Added: 4 years ago
From: cavalier080854
Views: 162,589
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (229)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Fact is,TSR2 was practically a viable service machine when stupid pen pushers and short sighted ministers cut it short.18 were under construction at the time and in fact,as it turns out,the cost would have been offset as the tornado would have been unnecessary.It would still have been a first rate type in the 1990s and beyond.

  • saw this is an RAF museum a week ago..the shear size and unorthodox beauty just mesmerized me..1960s british aerospace technology was immense, if they just continued on....

  • All this crying over a completely unproven machine. Was it great? No way to know, but just because it could pull away form a Lightning, doesn't mean it could pull away from a missile.

  • @Gromit801 And what do you suppose Missile Technology was in the 1950s to mid 1960s , WHO'S IGNORANT?. F111 didnt become the ( US ) Navy's  Fleet Fighter coz it was , A USELESS , OVERBUDGET PIECE OF SHIT , that got redesignated as a recon plane , Fighter my ass . I think it is you who is Ignorant , this plane was a LEMON , A BIG MISTAKE .

  • What a f***ing amazing aircraft!!!!

  • @M374EVL When the TSR2 Project Got cancelled , certain people put in place and made sure that this Aircraft ( which was way ahead of its Time ) would never be built or flown again , all the tooling , schematics , specifications were all destroyed , all of the Fusalage's bar 2 were completely destroyed , they were all completly Gutted. Some of the project Engineers wanted to use one of the prototypes to use for future experiments and evaluation , permission was refused .......WHY?.

  • @completeaerogeek , I think it it you who needs to read up , The F111 was completly useless 8 years behind schedule , could not achieve what it was set out to do , ALL AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING FROM SCRATCH RUNS OVER TIME AND BUDGET , yes i agree, the Amalgamation didnt help , but , The Americans DID ( along with that prick Mountbatten ) Forced the Closure of the TSR2 Project , i suggest you do more Reading there are also DVDs on the Market , read Stephen Hastings book MURDER OF TSR2.

  • @colbro2009 yup tsr2 was far in front of anything produced by anyone at that time bloody politics

  • @colbro2009 Really? You're that ignorant? The ONLY thing the F-111 didn't do as originally designed, was become the US Navy's fleet defense fighter. That eventually fell to the F-14.

  • would be nice to see one of the survivors restored to flying condition they did it for the vulcan it should be done with this old bird too

  • The Americans FORCED the closure of the TSR2 Project , using WW2s Lend Lease on Arms to Britain as a Lever . IMMEDIATE payment required or Close your TSR2 project.......".WHY?", i ask you say , WELL they had invested Heavily in thier shitty F111 programme and if TSR2 ( to which Britain had buyers for) would have been put into mass production , it would have been Americas Aviation Industry and Government on its Knees . Why do you think everything including plans had to be destroyed? .

  • @colbro2009 Actually that isn't the case although I understand the feelings. The whole amalgamation of British aero companies for the TSR-2 was a big part of the problem. If you do some reading on the aircraft you will find that it was running way behind and over budget and many of the bugs were not solved before it was cancelled. Plus the Olympus engines had a nasty tendency to explode. The F-111 proved in the long run to be much more capable than the TSR-2 would have been (sadly).

  • the post war labour government also gave russia rolls royce jet engines/tech why anyone would vote for the commie lovers is beyond me

  • @1984nukesub

    Because Harold Wilson was a communist sympathizer.

  • I would like to stick all our politicians behind the reheat of a TSR-2.

  • Fantastic to see the TSR-2 at Duxford

  • The current government scrapped our aircraft carriers, scrapped the Nimrod replacement (that after obscene cost overruns, according to its test pilots was just weeks away from proving operational) and like the TSR-2, chopped up airframes just weeks later to ensure no one can reverse the cancellation. LibCons also wanted the scrapping of the Tornado aircraft for more cost savings, then just a few weeks later deployed them to attack Libyan forces. Have we learned nothing? Wright to your MP NOW!!!!

  • @kara2814 They have not scrapped our aircraft carriers. After all, Lusty and Ocean, and about a dozen other similar sized but limited-aircraft platforms are still floating around somewhere!

  • I just love the look of the aircraft @ 3:05. It's like it's saying, "Grr! Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!!!"

  • Comment removed

  • tsr was killed before she could really prove herself

  • The americans had a hand in its demise, at that time they were pushing their stuff as they do today.Here in Austalia we were thinking of this aircraft, but ended buying the F111. And didn't we pay for them, open ended contracts, somebody made a lot of money?

  • To say communism is no more is complete rubbish.What about China the new world leaders while the US and europe are in complete economic caos.The sad thing is we can not defend our selves against this huge giant neither economically neither military unfortunatly our leaders are just like Shagnarsty BLIND .

  • @Shagnarsty. With regards to just how advance the TSR2 was compaired to anything the USA had at the time, my childrens Godfather who worked on the programm, once told me just the same. The USA has always 'pinched' (all moving tail plane was another) technology from the British, rebranded it and claimed to be first. Noble and Green had better watch out and keep the blue prints of the 1K mph car under lock and key, if you know what I mean.

  • @1984nukesub I read somewhere that the American government paid a bounty to the UK to scrap the TSR design as the aircraft made all western military aircraft obselete.

    the rumour is that the Tsr2 was that advanced, that the technology used from build to flight was said to be 10 years ahead of the US.

  • @Shagnarsty well, these are always the consolatory rumors that losers tell each other, aren't they? just as with avro arrow, there were fundamental faults in the TSR2, not the least of which was the idiotic "cost plus" basis in which it was contracted. as it turns out, the RAF got along quite well without the arrow - the country is still here, communism is still no more, and so we are all better and wealthier for it not having been built. yes, it's a beautiful aircraft (one of my favorites)

  • Such a lovely aircraft... From a personal point of view though I always thought her wing area looked too small to make it manoeuverable... Not that I'd know anyway... :-)

  • @parkaoz you are correct but it was never intended to turn hard it was designed to do stupid speeds 200 feet off the deck hands off (due to the extremely advanced terrain following radar). the lightning was and still is just about the fastest accelerating plane on the planet but the tsr2 left 1 for dead without using full power!

  • Boscombe down, not far from my house and the base of my ATC squadron :)

  • Huuuum... Don't know... TSR seems to me a plane between american F-104 and that Navy recee plane Vigilante.

  • There is one of these at the Air Museum at RAF Cosford - West Midlands- Well worth a visit

  • @ludwigvonsteampole1 Thanks for that... I was just wondering if any examples survived and were on display anywhere... If I can ever make it to Britain someday I will definitely have a look...

  • Awesome ! He dusted a full throttle Lightning with only one engine on full. Shame this magnificent bird was cut. But just like America's Valkyrie and Canada's Arrow....governments often find it necessary to balance the books on the backs of success, while complete flops get all the funding and glory. Back in the Cold War days, the Russians would have shit themselves if the TSR 2 actually went operational. They wouldn't have had an answer for this machine for years....if ever.

  • As much as it pains me to admit it, if I recall correctly the project was costing £1m PER WEEK to keep running, so it's no surprise they cancelled it. An enormous shame because this was probably the peak of British engineering. A truly beautiful aircraft

  • An aircraft with great potential and British also. A shame on all those meddling inept self serving politicians who cancelled this project and who have destroyed our aircraft industry.

  • sorry for finishing every comment with an exclamation mark

  • @tommyboomboom Just about ANY remark about this aircraft HAS to be ended with an exclamation mark!

  • 3:06 that just looks like it's going to fuck you up. Makes you wonder what could have been. Apparently left the EE lightning camera chase plane trailing with just one afterburner on too :) and that was FAST, lets not forget lightning intercepted Concorde and a U2 spyplane aswel, i hate what if's.......

  • @bazman85

    correct the lightning was and still is 1 of the fastest accelarating planes ever to fly it was savage!

    the tsr2 that ran away from it was using 50,000 lb of thrust at most, the service variant wouldve had over 85,000 lb of thrust i honestly beleive that absolutely no plane on earth would get anywhere near it in a low level drag race

  • @1984nukesub

    And Harold Macmillan cancelled the bombs she was supposed to carry, lesson is never vote in a bloke called Harold.

  • I never really understood the big deal. It's one of the ugliest planes ever built.

  • @Stakker Definitely not, one of the most beautifully designed British aircraft!!

  • @holing007 I think it looks thick and unbalanced. Wings too small for such a massive boxy body.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the myth surrounding it, but find it hard to beleive when people say that had it been commissioned we'd be using it until the 21st century. it's hideous. It makes even the stumpy Tornado GR1 look sleek.

  • @Stakker you have no eyes!

  • @tommyboomboom It's only subjective, but it's a horribly ugly nose, far to short to be considered sleek. Terrible visibility, stumpy shoulder mounted wings, and a fat fuselage. Looks like a paper aeroplane or some six year old's attempt at drawing something aerodynamic.

    The only nice part of the design is the tail and engine exhausts which look as modern as the spec suggested.

  • @Stakker It's no Concorde or Valkyrie... but I' ve always liked its vulture-like stance. Like it actually wants to kill you!

  • @Stakker

    ugly nose? your opinion fine (i disagree though) too short? its 90 feet long so hardly a dwarf. stumpy wings? hell yeah it made it incredibly fast and smooth at low level (ie its intended domain)

    fat fuselage? are we looking at the same plane the fuse is tall and thin as is the whole plane

    tail and exhausts? i actually think these look older than the rest of the plane lol looks quite slabby to me

  • @eatthisvr6 haha, okay, now you're just being contrary for the sake of it.

  • @Stakker not at all mate we just disagree lol

  • killed by a naff labour govt who were going to get F111 so cancelled TSR2 and ended up doing neither.

    Its still happening today i.e carriers with no jets :(

  • When the TSR2 was cancelled, they smashed up all the production stuff, jigs etc and tried their hardest to bury the project without the public being aware of what it really would have done. It is surprising that any of the prototypes survived.

  • @spyderz1303 I got a tie , and of course TSR2 darts !!!!!! haha I worked at Filton !

  • @klnine Its sad that the only things left, are your ties, darts some film archive, and the prototype at Cosford (might be another one, somewhere,) I suppose a lot of the research and development lived on in other aircraft.

  • @spyderz1303 I never realised it but squint your eyes a little and you see concord.. of course was all from the same stable

    All the high tech alloys developed , of course, lived on ... Tornado and similar ! Another project ,like concord, that I suspect the Yanks killed !!!!!!!!! We were right behind the Germans at the end of the war on aircraft development. You know most yanks think the Harrier is there's ?

  • @spyderz1303 This plane should of had her life

  • @spyderz1303 It was covered up,she was to advanced for her day;s.The f111 was close behind and cheaper.If only the TsR2 may be in just going to reterment.

  • @britshop the f111 wasnt close behind at all they had MAJOR problems and it ended up 10 years late! this also made the cost skyrocket (even more than the tsr2)

    the tsr2 wouldve been in service earlier also wouldve cost less and wouldve been better than the f111.

    the vark ended up being a very good airplane and im not knocking it but for what its worth (nothing lol) im certain the tsr2 wouldve been better

  • Killed off by the Americans who always get so insanely jealous that someone else can build a decent plane. Years ahead of its time.

  • @coline264 that doesn't make any sense. How do you explain the cancellation of the XB-70? Were the Americans also sabotaging their own programs? After TSR2 the British were going to buy the F-111 and then the Skybolt. They cancelled both - did the Americans do that too? If the Americans have so much influence over the British government how come they allowed the Tornado and the Eurofighter to be built? I'm sorry the TSR-2 wasn't built but U should blame the stupid 1964 labour GB government.

  • @coline264 I think history shows that this was killed off by a number of sources; the excess of committees that frustrated the designers and builders, the Labour Secretaries of State for Defence and, surprisingly, the Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Louis Mountbatten, who took every opportunity to undermine the aircraft to the point of being bloody unscrupulous. He pretty much persuaded the Australians, who were very keen to place orders, to do an about face and look to the F111. Enemies within!

  • I always think the wings look tiny for the size of plane. I guess that shows what I know about aerodynamic design eh?

  • Comment removed

  • Why this beautiful bird never went into production beggars belief!

  • @leepatrick01

    An idiot Labour Defence minister Duncan Sands said quote "Manned aircraft are no longer required.' Something to do with US technology I believe. "The Brits inovate and the others make the money", someone said.

  • @ronjustincase Duncan Sands when minister of defense in Harold Macmillan's 1957 Conservative Government did say that and cancel most new projects, but he wasn't in the Labour Party. Besides being the Conservative minister of defense he was Churchill's son in law and my Dads commanding officer in Norway. Dad said his men also thought he was an idiot.

  • Beautiful aircraft, but it really shows the point of Nationalism being really useless in the long run. The F-111 and North American Valkyrie filled the TSR2 requirement perfectly, and could be obtained simply by purchasing.

    Let the giant countries like the U.S., China, India, and the Soviet Union manufacture the large systems, and smaller countries can focus on sensors, weapons, and engines, etc..

    It's really stupid to waste money on dozens of jet fighter/bomber programs running concurrently.

  • Good old Muew.........:-)

  • TSR 2 Faster than a Lightning !!!!!!OMG!!!!!!!

  • @darren181170 with only 1 engine on reheat! awesome!

  • @darren181170 That is true. Apparently, rumour has it that the Soviets filled their pants when they got wind of the potential of TSR2. It is strongly rumoured that they commissioned the Mig 25 interceptor as a direct result of the potential of TSR2. It would never have caught TSR2, because she was designed to fly supersonic at 50 feet and Mig 25 had no look down capability as far as I am aware........

  • I see similarity between the TSR2 and the FB1-11, But the F1-11 Aardvark did out perform the two with its complex radar and verable wing technology which is why this aircraft project was dismantled.

  • @nitojo7 thats just wrong

  • I bet the TSR 2 could go faster than mach 2.15! It accelerated away from an english electric lightning.

  • @G777GUN apparantly the airframe was capable of mach 3 in theory! how practical that was iv no idea and well never know

  • looks like the Avro Arrow!

  • On a visit to the Cold War Museum at Cosford, we were told about the fact that even the tooling had to be destroyed, disgraceful !

  • Yeah, typical Labour - they killed the 1950s .280 calibre EM2/Taden infantry weapon project (almost ballistically identical to the new US special forces round) to satisfy the Americans.

    No, wait - that was Winston Churchill, our Yank Arselicker-In-Chief. It was a LABOUR government who'd previously defied the US.

    MPs are shits whatever the stripe, but this "typical Labour" trope is bogus...Duncan Sandys, a Tory, did more to destroy UK aircraft production than anyone. Don't trust ANY party.

  • Yeah, and the fucking Labour Govt in my country (New Zealand) got rid of our jet fighters completely, as they said the money was better spent on fucking dole bludgers and lazy arse cunts that couldn't be fucked getting a job and want to live on government handouts.

  • @404Jeffery Ah -ha - you have them too eh? lol

  • In the flight testing the TSR2 with only 1 reheat on walked away from the english electric lightning chase plane, it had massive potential, the USA had nothing like it!

  • That is certainly true. But note the very high nose up attitude on short finals and landing:the view must have been horrendously poor. Tremendous machine nevertheless.

  • i dont know y, but i love this jet.

  • I heard the government stopped it.

  • If by some cosmic mistake the RAF does end up accepting a grot like you I guess that you could at lest be useful as a self propelled chock.

  • @Fromanttodugong haha maybe...cunt

  • No maybe's kid...... Unless your tongue is long enough to get the dog shit out of boot treads you don't have a chance in the RAF.

  • i take it your in the raf

  • Damn yanks made us sell that baby then they took the technology created the b2 stealth bomber, theyve done the same thing with the JCA

  • Okay, I don't see where you assume this machine had anything to do with the B-2. Worlds apart, my friend. They have about as much in common as the MiG-15 has to the F-16.

  • The yanks cheated us simple as

  • It's an incredible plane, leaving a lightening behind! The Lightening still holds the fastest climb rate to 50,000 feet of any jet fighter today, incuding the F-22. The Avro Arrow also came to the same fate as the TRS-2. Those damn yanks again, jealous bastards!

  • You are just talking complete rubbish; absolute and utter shite!

  • Jeżeli się nie mylę to był samolot konstrukcji kanadyjskiej ale amerykanie

    podobno"wyruchali" ich bez mydła!

  • the old RAF Jaguar fighter looks similar to that plane

  • Yeah it does, especially the landing gear. I wonder if there is a connection.

  • Beautiful aircraft. Shame she didn't go into service.

  • Everything made in the 60's should have been kept, even cars.

  • ....that has been the most temperate suggestion in this thread so far.

  • @MrMoorkey thank the treacherous Labour Party of Communist traitors for not allowing this amazing plane to go into service

    Harold Wilson the Commie Traitor even had the jigs & fixtures destroyed to appease Moscow ..bastard scum Labour Party

  • @AndyBUK2006 I was an apprentice at gloster aircraft training school during this period and although the factory closed down due to the cancellation, it was well understood that this aircraft in concept was well ahead of it's time, it also needed further technical development which was going to be expensive, there were no computer controls in those days and hedge hopping could have proved a hazardous experience.

  • Was this a jump jet like the harrier?

  • No.

  • No it certainly wasn't.

  • the P1154 VSTOL was to be the supersonic version of the Harrier. That too was cancelled (by you know who) along with the TSR 2 and HS 681 STOL transport.

  • who???

  • sexyest plane ever!!!!

  • yes the us gov. paid wilsons government a 26 billion dollar bride to kill it.

  • Typical Labour lets screw all aircraft engineers in the United Kingdom, MRA4 is no different

  • What an aircraft - scuppered by a crap Labour government of course who had to be Kow-towing to the Americans to buy their F-111 - which of course we didn't buy in the end as well.

  • the wheel is weak!!!

  • The undercarriage was very strong, a requirement for use on grass strips ment large wheels and long undercarriage struts. After all, in a possible neuclear war, most concrete air strips would have been targeted for distruction early on. So this TSR2 and the Harrier would have kept flying long after most aircraft had lost a place to land and take-off. Unfortunately the long undercarriage and large wheels produced complications in stowage, see other videos for the complicated retraction procedure.

  • @cavalier080854 dont forget the jagwaaaaar

  • Thanks for replying (I was a bit worried my comment would be seen as an 'insult' against the TSR-2)

    So the TSR-2 didn't suffer from the same problem as the Vigilante?

  • I'm reading a book by an ex-Fleet Air Arm/Empire Test Pilot, who says that the TSR-2 was unlikely to be particularly good at low level, because when he flew the A3 Vigilante he found that the cockpit swayed from side to side several inches (affecting his vision) from turbulance, due to the cockpit being at the end of a long, flat-side fusalage. He also pointed out that compared to the Buccaneer the TSR-2's turning circle was poor, and while it could go faster it used far more fuel doing so

  • What a shame. The TSR2 was a fabulous machine, I am so glad that there are still examples of this aeroplane left for future generations to admire and enjoy. Very sad how she resigned to history so prematurely. A testament to British aviation genius.

  • Little known fact, the Jaguar NAVWASS (Navigation and weapon aiming sub system) was a simplified version of TSR2, and Jaguar came a few years after the demise if TSR2

  • @shaun8195 yup it strikes me as a baby tsr2 much smaller and less capable but a similer plane in many ways

  • that plane looks BAD ASS!!!!

  • what's this about it being destroyed by Tony Benn?

  • The aeroplane was cancelled by the Labour Government of the time notably Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins. It was also due to pressure from the Americans as it absolutely and utterly outclassed their new aircraft the F-111 (which was rubbish) . TSR2 was years ahead of its time an absolutely magnificent aircraft and it was OURS, The cancellation of this project began the destruction of the British Aircraft Industry and this continued until we had no industries left. We were the best then.

  • you are absolutely right. The time of British inginuity ended and thus was born BAC and then the european consortium. Americans were jealous, we kept giving them all our engineering secrets, even how to break the sound barrier. We gave them that and Yeager became an icon.

  • TSR-2, P.1154 we're both cancelled, both amazing engineering and aviation feats, alot of political pressure at the time, Americans pushing Phantoms onto the RN (who had no interest in P.1154 anyway) and F-111K onto the RAF. There were problems with TSR-2 mainly being cost combined with the fact that in 1965 Britain was as good as bankrupt (thats why we ended up with Hercules instead of the far greater Short Belfast, it was one of the terms stipulated on the loan we received).

  • ontop of this there was the fact that it was a labour government whose only interest was making sure that the price of pipe tobacco didn't rise as not to piss off the working classes but i digress. P.1154 was cancelled and eventually we ended up with the far less capable Harrier (P.1127 Development with elements of P.1154 such as Avionics) which i can't imagine being a great deal cheaper than the P.1154

  • not sure why you think the Short Belfast was good, the c130 was and still is the best in its class, I am as upset as you about the US having helped kill of TSR2 but the c130 is a brilliant aircraft and loved by all her crews.

  • Herc wasn't ever in the same league as a Belfast; A400M IS though although Belfast did lack in range and speed(although major sources of drag were later rectified) although on a herc style payload Belfast would have had a good range which would make her more flexible than a herc in that respect.

    Belfast would still be serving now and perhaps a Herc mk.4/5-esque upgrade could have seen a new batch built in the 80s/90s and would have negated the requirement for A400m

  • a very accurate statement about the Belfast - a big and very capable aircraft...

  • how true

  • @ladymaud100 Wrong.

    - Over 4,000 combat F-111A missions were flown over Vietnam with only six combat losses.

    - During Desert Storm F-111Fs completed 3.2 successful strike missions for every unsuccessful one, making it the leading strike aircraft.

    On and on. Though controversial at times due to political reasons and some engineering which was worked out, the F-111 has had a magnificent operation record. It's one of the best fighter/attack aircraft ever built, proven in combat.

  • You know, you guys engaging in your "pissing contest" about who did what first, or who is better should just appreciate these innovations for what they are - great. No matter what country they originated from, all jet fighters are cool. Geez.

  • It must have been a real bitch to land!

  • wonderful airplane ruined by political buttwipes...much like the cf105 arrow.

  • Comment removed

  • Approach slightly wrong? Ahh the British gift for understatement. The undercarriage maust be damned tuff to deflect so many directions at that speed.

  • a quick 101 for you brownshaow13....

    THE BRITISH INVENTED THE JET ENGINE!

    Therefore we techincally "helped" everyone wanting to build a jet powered aircraft.

    please think before posting retarded comments!

  • umm if i remember u forgot the germans and italians did to at the same time

  • im not here to argue semantics, your post was retarded and my point speaks for itself. If it was a bait..... congrats, you succeeded

  • me either dont want to argue but i do agree that the british deserve credit for also inventin the jet engine sorry if i sounded like an ass

  • I apologise if i came across too harsh aswell mate, the whole "Britain invented the Russian War Giant" thing really gets my goat, I also agree that the other people working on jet propulsion at the time should also be as highly regarded as Sir Frank Whittle, in particular the German Hans von Ohain :)

  • k,well stand tall and prosper my friend

  • Might I offer a little summation to that thread chaps? Hans Von Ohain flew the little Heinkel in 1939 but it was powered by hydrogen gas. Not a practical propostion for full scale production. Whittle's engine was conventionally powered and served therfore as the progenitor for all pure turbine aircraft then on. Strictly speaking then, we didn't invent the jet engine exactly, We invented the first practical jet engine.

  • @lesserspottedgrebe A good start to be sure, but more accurately it was the start of jet "propulsion", much better forms of the jet engine were later developed, leaving Whittle's configuration with the centrifugal compressor in the dust of history. An ancestor to be sure, but a dead branch of the evolution with little in common with the turboshaft and turbofan jet engines of our modern day.

  • @rockyPants4000 ...."little in common with the turboshaft and turbofan jet engines of our modern day."

    Ha Ha Ha !

    You're funny. (In a stupid kind of way).

  • @rockyPants4000 The F!! failed miserably in it original mission concept. Answer: invent a new type of mission. It failed in that also. Answer. Invent another then, so the US did, 10 years after it should have been in use it finally made it. But it was out of date technically. Never the less a good aircraft eventually. Can't remember what its mission type was, there were so many.

  • @ronjustincase Wow, you have no idea what in the world you're talking about. None whatsoever.

  • When the first prototype was being assembled at the English Electic plant, the workers hadn´t seen anything like that in their lives, it looked like a rocket! A 30 meter aircraft packed with such advance systems, avionics, terrain following radars, computers and weapons delivery systems, that it was one of the first aircraft in history were al the accesory components cost the same as the entire aircraft.

  • Clap..clap! to Brithish engineers. Hell to the communists laborist party who used this marvelous piece of machinery in a three band pool game to destroy the british aerospace industry by forcing dozens of aircraft companies (wishing to compete for the TSR.2 project) to merge against their will. Little did they knew all was an orchestrated harakiri to decimate (in their words) "this desproportionate Monster that is draining our economy". TSR.2 was the last true bristish single aircraft project.

  • Just had a walk around XR220 today at Cosford. Amazing aircraft even just standing in a display hangar.

    At least she's in good company in the R&D hangar with the Avro 707, Bristol 188 etc.

    Thanks for posting.

  • victim of the WWF

  • so is the Lady, SR 71 ripeaces

  • Outrun a Lightning with reheat on just one engine. Nice!

  • The difference in performance is staggering. Contrast that with the SEPECAT Jaguar, which had to have one engine on partial reheat just to keep up with an in-flight refuelling aircraft.

  • My all time favourite aircraft.So far ahead of its time,both in speed and electronics.The usual happened......English government selling out !!! i.e. car companys,bike companys,any other amount of british companys you wish to mention.

  • it wasn't, every western country had similar if not superior prototypes in development at the time. its funny that both the brits and the canadians with their arrow both believe they were the only ones and get all resentful and conspiratorial and sh*t:P

  • Incorrect. If you wish to comment you should know what you are talking about. In terms of the complete package the TSR2 was considerably ahead of all rivals, and considerable progress was made in the development of onboard systems which was not equalled by others until a decades of so later. Political and managerial incompetence destroyed considerable innovation in the UK aircraft industry and this industry has not yet recovered.

  • lol its funny how each country claims that. i'd take such bluster with a grain of salt, esp when such "superiority" never saw the light of day.

  • Learn English and then learn to read. Technology and other sytems developed for the TSR-2 were used in the Typhoon as well as the Concorde projects. The TSR2 was developed in the early 60's and the amount of innovation contained in that project was very high. To whomever asked, R-5A (Vigilante) was 1956 vintage - it preceeded TSR-2.

  • @kaw1970 sums it up very well

  • Beautifull aircraft! British government made a mistake.

  • Wasnt this project bought out by Americans to kill it?

  • I think the russian plane in question was probaly the Mig 25 although the Americans claimed that it was modeled on the their Vigilante.

    Personally I think both planes resemble the TSR2.

    Its just a case of finding out which of the planes came first.

  • Pretty high angle of attack on landing there. Those wings sure are small...

  • One of the critical requirements for TSR2 was for a smooth ride at high speeds (supersonic) at low level (under 200feet) to reduce pilot fatigue. At the time, this could be only acceived with small wings. Testing showed that bumpiness was achieved at 1 per minuite, the Buccaneer, a plane known for its smooth ride, achieved 10 per minuite in similar tests at this altitude at much slower speeds.

  • I heard cancelled at bequest of the USA who had information that the Russians had infiltrated some of the partner production plants in Canada? Also ballastic missles were seen as the future (again think the USA had hand in killing off Blue Streak UK missle project in deal to supply Titan/Polaris). Anyway would have been superb plane. I think Russia did get hold of plans and copied but can't remember the model this turned out to be? Anyone?

  • I think it may have been the Americains who stole the plans, they called it the F-111.

  • Britain had not got enough money to fund such a project. Remember that this was the time of devaluation of the pound and major economic issues. TSR2s budget was running away and the government got scared. Very sad in many ways as it would have become a major aircraft. XR220 is housed 5 miles up the road from me at Cosford. She still looks modern.

  • TSR2 was canceled by Labour on cost grounds and the RAF eventually got the Buccaneer as a replacement after Harold Wilson and Co. had ordered and then canceled the F-111K. I clearly remember Dennis Healey on TV saying how much cheaper the Buccaneer was. The truth is though that once the total cost of both the TSR2 and F-111K - including cancellation costs of both - is added to the equation, each Buccaneer ended up costing the taxpayer more than TSR2 would have done.

  • TSR2 was a good demonstration of british capabilty in aircraft design. I've been interested in postwar design in the uk for some time and have been very surprised in our expertise. TSR2 was just one of a large number of mind bogling projects. The aircraft I REALLY would have liked to see was the English Electric P.10. A mach 3 ramjet powered recon/bomber!!

  • Gorgeous bird!

  • that plane is amazing there is one at RAF Duxford

  • The TSR2 was ahead of it's time because it was one brilliant aircraft but the Conservative government at the time decided that it was best to destroy our airforce rather than keep it alive so the TSR2 never flew again and they also destroyed the engineering plans for it so it will never be made again.

  • Unless i've misunderstood you, it was the Labour government which cancelled TSR2 and ended Bomber Command, both in the same year. You can find a video of the end of Bomber Command on YouTube. Labour also cancelled Hawker 1154 (VTOL Supersonic Fighter) earlier in the same year.