Miggers Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 For all you TSR buffs who might not have seen this http://www.metacafe.com/watch/951799/the_raf_tsr_2/ No tears at the end. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 For all you TSR buffs who might not have seen thishttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/951799/the_raf_tsr_2/ No tears at the end. Mark Hmm seen this before, but nice to see it again. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad's lad Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 She really is (was) a beautiful looking bird. Doesn't she look "gangly" until they pulled the gear up and then it's just pure poetry. Clive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexwh773 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 She really is (was) a beautiful looking bird. Doesn't she look "gangly" until they pulled the gear up and then it's just pure poetry.Clive IIRC she was designed for rough strip ops so like the Jaguar needed some serious landing gear. She sure is a beauty though, and although Ive seen that video before, still thoroughly enjoyable (apart from that scrap Lighnings & F4 at the end ) Bexy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 The TSR is one of my all time favorites. I went to Cosford many times in the 70's/80's and never gave '220 a second glance.Suddenly one day it just "clicked" and six years ago I managed to get my paws on the Resitech kit and the rest,as they say,is history. I think the TSR is one of the most beautiful and yet menacing looking aeroplanes ever built.I took loads of photos when I built my Resitech one(naturally as XR220),and now every time I visit Cosford I just have to go and give her a pat and say hello. I just can't resist her and have that full film on tape somewhere.It is a fabulous tribute to a superb aeroplane,design and flight test team. Bee's input in the film is fantastic. It is just a terrible waste of time and effort that events unfolded as they did. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexwh773 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Cant deny that Miggers, biggest waste ever Bexy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahut Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 She was a biggie, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Cant deny that Miggers, biggest waste ever Bexy Agreed, and sadly one of a catalogue of wastes of public money in all areas... it also effectively murdered the British aero industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) Agreed, and sadly one of a catalogue of wastes of public money in all areas... it also effectively murdered the British aero industry. My Dad used to say that if you sailed a British ship,drove a British motorcar,drove a British railway engine,rode a British motocycle or flew a British aeroplane then you had the best in the world. If anyone has never been to Cosford,then it's worth the journey just to go and visit "her". She really is breathtakingly fabulous.You realise what a big aeroplane she actually is.Alongside her is a sectioned Olympus complete with it's afterburning unit,a sectioned main wheel complete with it's brake unit and a superb display model of her. Right across the road is Martin-Baker's retired seat test Meteor and mounted on pedestals are two TSR spec bang seats that are fully restored. Mark Edited February 21, 2008 by Miggers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richellis Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I must admit I do somtimes go to Cosford just to see 220 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miduppergunner Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Yes - remember it well - and some of the seemingly amazing hatred in some peoples minds. Does anyone know why they not only murdered it but also gave orders that all parts must be destroyed?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatchet Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 What a beautiful plane! I'm so glad I have two in the stash My Dad used to say that if you[...]drove a British motorcar[...]British Leyland screwed that up, didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 (edited) Just as disheartening as watching the old Avro Arrow footage while growing up in Canada. Politicians with their heads up their rear ends making the descisions and having no clue what's really in the national intrest. Cancelation of the TSR.2 and Avro Arrow dealt irreparable blows to the proud and well developed aviation industries of two countries. At least Britain has two TSR.2s preserved, which is more than Canada can say for the Arrow Additionally, the Arrow has to deal with all the various conspiracy theories and urban myths that persist about it's cancelation and an absolutely abominable made for TV film that supposedly tells the story of it but takes so many "artistic" liberties that is ultimately meaningless. I just can't help but imagine what an air force would be like with TSR.2s doing the mud moving and Arrows flying top cover for them, would be something to see. Edited February 23, 2008 by upnorth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Seen this before also but can never get over the undercarriage retraction - beautiful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J35 Draken Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Great video, I wonder how different the RAF would be today if they hadn't scrapped the project. The TSR2 looks alot like a Mirage F1 from straight on aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadsolo Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I must admit I do somtimes go to Cosford just to see 220 220 was my father's aircraft when he worked at BAC. He was one of the techies. Could never ever talk about it with my mother, official secrets act and all that. He told me the story behind the bracing strut on the main gear as well. On the test flights, the pilot put the aircraft down and kept a nose high aerodynamic braking attitude down the runway. He reported a temporary loss of awareness but came to with the aircraft in the nose high position still one the runway. When they reviewed the high speed camera footage, it turned out to be a wicked little shimmy on the main gear as the wheels touched. this sent a certain frequency vibration through the airframe and into the seat, into the pilot's helmet. The frequency was just right to upset the beta brain waves. Hence the bracing rod. What a beautiful machine. That and Concorde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fmk.6john Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Bit anal maybe??.....the frequency was 35Hz, this was the perfect frequency to induce temporary blindness and dissorientation for the pilots and navigators. Incidentally on flight No2 temporary blindness was encountered again when the No1 fuel pump started 'ringing' at 35Hz, 'Bee' Beamont aborted the flight and landed on one engine, the pump was replaced and test flights resumed. Engine shaft vibrations also caused a few headaches and hindered the flight test program for a while, but all things considered the crew and engineers overcame a mountain of faults and made massive advances in the test schedule proving the TSR-2 a phenominal success in just six months of flying time. What a waste. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadsolo Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Bit anal maybe??.....the frequency was 35Hz, this was the perfect frequency to induce temporary blindness and dissorientation for the pilots and navigators.Incidentally on flight No2 temporary blindness was encountered again when the No1 fuel pump started 'ringing' at 35Hz, 'Bee' Beamont aborted the flight and landed on one engine, the pump was replaced and test flights resumed. Engine shaft vibrations also caused a few headaches and hindered the flight test program for a while, but all things considered the crew and engineers overcame a mountain of faults and made massive advances in the test schedule proving the TSR-2 a phenominal success in just six months of flying time. What a waste. John. Of course I'm anal - I make model aeroplanes! And debate colours of X-Wings...another thread... I wasn't aware of the fuel pump problem - interesting to hear that. They did do some amazing work to produce a machine that was so advanced in such a short time. Oh well, back on my head again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buccymad Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 don't know how true this is but... i recall seeing something about how fragile the u/c was ,and they envisioned massive problems in rectifying the perceived problems due to fatigue,and that was the major factor in the decision to scrap it p.s cant remember where i got this little nugget ,but it stuck in my mind,as tiny as it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share Posted February 26, 2008 don't know how true this is but... i recall seeing something about how fragile the u/c was ,and they envisioned massive problems in rectifying the perceived problems due to fatigue,and that was the major factor in the decision to scrap it p.s cant remember where i got this little nugget ,but it stuck in my mind,as tiny as it is! Hhhmmm buccy.Can't say that I've heard that one about the undercart.I know it was designed for rough field use and it certainly didn't look very weak when Bee bounced it down the runway in that vid. Apart from the aforementioned vibration on touch down,the only other undercart trouble I'm aware of is the sequencing problems that were encountered. As is known,the main bogies rotate through 90* to line up parallel with the main legs before the doors open and the whole shebang swings up into the u/c bays. On one flight the bogies remained in line with the legs and refused to rotate into position.After a bit of consultation with Don Bowen,Bee decided to try and land with them in the wrong position.As we know,Bee was successful in landing the aircraft. What Bee didn't mention though was the Rate of Decent he landed at..............it was only 6 inches per second or 36 feet per minute.That's the kind of skilled pilot that was entrusted with testing this fabulous machine. What Bee did say about the aeroplane though was that he had immense pleasure in flying it,and that once those early snags had been more or less ironed out,the aeroplane quickly proved itself to be a superb thouroubred. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamienB Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 don't know how true this is but... i recall seeing something about how fragile the u/c was ,and they envisioned massive problems in rectifying the perceived problems due to fatigue,and that was the major factor in the decision to scrap it Not at all true - there's nothing in the reams of available documentation on the project to suggest this was an issue at all. Cost, cost and cost - that's why it was cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share Posted February 26, 2008 BAC asked the government if it were possible to keep the two prototypes,'219 and presumably '220(220 was due to fly on the day of cancellation)operational purely as R&D aircraft for the upcoming Concorde project. They said they'd do it for a fixed price of £2 million. Denis Healey said that that would escalate to £4 million and would most likely end up at £6 million and that was simply too much so the whole project was axed. BTW,the only other "landing gear"problem,apart from vibration and sequencing,was the problems with brake parachute deployment failure on some of the high speed taxi test runs before Bee took '219 on her maiden. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Denis Healey said that that would escalate to £4 million and would most likely end up at £6 million and that was simply too much so the whole project was axed. What part of "fixed price" was giving the fat fool a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamienB Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 The proposal was actually for three aircraft - XR219, XR220 and XR221, and it wasn't fixed price. BAC estimated 2 million for 2 aircraft and 150-200 hours, 3 million for 3 aircraft. To be fair, the Royal Aircraft Establishment were largely against the continued use of the airframes - they suspected it would take 2 years to iron the bugs out of them sufficiently so that they'd be of use for research and couldn't afford to take them on themselves. Similarly the Aeronautical Research Council were positive on the general idea but suspected 150 hours of test flying would cost 2 to 3 million with no guarantee that most of that time wouldn't be spent dealing with problems. Given that they wanted the money for computers, simulators and wind tunnels, they didn't want to blow it all on flying the TSR2 so they recommended against it too. The government's own research into the question found 2-3 million would be the minimum cost, and with a high chance of continued snags delaying any "useful" test flying (ie flying that could benefit other programmes such as intake and TFR research for the Concorde and F-111/AFVG), they didn't think it was worth the risk. Healey was really only following the recommendations of others. Personally I tend to agree with the decision based on the evidence available - the airframe was nowhere near reliable enough to be a useful testbed and politically you could hardly justify spending a load of money on a cancelled project to get it to a point where it was useful - you may as well not have cancelled it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now