50 years ago today at Boscombe Down...
Discussion
Hooli said:
Mave said:
DamienB said:
Sorry, total nonsense. TSR2 top speed ever reached - Mach 1.12. Lightning top speed - Mach 2+.
Not nonsense in the context of the flight testing covered. Higher top speed does not equal faster acceleration or faster climb.Mave said:
Not nonsense in the context of the flight testing covered. Higher top speed does not equal faster acceleration or faster climb.
Absolutely, totally, 100% nonsense.The TSR2 was a big, heavy, bomber. The Lightning had a substantially higher thrust to weight ratio and was sat in trail behind the TSR2 on cold power. *Of course* the TSR2 pulled away once it lit reheat! But it did so for a few seconds only, the Lightning caught up in moments and the entire summary of this event in the flight test report is that the Lightning was briefly left behind in the transition. It really surprises me how people are still trumpeting this little myth as fact without stopping to even think about it.
As it's PH, imagine you are driving behind a nice big Mondeo, in your nice little Elise. The Mondeo floors it. Now, is he going to accelerate away from you? Yes. Will you have to press your loud pedal to catch up? Yes. Does this mean the Mondeo is faster than your Elise because you had to - gasp - go faster to catch him?
DamienB said:
Absolutely, totally, 100% nonsense.
The TSR2 was a big, heavy, bomber. The Lightning had a substantially higher thrust to weight ratio and was sat in trail behind the TSR2 on cold power. *Of course* the TSR2 pulled away once it lit reheat! But it did so for a few seconds only, the Lightning caught up in moments and the entire summary of this event in the flight test report is that the Lightning was briefly left behind in the transition. It really surprises me how people are still trumpeting this little myth as fact without stopping to even think about it.
As it's PH, imagine you are driving behind a nice big Mondeo, in your nice little Elise. The Mondeo floors it. Now, is he going to accelerate away from you? Yes. Will you have to press your loud pedal to catch up? Yes. Does this mean the Mondeo is faster than your Elise because you had to - gasp - go faster to catch him?
I sometimes wonder if there are more myths revolving around the TSR2 than actual facts.The TSR2 was a big, heavy, bomber. The Lightning had a substantially higher thrust to weight ratio and was sat in trail behind the TSR2 on cold power. *Of course* the TSR2 pulled away once it lit reheat! But it did so for a few seconds only, the Lightning caught up in moments and the entire summary of this event in the flight test report is that the Lightning was briefly left behind in the transition. It really surprises me how people are still trumpeting this little myth as fact without stopping to even think about it.
As it's PH, imagine you are driving behind a nice big Mondeo, in your nice little Elise. The Mondeo floors it. Now, is he going to accelerate away from you? Yes. Will you have to press your loud pedal to catch up? Yes. Does this mean the Mondeo is faster than your Elise because you had to - gasp - go faster to catch him?
DamienB said:
Buy him a proper book then not a pamphlet... www.tsr2.info
Thanks, I think he already has that one though dr_gn said:
Seight_Returns said:
Do we know what "name" the TSR2 would have been given when it entered service ? Or would it have been one of the few British aircraft to be known by alphanumeric codes (VC-10, BAC1-11 etc) ?
There was a previous "TSR II" in service: The Fairey Swordfish, although the initials meat Torpedo Spotter Reconnaissance rather than Tactical Strike ReconnaisanceThe TSR2 does still inspire many arguments for and against. But I think it was right to cancel. At the time it was the most complex weapons system in development, and I mean weapons system as opposed to aircraft! no one in the world was building an integrated airframe and nav attack system anything like it and the electronics and side scan nav radar were a massive step change beyond what was in service or in development elsewhere. It pushed the boundarys of technology beyond what was realistic at the time and had it gone ahead, would probably have taken many years to iron out the bugs and get working efficiently and reliably.
The cost was also phenomenal - what else would we have had to cancel to provide the money to develop it? The Harrier, the Anglo French helicopter programme (Lynx, Puma, Gazelle) which were politically important, etc etc.
The real pity iof that era for me is that the Buccaneer was never properly developed and exported, partly because it got caught up in the post TSR2 inter service politics!
DamienB said:
V8 Fettler said:
Function defines form. Lightning couldn't catch one in test flights, so quite nippy.
Sorry, total nonsense. TSR2 top speed ever reached - Mach 1.12. Lightning top speed - Mach 2+.However your comment rather disengenuously fails to address the fact that TSR2 was designed to be supersonic at low level. Lightning, on the other hand, was limited to 650kts IAS. Above this speed the radome was not guaranteed to stay intact - somewhat worrying given the position of said radome. Indeed, with an IFR probe fitted Lightning was further limited to 625 kts.
You might want to learn about the IAS vs TAS/Mach No vs Altitude relationship before you start throwing around such glibly dismissive comments.
All this is moot, however, given the rate of fuel burn of the Lightning. Many years ago I held on LTF and, whilst flying in a T5 we attempted to chase down a Buccaneer at low level over the sea. Needless to say, it strolled away from us.
As it happens I believe that the cancellation of TSR2 was correct, albeit for the wrong reasons. Had we stayed with it we would have had a superb long range interdictor/strike capability, but we would have ended up in a cul de sac. TSR2 would not have been the right asset for BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) nor would it have been right for Maritime Attack, and it certainly wouldn't have been the right platform for CAS (Close Air Support). As a result we wouldn't have ended up with F4, Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado (nor, indeed C130).
The idea that F111 would have been better/cheaper is also patent rubbish. At the time of the cancellation of TSR2, F111 had no capability (and nor would it for many years) and the per unit cost being bandied around was pure pie in the sky (as evidenced by the eventual cost). Furthermore, aside from range, the capability of F111 never really approached that of Tornado GR1. Indeed US low level strike/attack capability did not approach that of Tornado until the advent of the F15E Strike Eagle (and even that was bettered by GR4). Again, F111 would not have been the right asset for BAI nor CAS for the same reasons that TSR2 was wrong.
DamienB said:
Mave said:
Not nonsense in the context of the flight testing covered. Higher top speed does not equal faster acceleration or faster climb.
Absolutely, totally, 100% nonsense.The TSR2 was a big, heavy, bomber. The Lightning had a substantially higher thrust to weight ratio and was sat in trail behind the TSR2 on cold power. *Of course* the TSR2 pulled away once it lit reheat! But it did so for a few seconds only, the Lightning caught up in moments and the entire summary of this event in the flight test report is that the Lightning was briefly left behind in the transition. It really surprises me how people are still trumpeting this little myth as fact without stopping to even think about it.
As it's PH, imagine you are driving behind a nice big Mondeo, in your nice little Elise. The Mondeo floors it. Now, is he going to accelerate away from you? Yes. Will you have to press your loud pedal to catch up? Yes. Does this mean the Mondeo is faster than your Elise because you had to - gasp - go faster to catch him?
FourWheelDrift said:
Example thrust/weight ratios from the Internet.
Harrier 1.1
F-22 1.09
Typhoon 1.07
Lightning 0.78
TSR2 0.59
Concorde 0.37
Wikipedia I presume? Can you find the thrust and weight combinations which actually give those thrust / weight ratios? Interestingly those numbers also illustrate a point I was going to make about basing transonic acceleration on SLS T/W ratios- after all, everyone knows a harrier has better transonic acceleration than a typhoon or lightning, right? ;-)Harrier 1.1
F-22 1.09
Typhoon 1.07
Lightning 0.78
TSR2 0.59
Concorde 0.37
Mave said:
Hooli said:
Mave said:
DamienB said:
Sorry, total nonsense. TSR2 top speed ever reached - Mach 1.12. Lightning top speed - Mach 2+.
Not nonsense in the context of the flight testing covered. Higher top speed does not equal faster acceleration or faster climb.Secondly on fighter aircraft you tend to see disproportionate drag from lots of little things from radio antennas, refuelling probes, instruments, radars cooling inlets.
The lightning was able to supercruise at about the mach 1.3-1.5 range at altitude.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff