put right, especially for maintainers.

The design faults were in the process of being rectified, and had the programme been pursued with a desire to succeed, rather than the Customer changing his mind every nano-second (oh, and lets not forget the stirling efforts of the CDS of the day in killing its export potential), I reckon it would have been a world beater. Have a look at the one at Cosford or Duxford and say it didn't look the part....

Unashamed TSR-2 Fan sendsDT_Xtremez_14:

 

[rest have risen above me]

It always looks like it was designed by Gerry Anderson to me.

 

[Gonterseed]

The pilots weren't though...

 

[Hu Jardon]

Read Damien Burke's "TSR2, Britains lost bomber". The most definative written publication of the aircraft. The aircraft design had many faults that would have been unacceptable in service and would have required major redesign to put right, especially for maintainers.

Those same criteria didn't apply to Tonkas or Buphoons then or come to that early Jags which fell out of the sky every time a Russian tuned in to the World Service?

 

[Gord]

Those same criteria didn't apply to Tonkas or Buphoons then or come to that early Jags which fell out of the sky every time a Russian tuned in to the World Service?

Almost all aircraft are a piece of sh!te at the get go, due mainly to too many people wanting to poke their finger in the pie. The RAF want's this out of it, the RN wants that and the Army want's summink else. Then in comes Westminster and they want a dozen more capabilities added to the list so that it will last 100 yrs and cost 1/5th of the initial spending projection. FFS if we hadn't been behind the 8 ball in WW2 the feckin' spitfire would still be in the mock up stage. For example I give you the F35. A dozen countries with big bucks tied up in that lemon so nobody wants to pull the plug but it'll never do what was originally printed on the box.

In civvy life I give you the A300/800 series and the Boeing Dreamliner, teething troubles from hell yet like the 777 they will still be going into service with umpteen airlines because Airbus and Boeing are/were willing to shell out the money.

All it takes is a bit of patience, a realistic goal and the willingness to put in the money when it's needed. I'm not that sure about the F35 though, if one government decides to pull out then it's likely gonna be used for target practice by the birds out in Arizona.

 

[Malesu]

The thing that scares me about the TSR2.. I wonder how many Main U/C changes you would have had to do in the A/C's lifespan.. Looks flimsy as hell.

 

[Stevienics]

Fair point. It does have the look of the "nice profile, let's not spoil it with sticky-outy things" about it.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Those same criteria didn't apply to Tonkas or Buphoons then or come to that early Jags which fell out of the sky every time a Russian tuned in to the World Service?

The AST spec never mentioned shielding the autostab kit from HF did it!! DT_Xtremez_07:
BAE are crap at designing things that are easy to work on and are kept simple. Stress men get in the way saying you can't do that when everybody else does. I do have all the Jag specs as issued to SEPECAT by the RAF and AdA, they are well past the 30 year rule and at Kew.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Almost all aircraft are a piece of sh!te at the get go, due mainly to too many people wanting to poke their finger in the pie. The RAF want's this out of it, the RN wants that and the Army want's summink else. Then in comes Westminster and they want a dozen more capabilities added to the list so that it will last 100 yrs and cost 1/5th of the initial spending projection. FFS if we hadn't been behind the 8 ball in WW2 the feckin' spitfire would still be in the mock up stage. For example I give you the F35. A dozen countries with big bucks tied up in that lemon so nobody wants to pull the plug but it'll never do what was originally printed on the box.

In civvy life I give you the A300/800 series and the Boeing Dreamliner, teething troubles from hell yet like the 777 they will still be going into service with umpteen airlines because Airbus and Boeing are/were willing to shell out the money.

All it takes is a bit of patience, a realistic goal and the willingness to put in the money when it's needed. I'm not that sure about the F35 though, if one government decides to pull out then it's likely gonna be used for target practice by the birds out in Arizona.

A300 / 800? There is a A300-600, don't you mean A380? Dreamliner? Jury is still out on that one, it won't fail because Boeing will not allow it, until the hull starts failing because the matrix resin isn't UV resistant..:0

F35.. Another waste o space special..

 

[Kryten]

There are lots of these on the interweb - does make you think what she would have looked like in service - would she still be in service today?

 

[Ex-Bay]

and I hope Wilson the PM of the UK at the time the TR2 was cancelled is still burning in Hell.
In fact I hope they are both getting nice and toasty down there.

Toasted - yes, but not 'nice'. I hope it HURTS them.

Read Damien Burke's "TSR2, Britains lost bomber". The most definitive written publication of the aircraft. The aircraft design had many faults that would have been unacceptable in service and would have required major redesign to put right, especially for maintainers.

Given that 219 is the ONLY one to have flown, it makes little sense to assume that the 'plane entering service is the same beast as a 'prototype'. The idea was to see if the damn thing would fly at all !

As to whether it would have been in service later, I think it probably would have handled 30 years.

And it was/is gorgeous.

 

[Rigga]

As a very young (and obviously very impressionable) lad the TSR2 is why I started liking aircraft.

 

[Tin basher]

Dreamliner? Jury is still out on that one, it won't fail because Boeing will not allow it, until the hull starts failing because the matrix resin isn't UV resistant..

Off Topic from the TSR2 but, the dreamliner matrix not UV resistant! care to expand? Off Topic