50 years ago today at Boscombe Down...
Discussion
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
In your book you clearly state that TSR2 was fitted with a Doppler Radar because the IN could not measure drift due to wind.
Would you like to explain to us all here just why an IN can not measure such?
No, I say that the stable platform component of the TSR2's overall INS could not detect displacement due to wind and then put my foot in it somewhat by trying to produce a simplified explanation as to why (the moving air mass comment). The overall INS was made up of stable platform for attitude and heading/velocities in space, doppler for drift/speed relative to the ground, central computing system with air data inputs and thus could detect drift as part of the overall system.Would you like to explain to us all here just why an IN can not measure such?
John Forbat's book is rather better than mine at explaining the intricacies (and unreliability and inaccuracies) of the navigation system - but as that's basically what that book is about (setting aside the non-TSR2 stuff later on), it's hardly surprising, and it is a very technical read indeed. I wasn't aiming for that level of detail.
telecat said:
ALthough the TSR2 was rated at MACH 2.35 in "Dash" mode. Its theoretical maximum speed was Mach 3 in level flight at 45,000 ft (14,000 m). I doubt the airframe would have taken that very often unless it was uprated.
The aircraft's design mach number, as of 1961, was 2.25. Beyond Mach 1.5 it would be uncontrollable without artificial stability measures - a fin auto-stiffener and augmented yaw and roll dampers. However by 1964 wind tunnel testing had shown them that the design was more unstable above Mach 1.5 than expected, and the aircraft would be struggling to sit at Mach 1.7 without becoming uncontrollable - despite the auto-stiffener. I interviewed their head wind tunnel man of the time and he was firmly of the opinion that it would 'swap ends' above Mach 1.5. They tried a *lot* of tweaks to the airframe (some drastically ugly bits were bolted on to models!) to improve stability at high mach numbers and were really struggling on this point right up until cancellation (by which time the RAF had agreed to a Mach 2.0 design aim, a Mach 1.7 guarantee point, and Mach 1.5 as a service limit).Also, as you say, the airframe itself would not survive it. The materials used would be suffering badly at much above Mach 2. Most of the external stores being discussed were firmly subsonic carriage only as well - but as you can see the sea level continuous speed had been reduced to Mach 0.9 by then anyway.
DamienB said:
V8 Fettler said:
During an early test flight, Dell (Lightning on reheat, both engines) reported that he could not catch the TSR2 when the latter was using reheat on one engine. Perhaps he was mistaken?
You're mistaken - this is the story I am referring to. He certainly *could* and *did* catch the TSR2, in a matter of seconds, as soon as he engaged reheat. As I've already posted, the Lightning was only briefly left behind.
No, afraid no new tool TSR2, not that it's very old, think it was the very last effort by the "Humbrol" era Airfix. Only injection moulded kit in town hence no real reason to do an improved one.
Oddly the Japanese absolutely love it as a kit subject, as it was featured in a anime cartoon series as the "Stratos 4" meteor sweeping spaceship
Oddly the Japanese absolutely love it as a kit subject, as it was featured in a anime cartoon series as the "Stratos 4" meteor sweeping spaceship
I didn't really think a new one was in the offing, to be honest. It's a pity it was released just as the "old guard" was bowing out. I'm sure a Hornby funded version would have been crisper and better fitting.
However, as you say, it is the only game in town in 1/72 and if you really want a TSR2 in that scale, this is it.
I think it's eminently buildable. I just need to summon up the momentum to take a run at it.
However, as you say, it is the only game in town in 1/72 and if you really want a TSR2 in that scale, this is it.
I think it's eminently buildable. I just need to summon up the momentum to take a run at it.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
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.
Can you explain the Buccaneer/lightning tale in more basic terms for us amateurs please. LTF ?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.
Thanks in advance.
LTF stands for Lightning Training Flight. In the latter years of Lightning service with the RAF, they were all based at Binbrook in Lincolnshire. The LTF was set up at the base to train newcomers to Lightnings before they transferred to an operational squadron.
Prior to the establishment of the LTF, Lightning conversion was run by 226 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit).
Prior to the establishment of the LTF, Lightning conversion was run by 226 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit).
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff