British Aircraft Corporation TSR2

Tim;69781 wrote:

I'm afraid you're wrong Damien.

A predictable response.

If you had bothered to interview any of the design team you'd be aware that 2 = Mach 2. You didn't, so you think it's a "mystery". Perhaps you'd like contact details of some of the team members?

I look forward to your evidence for Canberra ever being referred to as "TSR1". I do not believe this was ever the case but I am always open to new evidence.

I'm at a total loss as to how you can believe "TSR2" was "slang". There are reams and reams and reams of TSR2 project documentation in the archives at BAE Warton; Brooklands Museum at Weybridge and the National Archives at Kew. I know for a fact that you didn't look into the archives at Warton or Weybridge, despite being invited to do so, and satisfied yourself with looking at some maintenance manuals. I assume you didn't bother with Kew either or you wouldn't make such a ludicrious suggestion about the project's official name! Do you really want me to start posting images of the hundreds of TSR2 files I have, all of which have TSR2 printed clearly on them?

As I said previously, the "Vickers Type 571" was the type number of the development batch aircraft only (and Vickers' initial GOR.339 submission). Your claim that this was the "actual" designation applies only to the first 9 jets on the line!

Would you similarly claim that "Valiant" was just a nickname and the aircraft was really the "Vickers Type 660"? Or would that be 667? Or would that be 674? Or... you get the idea. I hope.

Do you want me to dig out some documentation showing the other TSR2 type numbers - 579, 594, 595?

Tim;69817 wrote:

I agree that the undercarriage was ridiculous. It was an indirect result of Supermarine's interest in a potential naval derivative of the aircraft

Incorrect. TSR2's undercarriage design bore no link whatsoever to any "naval derivative". In Vickers' (not Supermarine's) original GOR.339 submission the possible naval version had a simple tricycle undercarriage with one wheel per unit. Their later OR.346 submission of October 1959 (using some aspects of the joint TSR2 design put together with EE) also had a simple tricycle undercarriage. There was never any "potential naval derivative" of the TSR2 itself, i.e. the joint project between Vickers and EE and TSR2's undercarriage was designed purely to satisfy the aircraft's own complex requirements, not some mythical naval derivative.

The brochures for Vickers GOR.339 and OR.346 submissions are both available for inspection at the Brooklands Museum archives - I suggest you read them and you'll see how wrong you are.

and the equally absurd Air Staff obsession with short field performance which nobody took seriously (including the test pilots).

You really think the Air Staff's Requirement was something that "nobody took seriously"? Astonishing.

Perhaps you'd care to familiarise yourself with GOR.339; paragraph 10 in particular. Reprinted on page 319 of my book. Also OR.343, the section on Performance - page 323 of my book. Short and rough field performance was central to the design of the aircraft and affected almost every aspect of the airframe configuration from wings to flaps to tail surfaces to undercarriage. The designers, therefore, clearly took this requirement very seriously indeed!

Ignorance I can understand, but wilful ignorance and a refusal to carry out research or admit you are wrong is frankly saddening, especially from somebody who is claiming to put the record straight on the subject. I'm afraid when it comes to "all manner of nonsense" you seem to be generating it yourself.

WJT;69813 wrote:

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.

XR219's undercarriage was made out of a lower grade of material than that intended to be used (if I recall rightly, steel rather than titanium but I'll check if anybody wants to know for sure), due to supply problems in the initial stages of the project. That, the serious vibrations on landing, a couple of very hard landings and 'rough' reassembly were all thought by many at Warton to be the cause of the failure though none of the ex-TSR2 workers I spoke to could recall if any official investigation was made into it. I highly doubt there was one - it was, after all, 8 years after cancellation and with the aircraft having been effectively derelict for 6-7 years of that there was unlikely to be any value to be had from such an investigation.

With further development I have little doubt that the undercarriage issues would have been fully solved and the real Achilles Heel of the type would have been electronic reliability. The MBTF figures for some of the kit used was pretty shocking and managing to complete a single mission with that early kit would have been near miraculous. Anyway given that that mission was to drop a nuke, I'm glad we never had to find out!

Damien, I refer you to my previous post.

Damien: When I saw XR219 heeled over I asked what were they going to do about it and they said they would just jack it level again and block it up on railway sleepers - they were about ready to start the first of the warhead tests against it. It was clear there was no intention of conducting any serious investigation of the undercarriage failure.

Tim;70083 wrote:

Damien, I refer you to my previous post.

It's such a shame when an author actively refuses to carry out research and sticks virtual fingers in his ears when presented with an opportunity to correct his errors and broaden his knowledge.

WJT;70105 wrote:

Damien: When I saw XR219 heeled over I asked what were they going to do about it and they said they would just jack it level again and block it up on railway sleepers - they were about ready to start the first of the warhead tests against it. It was clear there was no intention of conducting any serious investigation of the undercarriage failure.

Yes, the photos of her propped up on breeze blocks with the sheered off bogie missing are a depressing sight. Must make some more efforts to try find some of the reports from the trials that were carried out.

I refer you to my previous comments Damien

I see the latest British fighter is now three times over budget, we cannot make airplanes that comply to the original budget and never have done. Specifications constantly change, the RAF have no idea what the future holds and just keep trying to produce the Spitfire. We have wasted far too much money well earnt by the likes so us 0n pye in the sky projects constantly. Its time the RAF & MOD got off their sweet asses together and formed a committee to manage & produce items that work and are on budget. TSR2 was a fantastic aircraft so were all the Comet derivatives. BUT the cost is too much. Better we should have bought American. Phantom I believe was not so good with RR engines than the US version another committee decision. We cock up in this country big time. What about the best bomb in the world that was going to put out all Soviet runways. The first time it was used in the Gulf war the RAF lost most of its planes due to AA fire. The US flew high and lost none. When I saw it and Hendon I was gutted. Hendon should have hidden it away in shame. Where as the high level Buccaneer triumphed in the end. We can do it but not to budget. As for you two arguing, I would rather you kissed and made up and together attacked the MOD for what they are doing now and in the future. Afghanistan needed helicopters & pilots. In the desserts of America are lots of Huey's that could have been upgraded and flown by civilian pilots to cover the shortfall. No we build multi million pound helicopters that fail because the computer forgets to talk to the hardware. I could go on for ever and probably will. The Chinook that crashed out of NI another good example. I will stop now

Richard

www.atlantikwall.co.uk

We cock up in this country big time. What about the best bomb in the world that was going to put out all Soviet runways.

JP233, or how to rediscover Triple A.

Wiki is your friend
JP233
Deployment was rather frightening for the flight crew, since it required the aircraft to fly low, straight and level over an enemy airfield, and when over the runway the pods would dispense their payload. During the Gulf War it was widely reported in the popular press that Tornados were shot down by AAA fire and MANPADS during delivery of the JP233 munition,[2] but in fact none of the losses occurred during the attack phase of a JP233 mission[citation needed]. Only one aircraft was lost carrying the JP233 munition when Tornado ZA392 crashed into the ground 16 km (9.9 mi) after delivering the weapon at low level; enemy fire was not reported and it was believed that this was an incident of controlled flight into terrain[citation needed].

What did alarm the crews of British and Saudi Arabian Tornados using JP233 however was that the aircraft was brightly illuminated at night by the exploding munitions.[3] Attacks using JP233 were suspended six days into the Gulf War, as the Iraqi Air Force was effectively flying no missions.

With the increasing availability of standoff attack munitions capable of the same mission with little risk to the flight crew and aircraft, and the British entry into the Land Mines Treaty (which declares the HB-876 illegal), the JP233 has been withdrawn from service.

That's OK. We all sign up to the 'No landmines' agreement because we have re-named ours 'Area Denial Munitions'

Yes terrorist states have "Weapons of mass destruction"
We have a Nuclear Deterrent.