Classic British Flight Sim

Aeroplane Monthly just arrived for Feruary 2012!!!
It has a data base for the TSR2 which so far I have found interesting & in some respects it seems to cover some aspects better than the book by Tim Mclelland.
Not read it all yet, but I recommend it for TSR2 fans! (I am an ex TSR2 draughtsman at Weybridge!)
Keith

I have to say I was rather disappointed with the article - lots of errors, and perpetuates the 'wonderjet cancelled for unknown reasons' myth despite so much evidence to the contrary. I understand McLelland's book agrees with mine re cancellation reasons - i.e. simply became too expensive and looked like the cost was going to continue to spiral. Saying the reasons were "hidden in archives" and "embargoed" is just lazy writing as well as flat out wrong.

Dag nab it.. been out today too but didn't pop into the library (WH Smiths) Will try and talk the daughter into going out and securing a copy

Tks for the HU Keith.. you've done well out of the last 2 haven't you.. Vanguard and TSR2 one after t'other. If the TSR2 database has the same number of inaccuracies as the Vanguard, there will be a few!

ATB
DaveB

DamienB:
Errors - from where do you get your true facts?
As far as I'm concerned there was the cost aspect as well as weight was going over the 100,000lbs, although thats not surprising in a prototype.
There was also the exploding electronics development - it was at the time of the start of integrated circuits taking over from discrete transistors & I know our section leader was very dismayed at the excess weight needed for heatsinks in the equipment bay electronics.
One still has to consider the amount of flak that was being broadcast by a certain female (name escapes me at moment) who was very vocal & against the project, plus of course the Americans who were trying (& succeeded I think) to outsell TSR2 with the F111 - which had its own problems.
Technically I think it was a leap similar to Concorde & look at the hurdles & cost there!
Keith

Dev One wrote:DamienB:
Errors - from where do you get your true facts?

In one brief read through the article I spotted these:

Apparently the TSR2 was powered by the Olympus 302 (!); Freddie Page was appointed project leader by the government rather than BAC themselves; TSR designation is noted as being made in 1960 rather than 1959 and wrongly explains the '2'; claims Vickers wanted to use Brooklands for first flight (never on the cards - Wisley was their choice) and perpetuates a wholly inaccurate account of the arguments about first flight location; reheat system was 'complex' (by far the simplest part of the engine); ejector seats capable up to mach 2 (not even close!); terrain following radar was apparently Blue Parrot (that's the Buccaneer radar, not a TFR); what on earth is the lateral oblique radar?; the C in ECM apparently now means 'communications' rather than 'counter'; pic on p80 miscaptioned as being flight 5 is flight 7; pic at top of p82 miscaptioned as pre-flight attention (but she's tied down!); "all engine problems cured" in January 1965 (not so!); flight 7 saw successful undercarriage retraction (no it didn't, it went wrong - flight 10 was the first successful retraction); one landing was on foam (actually four did); flight 16 had 'several' rolls (pretty sure it was just one, which was foolhardy enough on its own); undercarriage tie struts 'eliminated' vibration problems (not entirely); TSR2 was cancelled 'without prior warning or consultation' (what, apart from the three months worth of consultations and discussions with BAC about getting the price down?). There's more...

Where do you get the true facts for these? Well, there's plenty of surviving documentation at Warton and Weybridge, and I've been through most of it. The National Archives also hold lots. The flight test reports can be referred to for getting things like flight numbers right, for instance.

As far as I'm concerned there was the cost aspect as well as weight was going over the 100,000lbs, although thats not surprising in a prototype.
There was also the exploding electronics development - it was at the time of the start of integrated circuits taking over from discrete transistors & I know our section leader was very dismayed at the excess weight needed for heatsinks in the equipment bay electronics.

They all devolve down into a cost at the end of the day - falling short on the spec due to being overweight means spending more money on trying to fix it - you'll no doubt remember the value engineering effort that was introduced to try and bring some sanity to production costs.

Technically I think it was a leap similar to Concorde & look at the hurdles & cost there!

I agree entirely - and I'm sure that's why BAC/British Aerospace/BAE/BAE Systems now prefer to get involved in multi-national projects where cancellation by one party is so much more difficult.

DamienB:
Thanks for your explanation & obvious research, although I think I must have left (Jan '64) before the value engineering aspect came to being. As for VE I only encountered that when working on the C5A wing in Southall.
I know the ejection system aim was for 650 kts, but the helmet loads would force the head off the pilot at that speed! (I found out about that when I joined the RAF IAM at Farnborough in '72).
Regards
Keith

What a coincidence - I have said magazine's TSR2 article open in front of me. It says that the TSR2 had the 2 because it was proposed as a replacement for the Canberra, which had been retrospectively labelled TSR1. So much for the Fairey Swordfish theory then. By the way, Rise of Flight enthusiasts might be interested to know that next month's Data Base will cover the Handley Page O/100 and O/400

Good article on the recently restored airworthy IL-2 Sturmovik too.

Dev One wrote:DamienB:
Thanks for your explanation & obvious research, although I think I must have left (Jan '64) before the value engineering aspect came to being.

Indeed - Feb 64 saw the introduction of VE.

Paul K wrote:What a coincidence - I have said magazine's TSR2 article open in front of me. It says that the TSR2 had the 2 because it was proposed as a replacement for the Canberra, which had been retrospectively labelled TSR1.

Yes, complete nonsense I'm afraid. The 2 simply stood for Mach 2, the aircraft's headline top speed - as confirmed by a member of the design team when I was researching for my book. As far as EE/Vickers were concerned there was no "TSR1".