British Aircraft Corporation TSR2

I agree with Swindertim, the Jaguar does indeed look like a baby TSR2. And I believe that TSR2 stood for Tactical Strike and Recce and the 2 meant it was capable of MACH 2, can anyone confirm that? And I also believe it was going to be called Eagle.

I agree the Jaguar does look a little like TSR2 in some respects but it has absolutely no connection with it, other than some of the avionics which came indirectly from TSR2. Tornado was the aircraft which ultimately took-on the role (albeit in modernised form) that was originally envisaged for TSR2.

As for what the "2" stood for, it's a minor mystery which will never be solved. Some think it referred to the notional naming of Canberra as "TSR1" (even though this term was never applied to Canberra) but most (including myself) believe it referred to TSR2's intended Mach Two performance. Either way, the term "TSR2" was little more than slang which eventually became adopted by everyone, even though the aircraft was actually designated as the "Vickers Supermarine Type 571".

It was never going to be called "Eagle" even though many authors have suggested this. No name was ever chosen although "Claymore" was mentioned at one stage. It seems likely that it would actually have been called "Merlin" as this was the name chosen for the F-111K.

I don't know why you persist in posting these things Tim.

The 2 was indeed 'Mach 2' - all you need to do is speak to surviving members of the TSR2 Joint Design Team to verify that. TSR1 = Canberra? Nonsense.

"TSR2" was most assuredly not 'slang' - it was the project's official designation from day 1 of its official beginning, 1st January 1959, and appears on all project documentation from that day to the cancellation and beyond. The "Vickers Type 571" was the type number of the development batch aircraft only, as I've pointed out to you several times previously. The full list of Vickers type numbers covering various TSR2 batches is in my book.

The Jaguar has plenty of connection with the TSR2, in that it was designed and built by many of the same people, using many of the same techniques, benefited from much of the aerodynamic research and lessons learned re accessibility of engines and other systems and ended up taking on some of the roles intended for TSR2.

Not a single author has suggested "Eagle" as a name - Joe Cherrie never published that suggestion and only made it on internet forums. Merlin, similarly, was not in the running though in fact no evidence of serious discussions of any kind re naming have been uncovered.

I'm afraid you're wrong Damien.

Tim, I am not , in any way, an expert on this subject, but some of your statements are totally at odds with what I was told by a serving officer (and close friend) who was at Boscome at the time.

As far as the F111 is concerned - was there a connection with the 'Swift'?

There's no reason to suppose that RAF officers wouldn't be as mis-informed as anyone else. At Boscombe Down I guess it would have been far too easy to have absorbed comments from the likes of Beamont who (for obvious reasons) had his own agenda, as did others. Likewise, it's easy for RAF personnel to claim knowledge which is actually only gossip. This still happens to this very day. An awful lot of mis-information has been churned-out on this subject for fifty years. I was asked to write a book on the subject even though I had no great interest in it. The result was, therefore, balanced and subjective, based on information from sources that could be relied-upon to provide a credible answer (including the very person who cancelled the project).

The book has certainly been very successful (it's already reprinted after only four months!) so the subject is clearly a popular one. I'm rather pleased that a major publisher has finally set-out a realistic account of the TSR2 story which finally clarifies the realities of the story and weeded-out so much of the nonsense which has dogged the project's history for so long. I don't imagine for a minute that this will stop people from trying to perpetuate all manner of nonsense, but at least a reputable source has set the record straight!

Interesting. Thanks for the inputs gentlemen. At the time of the project cancellation I was an impressionable young RAF man and all of the media coverage and feedback through the service pointed to a political decision. Clearly it was but from a financial aspect according to Tim.

History, however, shows otherwise and there would be a lot of work to do to change the mass of opinion. Since it is 'water under the bridge' most people don't care one way or the other. Either way, TSR2 will always be remembered by me as an elegant machine years ahead of its time with detail innovations that carried across into next generation aircraft.

What an interesting thread. My entry to the RAF as a Brat was on a scheme aimed at me serving my whole career on the TSR2 - pity it had been cancelled a year or two before I joined. I therefore went on to the Buccaneer instead, and perhaps that is as near to the TSR2 that the RAF got until the Tornado came along. I worked on the Tornado as well and I can confirm that the systems in Tornado owed a huge amount to the TSR2. Take for example the taileron actuators. At Halton we had some training aids from TSR2, and one of these was a taileron actuator. Well, the taileron actuator in a Tornado is the spitting image of the one from the TSR2, except that is about two thirds the size.

As for all the other stuff - what does 'TSR2' stand for etc - I can't comment. I know that there are differing views articulated by various people and it is interesting to read what people think. However, I do hope we can avoid coming to blows about the topic on this Forum.

For what its worth, I have both of the recent books on the TSR2 - as well as all the earlier ones - and I think that each one of them adds something to the debate. I know that the authors of the two recent books are redoubtable contributors to AiX and I congratulate both of them on their offerings. Given the debate that has surrounded TSR2 for nearly 50 years now, I hope that Damien and Tim are busy gathering as much information as they can on the MRA4 debacle, because I think it will still be spawning books in another 50 years from now!

Edit: PS: In 1973 I was involved in putting a Mk 1 Buccaneer on the gate at Honington and we needed some Gyron Junior inlet guide vane assemblies to make it look like it had engines fitted rather than being a bare shell. We located some engines at the Proof & Experimental Establishment at Shoeburyness, and I was sent off with our Flt Lt to see what we could scrounge. As everyone will know, XR219 was at Shoeburyness and we were allowed to go over and have a look at it. For the first time I was able to see at first hand the beast that had made me want to join the RAF. It was magnificent!

I went back to Shoeburyness a couple of weeks later to collect the engine bits we had identified and as I looked over to XR219 I saw it was heeled over at a fairly alarming angle. I asked what had happened, expecting to be told they had blown an undercarriage leg off, but the answer was quite surprising. The staff had arrived for work a few days earlier and saw it heeled over. They went across to investigate and found that the undercariiage bogie beam had sheared off due to stress corrosion cracking. It was clear that the undercarriage would have been TSR2's achilles heel.

I agree that the undercarriage was ridiculous. It was an indirect result of Supermarine's interest in a potential naval derivative of the aircraft and the equally absurd Air Staff obsession with short field performance which nobody took seriously (including the test pilots). Like other aspects of TSR2 it was over-engineered, over-complex and over-priced.

Have to agree with Peter's comment too - no matter what one does there will still be lots of people who are convinced that TSR2 was a tale of dark conspiracy and political plotting. No matter how clear one presents the true story, some people will refuse to believe it, presumably because fantasy is more exciting that reality. That's human nature I guess!

And back to the name, if you ever see any pictures of it landing taken from in front of the aircraft then it does look like an Eagle. As for the F111, interesting that it was going to be called Merlin. The USAF didnt in fact give the F111 an official name until the late eighties.