Features footage from the Farnborough Air Sciences Trust (FAST) historic film archive including pioneering work into the research and development of British aviation, both civil and military, that took place at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). Some of the greatest advances in aviation technology emanated from its laboratories and workshops, and working alongside the scientists were expert photographers who filmed many of their extraordinary experiments. FAST has rescued much of this unique footage from imminent destruction, as part of its commitment to preserving Britain`s aviation heritage.The archive, which also includes a vast collection of photos, spans most of the 20th Century, and is available for commercial licencing.
A good book to read is Front Line and experimental flying with the fleet air arm by Geoff Higgs, he was probably flying in a lot of the trials on these videos.
The chief pilot uses the term "high incidence" multiple times - he knows what he's talking about I'm sure. Often of course "high incidence" equates to a high AoC. The term "high incidence" is used for a low speed stall at high altitude.
Very interesting. During my undergraduate apprenticeship at Warton , in about 1970, I spent 3 months in the Flight Test department. The Lightning spinning trials were over, and I helped prepare graphs from the telemetry tapes. A number of Lightnings had been lost during medium level high g tail chase manoeuvres. Recovery was achieved by “letting go” of the control column…..that’s how it was put to me, but it was probably by centralising the column, and not by trying to recover by pilot input. The A/C would roll and when unloaded, control was regained. If mishandled, then the ensuing spin , had such a high rate of descent that from medium level….15,000 ft…that recovery was impossible in the available height. The test aircraft was fitted with a tail chute .
My instructor on my Airborne Forward air controllers course had the most amazingly perfect set of teeth. His Jaguar , in a quote "controversial" configuration had departed low level and he was obliged to remove himself from the situation courtesy of Messers Martin and Baker unfortunately leaving part of his Jaw and teeth behind!😱 His recovery was a tribute to both the aforementioned designers and the NHS.
Was ground crew at Lossie 84 and nabbed a jolly in the backseat of 226OCU Jaguar, loved every second of low level flying through Scotland. Awesome memories 😁
Weirdly I remember as a kid seeing a burnt out harrier in Dunsfold....as there for ages! I mean well into the 70s. Its was basically a burnt out husk. Not sure if it was the same aircraft
That's me standing at the foot of the ramp, marshaling G-VTOL to its launch spot. I was a BAe flight test engineer on the project, and I was present for every one of the first 500 launches, at every exit angle from 6 to 20 degrees. I made 3 launches in the back seat of G-VTOL.
That is the first time I have seen an engineering drawing of the orifice, however I would still like to know where it was fitted and how it alleviated the negative G flooding.
Great video, reminds me when my father worked there, he told me of Guy the gorilla from London zoo had a go on there and learnt to hold onto the button, he let go at G9.
Very cool. Thanks for the video. I'd like to know the types of changes they were able to make to improve aircraft and training with the data gained from these tests.
It was not pilot error. It was a mechanical failure that caused an un-commanded roll. He bled to death because he did not have his equipment attached correctly. I knew. Charles Rosburg and flew with him in the B-47 in 1962. Read the accident report before making accusations.
Thank you so much for the clarification, George. There was no intention to make any accusations, especially if incorrect. It was simply the information that was in a captioned description at the start of the full video. Thanks for setting the record straight for your friend and colleague.
I was there. Aged 17. My father was the chief toolmaker at Vickers and a good friend of Roly. he took me to see this auspicious occasion. Then the Government screwed it up big time.
I don't think the TSR-2 was worthy of much of the acclaim it received. The most notable performance merit was that it was able to reach and exceed Mach 1 without reheat (Super cruise, which the F-35 can't do even 50 years later). Like the TSR-2, the Avro Arrow was touted as a super-plane that was mysteriously cancelled, but there is no mystery really. The economics of either off these planes was not very good. In the US, we would build a plane even if it did not make economic sense (B1B is a prime example) but the US had a far bigger tax base back in the day, and house members wanted to be able to give jobs to people in their districts, and nothing greases the re-election machine like new jobs.
Ironically the same audience which thinks the F-104 and B-58 were windowmakers that were too dangerous to fly worships the TSR2. The TSR2 first flew 10 years after the F-104 and 8 years after the B-58, and while its avionics would obviously benefit from progress during that period, aerodynamically it was hardly superior. About the same wing loading as the F-104 at max takeoff weight, and much more than the B-58. The straight wing of the F-104 was worth more per square foot than the highly swept delta of the TSR2. I wish this plane had been built just so we would have evidence of its mediocrity rather the constant lament by those who believe it was unjustly cancelled.
..it was also the victim of obsolete engineering... they went to split shock cone intakes (F-104, Mirage) when everybody else went to ramps (A3-J, Mig 25)
This was only the prototype. It's quite conceivable that the intake design might have evolved in later production versions. There was after all quite a lot of innovative design work going on in intake design for supersonic cruise for another aircraft under development around the same time that shared the same engines.
