50 years ago today at Boscombe Down...

50 years ago today at Boscombe Down...

Author
Discussion

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
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.
Was the TSR2 or Concorde people clam was quicker than Frightning because the Frightning had to use reheat to keep up while the test aircraft was testing it's reheat?
The concorde's ability to cruise at Mach 2+ without reheat gives some indication of its aerodynamic efficiency compared to the lightning.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
eccles said:
APF? wink
It was the name of Gerry Anderson's original film company. The logo appears in the opening credits of "Fireball XL5" and "Stingray".



He later formed a new company, "21st Century Productions"




DamienB

Original Poster:

1,189 posts

218 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
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?

eccles

13,720 posts

221 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
eccles said:
APF? wink
It was the name of Gerry Anderson's original film company. The logo appears in the opening credits of "Fireball XL5" and "Stingray".



He later formed a new company, "21st Century Productions"

Thanks for that. You know how some people get about acronyms. biggrin

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
APF was the actual name of the company (as you can see from the logo). I never knew what it meant myself until I read Anderson's biography only a few years ago. They only ever referred to themselves as APF.

I can see why he changed the company name later.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

Mr. Potato Head

1,142 posts

218 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
eccles said:
You know how some people get about acronyms. biggrin
laugh

BOBTEE

1,034 posts

163 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
DamienB said:
Buy him a proper book then not a pamphlet... www.tsr2.info
Thanks, I think he already has that one though smile

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
BOBTEE said:
Do you have a link as to where I could buy that please? Dad's b'day soon wink
It's still available in WH Smiths.

It's got some cracking - and depressing - photos in it.

andy97

4,691 posts

221 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all

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 Reconnaisance
The Swordfish was TSR 1, I think.

The 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!


Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
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+.
The comments from the Lightning chase pilot were more about ride quality at low level, and these were not surprising given that TSR2 was designed to be a high speed low level interdictor/strike aircraft with a high wing loading, whereas Lightning was designed to be a high level interceptor with a (relatively) low wing loading.

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.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Could TSR2 have bombed Port Stanley airfield from Ascension?

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Not unrefuelled.

Asi to FI is just over 3400 Nautical Miles. TSR2 combat radius was of the order of 750 Nautical Miles.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Was it specified at 1,000 NM - but couldn't do it?

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
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?
Go on then, what are the respective thrust/weight ratios? (and more tellingly, what are the SEP/weight ratios st that flight condition and climb rate?) smile

FourWheelDrift

88,381 posts

283 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
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

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
I'm not sure those figures are correct.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Was it specified at 1,000 NM - but couldn't do it?
IIRC the Operational Requirement called for a combat radius of 1000 nautical miles but, with a representative bomb load, TSR2 wasn't capable of that.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
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? ;-)

Talksteer

4,843 posts

232 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
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.
Was the TSR2 or Concorde people clam was quicker than Frightning because the Frightning had to use reheat to keep up while the test aircraft was testing it's reheat?
The concorde's ability to cruise at Mach 2+ without reheat gives some indication of its aerodynamic efficiency compared to the lightning.
Most of all it's simply a view of the square/cubed rule in action. Big things are fast and find it difficult to change direction little things accelerate and change direction quickly.

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.