Operational TSR-2

[DamienB]

With regards to the undercarriage - the additional strut as fitted to XR220 was a temporary fix which would not allow the undercarriage to be retracted. Work was in hand to design an operational modification. The strut also appeared on XR219 and I believe it may have flown in this configuration.

XR219 had the fixed strut and flew with it once; XR220 has the operational strut.

[PHREAK]

The aircraft was being produced using a development batch, on production jigs and tooling, i.e. there would not have been any major differences between the first handful and those that followed - certainly no major structural changes.

Compared to XR219, the differences would have been as already mentioned - IFR probe and pylons - plus the added strut on the main gear (supplied in the 1/48 kit, don't have the 1/72 one to hand to check if it has it). Don't use the intake-side fairings - these were camera fairings for monitoring stores separation on trials aircraft.

The IFR probe fairing would have looked like this:

As for changes to the rear panel - well a considerable amount of effort went into cockpit design, and it was finalised quite late on so I would not introduce any significant changes there (especially for the first batch into service). Ferranti did produce a mockup consisting mostly of three CRTs (piccy in TSR-2 - Phoenix or Folly?) but this was their concept only - it was not part of the final plan to my knowledge.

Just looking at the bolt on IFR probe, I hope that it would deploy outwards and upwards to get right out of the way of the intake. I can't imagine fuel spillage ingestion would be a good idea.

[Col.]

Glad to see this thread attracting plenty attention

Peter - did wonder if a laser range-finder would have found it's way on to the aircraft fairly early on in it's career, same with the arrestor gear. Not so sure if a major re-design of the undercarriage would have been practical but an interesting point about some form of internal ladder or steps. Although the latter were not a feature of the Jag I dare say there was more room in the TSR.2 airframe.

John Aero - would the advent of solid-state electronics have arrived in time to save the day? Dare say the aircraft could have continued in other roles as did those other types already in service.

Walrus - I'll see if those are still available as back-issues since they all sound very interesting. Either that or I'll be pestering you for months to come!

Mish - great minds think alike and all that As I come across information I'll let you know in case there is anything that may be of interest to you.

[Jabba]

Jabba - nice build, was this one powered by imagination or did you have some references to hand? Although I'm mindful of Geoff B's comments in a couple of areas it's always good to see someone's thoughts on a project.

This was all powered by my imagination and some sort of logical thinking, as I built it before all the issues of MAM came out with lots of refs in them. You may have noticed that I have put the refuelling probe on the other side from where all the refs put it.

[JagRigger]

Glad to see this thread attracting plenty attention

........an interesting point about some form of internal ladder or steps. Although the latter were not a feature of the Jag I dare say there was more room in the TSR.2 airframe.

Oh yes it was - at least on the GR !

[DamienB]

Definitely designed to carry external stores and do more than nuke things. Forget this 'one trick pony' idea that people are putting forward. In fact one of the big problems with the project was the expense of dealing with all of the different tasks the customer wanted the jet to carry out.

Gold inlay in canopies and windscreens was for heating/demisting purposes.

[dambuster]

Regards the weapons pylons, I wonder if a design for the various wing pylons was ever finalised. I've always thought that the resin aftermarket If you think of an aircraft travelling at Mach2 you can appreciate that the distance between the released store and the rapidly approaching tailplane would have been measured in hundredths of a second at best. Maybe

Not a problem as long as the deceleration of the store was less than the acceleration caused by gravity measured over the time it takes to travel clear of the tailplane.

However the easy answer is to use ejector mechanisms which forcibly accelerate the store away in a vertical direction.

Internal stores can also be a problem. Ever sen the video of released stores in a bomb bay refusing to drop and bouncing around inside after release? Unfortunately I can't remember the aircraft type...

Peter

[Geoff_B]

Regards the weapons pylons, I wonder if a design for the various wing pylons was ever finalised. I've always thought that the resin aftermarket ones released for the 1:72 scale kit were not deep enough. The design of the aircraft, with a high mounted wing and low mounted elevators, would mean that any stores carried on the pylon would need to be at least in line with the level of the elevators, so that they would have sufficient time to clear the tailplane once released. If you think of an aircraft travelling at Mach2 you can appreciate that the distance between the released store and the rapidly approaching tailplane would have been measured in hundredths of a second at best. Maybe as mentioned before, the aircraft was never intended to carry external stores, just a single nuclear weapon in the bombay and maybe this would have contributed to a relatively short service life, once the nuclear role had passed onto Polaris. This factor of course would not have affected forward-firing weapons ie. missiles, so perhaps an anti-shipping role with Sea Eagle or some other role like that would have been possible?

Gary.

The TSR2 had different Pylons for different jobs, the ones issued by MAM were for carrying the low profile bombs. The larger pylons issued with the drop tanks could also be used for the larger 2000lb weapons and had sway braces fitted. For ASGW such as AS-30 and then later AS-37 Martel different pylons were required with the inner pylons deeper than the outer ones.

BTW Some of the drop tanks envisaged were the semi conformal ones similar in style to the Gnats as there were thought to be better for higher speeds and no pylon was required.

The thing to remember was the TSR2 was the first strike aircraft built intended to carry weapons at supersonic speeds, and this had a great bearing on the way the external stores were carried, those weapons not designed for prolonged supersonic flight were to be carried in the bomb bay. Plus the P1154 Harrier was to provide the close support to the front line so it would carry the conventional bombs and rockets in the role subsequently taken up by the P1127 Harrier and the Jaguar GR1.

Geoff

[DamienB]

Not heard the one about heating/demisting before. How did that work then?

Very thin layers of gold can be heated electrically; they also have the handy side effect of being quite effective filters for IR and UV, so they become insulating sunshields too - all very handy.

Some details of the Triplex transparencies used on Concorde (basically identical to the TSR2 's transparencies) can be found here in an old issue of Flight

Edited February 18, 2009 by DamienB

[Paddy]

I'm with you on this one Col. Not interested in A was better than B, like you in my world she went into service and did very well thank you.

Yes this was the Model that inspired me.

And there is me still Burning as a heretic and your no longer intrested !!

Thats the last time i go up in a puff of smoke for you !!

[AnonymousFO98]

Hi Col

there was also a MAM Part 5 covering the recon Electronic Countermeasures role!

haven't dug that one out yet

[Col.]

Jagrigger - you got me there, never knew that. That'll teach me to keep it shut about stuff I don't know

Nice to see an informed and civil debate on the issue of stores and the canopy tint, sure I'm not alone in learning a lot about this aircraft. So far I had not given much thought to those areas but it's all good and useful information. So far I've been concerned with any potential camouflage schemes and found the latest MAM article very interesting Seems one of the main issues was heat from sustained supersonic flight and the need to develop different types of paint to suit. This also ended an idea of painting the underside silver in a similar scheme to that used by the Hunter.

Walrus - an ECM-tasked TSR.2 sounds very interesting!

[AnonymousFO98]

will dig that one out as well Col!

the sparky has gone YAY just need to tidy up- a lot so please bear with me

would have thought the initial momentum would mean the released payload "travelling" with the aircraft as mentioned above, before gravity takes over.

I recall a problem with one of the V bombers using concrete bomb substitutes for testing release of Blue Danube? please forgive my ignorance.

Crew slightly disconcerted that the airflow in the bomb bay kept the "bomb" inside the aircraft after release!

am sure there would have been teething troubles regarding payloads under the wings - there usually are glitches in development. but there is usually some smart boffin with a solution!

[ReccePhreak]

Hi Col

there was also a MAM Part 5 covering the recon Electronic Countermeasures role!

haven't dug that one out yet

I would definitely be interested in any info from that part.

Larry

[KS-Flyer]

I'm a noob in regards to the TSR2, so please bear with me.

Since the TSR2 was primarily a strike aircraft, would it have any use for an IRST or any IR viewing systems? Granted this is the 1960s, but for a What-If, this could be a possibility for a future upgrade.

Would something like the undernose fairings on the Tornado work? Or something more integrated with the airframe?

More food for thought as I too hope to build my own What-If TSR2 this year.

-Jeff

[kstater94]

I'm a noob in regards to the TSR2, so please bear with me.

Since the TSR2 was primarily a strike aircraft, would it have any use for an IRST or any IR viewing systems? Granted this is the 1960s, but for a What-If, this could be a possibility for a future upgrade.

Would something like the undernose fairings on the Tornado work? Or something more integrated with the airframe?

More food for thought as I too hope to build my own What-If TSR2 this year.

-Jeff

Good thought!

Not that I'm really a "What-If" modeler, but I like the thought of a PIRATE sensor on the side of the nose like you see on the Typhoon

Hmm.....

[Alan P]

I'm sure if it had reached service it would have been binned on cost grounds in the mid-to-late 80's or post-Cold War at the latest. This would have put a technology freeze on it in about 1985 - before smart bombs, laser-designation or FLIR. I imagine that apart from an IFR probe it would have looked externally similar as most avionics and electronics upgrades would have been easily accommodated internally.

External stores would probably have been Sidewinders or fuel tank carriage - I imagine all other offensive armament would have been kept internal other than oddities like JP233.

Despite its capabilities, i'm sure the TSR.2 would have followed its equally highly-rated, cutting edge contemporaries like the RA-5C and FB-111A into a relatively early oblivion.

[Col.]

There is a painting showing the TSR.2 in wraparound camouflage with a Tornado-type laser targeting pod under the nose so you could always take that for inspiration and argue that was the machine you were representing I suppose.

As for cost killing off the service life of such an expensive aircraft, well it's always a likelyhood if history is anything to go by but perhaps if the aircraft had been an export success there would have been more enthusisasim to continue developing the design and exploiting it capabilities. With regard to internal equipment uprades, from what I understand that was factored in from the outset. Only issue from our point of view would be any external aerials.

It's for these very reasons I'd like to build mine as an initial production machine - less WiF-factors to get myself confused about

[Gmat]

So true.

But that won't stop me from enjoying its fine lines and imagining what might have been.

If the whole tail pivots, wonder if they would have scabbed the rear rhaw on each side of the rear fuselage, or put it on bullet fairings like the F-111?

Wonder why Hasegawa didn't release an F-111K Merlin rather than the RAAF F-111A/G.

Grant