Re: TSR.2 Outside
- From: Peter Stickney <p_stickney@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:30:01 GMT
Eeyore wrote:
John Carrier wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Arndt wrote:
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/TSR2%20003.jpg
It's CRIMINAL that project not not so much cancelled as deliberately
sabotaged.
I know a RN Lt Commander in the Fleet Air Arm who was involved with it.
He says it was VERY political.
But aren't almost all such programs political to some degree? Sometimes
at
the service level, sometimes at the national level. On occasion, the
aircraft cooperates, is truly abominable, and is best cancelled.
Sometimes a competing design is better.
I think The TSR2's enemy was cost. The government in power during its
development (MacMillan, Home?) was not happy with the price tag
associated
with the machine. When Labour took charge in 1964 (Wilson) that was all
she wrote.
It wasn't just cost, but Labour's combined inbuilt National Inferiority
Complez and hatred for British Industry.
Yabbut, the F111 selected as the alternative cost-escalated far worse. For
Christ's sake they had TSR2s FLYING when it was cancelled. And flying
totally to spec ! In fact the test pilots LOVED them.
They had one TSR.2 flying, and it was only flown by company test pilots.
That being said, it should be pointed out that TSR.2 had made a few general
handling and initial envelope expansion flights. These flights had been
bedeviled by persistant engine problems (The main shaft resonating like a
bell, for example) and other system issues. Not unusual for a new
prototype with new engines, but enough for naysayers to get an edge in.
Also - there had been no weapon system and sensor integration, no weapons
trials at all, no separation clearances - the airplane was a long way from
being proven, and there were many pitfalls to be overcome.
And how would an F111 take off from a carrier ?
Like every other jet - it used it's own engines and the ship's
catapults.With full fuel and 6 Phoenixs aboard, it required 10 kts Wind
Over Deck. The bigger issue was landing -
with 62,000#, it required 23 kts WOD. That meant that a landing either had
to have burned down a lot of fue, or you jettisoned a batch of heavy,
expensive missiles.
In retrospect, a better fir for the TSR.2 would have been the A-5B
Vigilante. Strike loads would have been about the same, and range/radius
about the same as well. Don't forget that the Vigi had wing pylons as well
as the linear bomb bay.
--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Most Distinguished Allied Pilot of WW2?
- Next by Date: Re: Why British Gentlemen Whisky/Whiskey Drinkers Get Drunker Faster & More Often Than Equivalent Americans
- Previous by thread: Luftwaffe Rhino Phantom
- Next by thread: Re: TSR.2 Outside
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
