Documentary of the TSR2 and reasons for its cancellation. If you enjoyed this video, and/or want to see further information, then why not watch the Brooklands Lecture in the TSR2 here: • The TSR2 Story - The B... #TSR2 #EnglishElectric
I remember that, even as a sixteen-year-old in 1965 when TSR-2 was cancelled, I was aware of the anger, disappointment and almost a sense of betrayal felt by so many in the UK over this superb aircraft.
@@heywoodjerbloume The one you saw was ordered burnt. Only a few cinders were left. The only devastating factor was the way all the detailed knowledge was destroyed by the destruction of the drawings. Remember how the Concorde ended ? It was unable to land on rough ground, one of the design capabilities of the TSR 2. If the Concorde had been able to land immediately the passengers and crew would have had a chance at evacuation. Additionally the high speed take off problem of the Concorde, the cause of the flight crash, had already been solved for the TSR 2, it used carefully placed holes in the wing to boost lift at low speed, allowing low speed take off, needed for taking off from grass run ways.
I joined the aviation industry in 1966. The industry was still reeling from the TSR2 cancellation and its destruction. Unlike other aircraft there were no drawing office records. The comments from engineers at the time were: “They destroyed TSR2 but they haven’t destroyed what is in our heads!” I learned more in the next two years than the whole of my degree course (except drinking beer!) Harold Wilson went on about “ The white heat of technology” but he cut the British aviation, avionics and electronics industry off at the knees. I like many at the time joined the “Brain Drain” and emigrated.
The TSR 2 was the root platform for Concorde.. it was THE most advanced aircraft we had ever produced. Harold Wilson’s government totally did it in.. we swallowed promises from the Americans of the F4 Phantom and later the F1-11. The Rolls Royce engines took year to engineer into the F4 airframes and the F1-11 took years to develop.. this was the end of our OWN aircraft industry.. thank you Harold Wilson and Dennis Healey.. we could have had such a fantastic aircraft that could have flown well into Eastern Block airspace without ever breaking a sweat..What gets me is Healey trying to justify his actions in this!! This documentary is excellent... many thanks
The TSR2 was a magnificent failure. The wing was too small, the payload too small and the range less than promised. The Olympus engines suffered from 'Bell Mode' that took years to solve. The F-111 outperformed the TSR2 in every aspect. Look at the stats for yourself. The RAF was a tiny customer and there was no export market for TSR2. The simple truth is the UK was broke at the time and couldn't afford years of more expensive development. Read Damien Burke's excellent book for a reality check.
Hello from Canada. The parallels of the TSR2 account to the history of the Avro Arrow in Canada are uncanny. I got the feeling I was watching the same story with different actors, carried out a decade later in a different part of the world. - The Arrow was developed in Canada in the 1950s. The characteristics of the aircraft were remarkably similar to the TSR2 which came in the 1960s. Even certain similarities in the appearance of the aircraft are notable. - test flown above mach 1, with anticipated Mach 2 capability. - Capabilities instantly admired by the test pilots who flew it. - anticipated sales opportunity to other nations, even to the USA whose aircraft development at that time was somewhat behind the capabilities exhibited by the Arrow. - project suddenly cancelled after a change in the party governing. - in the case of the Arrow the reason given was that missile development had made interceptors superfluous. This was later to be proven a premature notion. - The few prototypes destroyed, attempting to erase it from history, as it were. - People involved in the development who lost their occupations drifted off to positions in the US aerospace industry. - Royal Canadian Air Force, instead of being able to purchase a home-grown product, later purchased aircraft from the US which had similar capabilities to the Arrow. - Lost opportunity for Canadian aerospace industry to lead the world in many aspects. - And, even to the present day, an aircraft fondly remembered and whose demise was lamented by many who were involved in the project or who were alive at the time.
I used to work at Lucas Aerospace and now it's just a waste land. I was made redundant during Margaret Thatcher,s goverment sell off of our major technical industries. So very sad to see both the UK and Canada losing such incredible talent and technology to the USA and also the scrap heap😭😭.
This whole episode shows the labour party cannot be trusted to run our country and defence needs should be handled by a special commity not the government
Yes, sir. You are right!! And as more I learn from these documentaries, and similar sourses, the more I only see that!! How shamefull!!( Sorry for my bad english )
I was an RAF Apprentice in 1970 at RAF Halton, They used a few items from the TSR2 as training aids, I remember the Canopy with a very thin layer of gold embedded, gave it a opaque look. Hydraulic and undercarriage items were also used.
@@MrLamchp you seem to have the same problem we have, POLITICIANS, an awkward question. how many politicians lined their bank balances, with US $ , in cancelling both aircraft.
Could it be that Uncle Sam wielded a cudgel to see the death of two competitors in different fields both of which far surpassed the offerings from the US aircraft industry.
The same Government Ministers that did for Handley Page where my father was Chief Test Pilot-he spoke to us often about the tragedy of the TSR-2 and the UK Gov selling out to the Americans who were terrified of our advances in this field of aviation. He took me to see the shell of one at Cranfield and next to his own beloved Victor, it remains my next favourite plane. Tragedy.
Dennis Healey lied when he said he did not order it scrapped. See his eyes turn away from who he was speaking to when he said that, then shift back to looking at him after the lie. He was definitely involved as were Jenkins, Wilson and main protagonist Mountbatten.
@@LifesVoyager too bloody right! First lesson any aspiring politician takes in is to be a consummate liar from the age of 10. lol the second is the ability to never answer a direct question!
My mother quipped Healey and Wilson were pro Soviet communists and cancelled the TSR2 on orders from Brezhnev...55 years later she may not have been so far wrong.
Wilson was the one who told the Warton work force-your jobs are safe,this was before the 1964 election.After winning he then cancelled the project! "It was like flying a giant lightning" Test pilots description!
My late brother in law worked on this at Boscombe Down in the sixties. He was a man of huge experience on many aircraft, from being in the fleet arm arm right through to Boscombe. He thought that it was a world beater right from the word go. He would never stop talking about how incredible it was. He and the plane both sadly gone now, like many others consigned to the scrap heap. Sold out to the Americans for it's technical ability by a bunch of traitorous politicians.
@@grahamthebaronhesketh. Really? The Americans wanted the technology so badly that they did a deal with our Government of the time to get their hands on it. Most of the fighter planes flying today use the same tech first used on the TSR2. Similarly with the Harrier jump jet, which we stopped using and the yanks took on, and are still using. You clearly have no idea!!!
Yakuta Go • I think you are confusing the roles here. Yes, the MIG 25 was unveiled in '67 & had Mach 3 performance in a dash - ( but not in sustained flight ) because it was an Interceptor. TSR -2 was designed as a Strike / Reconnaissance platform with excellent flight characteristics at high altitude down to low level. The clue was in the name: TACTICAL STRIKE RECONNAISSANCE. And the only reason it did not achieve all of its performance objectives was because of project cancellation. Even today, it is clearly obvious that the aircraft would have met -- AND exceeded these goals because of superior design.
As a retired civil engineer I can tell you that what you said is a fact. Politicians are more worried about the bottom line and what they hear from their constituents than what is fact. The classic example is that of requesting a stop light. Considering that a roadway is designed for a particular traffic flow when a stop light is installed it changes the traffic pattern from what the road was initially designed for. Without a design study this can really mess up a traffic pattern.
But they had to consider the full economy, which was under threat because nobody (foreign governments and foreign currency traders) wanted to buy the Pound due to poor economic figures. This documentary misses this out.
@@markbailey3508 not so much the pen-pushers but the Generals. The US Marine Corp are looking at getting rid of their tanks after a series of war games in 2018-2019. But unlike the USMC our tanks haven't had upgrades since coming into service. The Dutch got rid of their tanks and then a few years later they bought some more.
interesting that the TSR2 and Canadian Swift were both shut down and their potential customers bought F111 . Similar tactics were employed by the starfighter sales
"Similar tactics were employed by the Starfighter sales" By which you mean the bribes paid to various people in decision making positions? That bit them on the arse. I suppose selling "Flying Coffins" is a hard gig on a level playing field.
Similar tactics are being employed against the Japanese (amongst others) now it’s an unequal fight sadly when you are up against a superpower that has unmatched ability to bribe, manipulate and ultimately threaten repercussions.
Conveniently forgetting: 1) The RAF consistently lied about the TSR2's operational range to pretend that it could replace carrier-based airplanes. 2) How incredibly limited the TSR2 was. It could be a light nuclear bomber or a recon aircraft, but it lacked the necessary weapons load to be a good tactical strike aircraft. You see the same problem with the A5 Vigilante. A brilliant design that ultimately served very little purpose.
@@speedbirdconcordeBOAB They wouldn't have seen it and after a low level (illegal) supersonic pass they wouldn't have heard the tannoy announcement either.
This was because the lightning pilot was slow to engage his own reheat - as has been written before, a Volvo can outrun a Ferrari if the Ferrari driver isn’t ready, doesn’t respond straight away and is behind to start with
My dad was in avionics at the time and I still remember the talk and dismay over the TSR2. Went on to work on Concorde and the MRCA. He was never a fan of "Ya Darlin' Harold" though!
Unfortunately Camm forgot economics. The broke UK economy could not afford a beautiful but overbudget aircraft with badly flawed engines that would take years to fix, no export prospects and a better competitor in the F-111. Reality sucks but it is still reality.
@@Completeaerogeek The engine TSR-2 used was a version of the Olympus. Olympus was used on the Vulcan bombers and Concorde of course. As an aerospace engineer for 40 years, it is unheard of to cancel a project after just a few months from its first test flight. It takes quite a few years from first test flight to entering service. And of course, immediately (days) after the cancellation, all the prototype aircrafts were destroyed, including all drawings and rigs for it manufacture, nothing remains apart from two prototypes on display in museums. Officially, TSR-2 had never existed. It is politics more than financial considerations I'm afraid.
@@daning9764 Dan if you understand engineering you would know that 'Bell Mode' a resonance problem with the LP shafts took years to fix at a time when the UK was broke. TSR2 was massively over budget and the F-111 proved superior in all performance regimes. If you were [paying for it what would you do?
@@daning9764 And NO they were NOT destroyed. There are 2 beautiful examples- one in Cosford and one in Duxford. I know I travelled halfway around the world to see them recently. The simple truth is it was a problem child the UK could not afford to develop to be an also ran to the F-111.
The older I get (and the longer in the tooth as a civil servant I become), the more sympathy I have with the politicians of the time - especially Jenkins and Healy. It is not difficult to see, not only how frustrating the massive inefficiencies of the process became (vide Beamont's anecdotes), but also what a gamble it really represented. This was all aided and abetted by the service rivalries and the machinations of people like Mountbatten.
My grandad worked his whole life for B.A.C in Warton near Preston. He designed many parts for the TSR2. I had concept and later posters from the air on my bedroom wall.
I used to write to all the great British Aircraft companies when I was a kid and they all sent lots of info and posters for my bedroom wall. Just showed how proud they were to be British Workers back then.
Really enjoyed this - thanks for posting. I have a good article somewhere I think by 'Classic Aircraft' Magazine on TSR2 & they did a what if? It showed versions in RAF & RAAF colours & if memory serves a full delta wing version was also planned. Incredible machine.
I worked as a junior clerk in the BAC Wharton factory and I remember that one of the design engineers had a beautiful, polished, wooden model of a Delta Swing wing aircraft, I don't know if it was to be a future version or just a fanciful idea at the time but I know I never saw it as a production aircraft.
@@shrimpflea I remember at the time, a dress being made from some of the printed circuit boards. I seem to remember it was said the reason for the destruction was so it could never be resurrected again. Not just insane, but vindictive as well.
You can see one in the Imperial War Museum at Duxford in Cambridgeshire, along with a lot of other really great stuff, like an SR71, a U2, and an He 162.
Harold Wilson's Labour Government, elected in October 1964, did all in its power to undermined the TSR 2 by publicly denigrating the project, maintaining a critical stance adopted whilst in opposition. The official public announcement of the cancellation on 6 April 1965 was the final grevious act.
I was living at Wharton during the latter part of the TSR2 development and as a school leaver had a part time job at BAC in avery junior clerical capacityand remember clearly the mass redundancies and the burning of the airframes on the runway. I watched lightnings being built but nothing prepared me for the deep sadness of the workforce and the comparitive emptiness of the factory after the scrapping of TSR2. I have since seen a none flying one at Cosford Aircraft museum.
My late Father was in the design & production facility at what was English Electric, AKA British Aircraft Corporation, later to become British Aerospace & then BAE Systems in Stevenage in the early to mid 60's. He was so proud of this aircraft, even though I was only about 10 years old, I still recall how proud he was, & bitterly disappointed he & the rest of the staff were when it was cancelled by the Labour Government.
@John Cliff What's that got to do with anything, all I know is that he & his colleagues were incredibly proud of the engineering achievements that were made during the 60's, and politics had bugger all to do with their pride in their work on the TSR2 & other projects,
Delighted to have found this info. Was always excited when I saw TSR2 with it's escorts flying over our playground and , some nights realising what noise Air Tunnel testing could create. Didn't understand the Politics behind it's demise. .So sad.
I remember looking at the hulk of a Short SC1 on the field at Wroughton back in '88. I was particularly struck by the use of bungee cords to tension the rudder pedal bar.
Wings of Fame was a short lived magazine back in the 1990's. One of there 20 issues was on the TSR-2. An aircraft that had it entered service would have still been in service when the Cold War ended. Would have been very capable and usable during the Falklands War.
The aircraft at Cosford was the second prototype which came within 20 mins of making its first flight. Roly Beamont had completed all his pre-flight checks and was about to take off when he was ordered to cancel the flight and get out.Criminal.
Thank you for an excellent, historically important and enlightening documentary. A very sad time for our country and all the exceedingly clever & gifted people involved. I remember how I felt back at that time.
@@grahamthebaronhesketh. TSR was certainly a failure, one of the most shameful and humiliating chapters in British aviation history and a major contributing factor in the demise of the entire UK aircraft industry.
You didn't need American connivance to kill the TSR2. Unlike the many fine aircraft produced in the UK before and since, the TSR2 project was badly out of focus from the get-go. The US did not sell many of the rival F-111s overseas; the UK has bought only a few US types that were clearly tops in their range; and the British aviation industry is still the fourth largest in the world. There may have been skulduggery in cancelling the Avro Arrow, but its demise did come when strategic planners were shifting from manned bombers to ballistic missiles, undercutting the need for a long-range interceptor. I'm not claiming that American industry is free of sin, but I'm not sure how much it had to do with these two programs.
Many documents and personal commentary have been released over the past fifty plus years. The reality is the British could not afford to develop the TSR-2 just like the Canadians could not afford to develop the Arrow without EXPORT orders... Both programs went way over budget. While both aircraft were excellent aircraft, so was the F-111, especially the swing wing. Don't let nationalism blind you. Both nations wanted Americans to buy their aircraft knowing full well the US Congress would NOT buy a foreign aircraft over a American aircraft. Frankly, the British could NOT afford to buy the F-111 either...
A friend of mine researched the shit out of the subject at both the UK National Archives and at BAe Warton (who hadn't destroyed any of the documentation). The book is on the link below. www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00JD09P0Y/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 A good on-line story is here. www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-17B-TSR2-with-Hindsight.pdf Damian Burke managed to find a Confidential BAC report written 3 months before the project was cancelled stating what was wrong with the aircraft. It was overweight and incapable of meeting the RAF Operational Requirement in Take Off and Landing distances, Range, Altitude or Speed. The Navigation and Attack system was not capable of meeting the performance specifications in either navigation or weapon delivery accuracy and the power generation system was not capable of supporting what was required. The Alloy used to build most of the airframe was found to be brittle and subject to easy fatigue cracking and the Undercarriage was not capable of meeting the landing requirements for short field operation. The Engines didn't fit the aircraft with enough room for easy engine changes and the mean time between failure of most of the system within the aircraft were a fraction of what the RAF were prepared to accept. Also when the project was budgeted, there was enough funding for 300 aircraft, at the time of cancellation the RAF could only afford 100 and projections were that the number would be as low as 50. When the USA Offered 50 F-111K's on a fixed price deal, Healey told the RAF, They said YES PLEASE and bit his hands off. The people who killed TSR2 were the previous government who totally mismanaged the project and the Aircraft Industry itself.
@@ronclark9724 The F-111K buy was to do missions that couldn't be done by the Phantom. These missions involved operations in the Far East. With the decision to pull out from the Far East, the closure of the Suez Canal due to the Six Day War and the Devaluation of the Pound (which drove up the cost of the F-111K by a big chunk of the price increase), plus the problems the US were having with the aircraft and the fact that the short field requirement for the aircraft died with NATO's move to Flexible Response which required NATO tactical aircraft to operate from Main Operating Bases, most of the high end and short field spec requirements for the F-111K in RAF Service were gone.
Read Damien Burke's excellent book on the TSR2 and you will have a reality check. This aircraft had a long development road ahead of it (the Olympus engines alone took many years to fix) and the UK economy at the time couldn't sustain it. There was no market for this aircraft apart from the small RAF order as it as designed for European operations. The F-111 was superior in just about every respect as it proved later on. A great attempt at a time when the UK aircraft industry was in chaos but ultimately, unless you have a market the size that US manufacturers enjoy, (or the high taxes of Sweden) you are unlikely to be successful going it alone
I was a little kid living in Warton at the time of this aircrafts development. Mainly because my Father was in the RAF and working on the development and fitting of the engines on that aircraft.
It wasn't ALL labour... The Tories made them merge and essentially created the inefficiencies in the development process (rather than letting some fail naturally and get bought out as would otherwise happen)... So it was a pan-part demolishing of the aircraft industry really.
There reality is that in a time of economic woes, this very expensive, very specialised and still very troubled aircraft (it took years to fix the Olympus 'Bell mode' problem) was never going to be a realistic choice for the RAF or any government. It had no export potential as the F-111 (despite its own problems) was clearly superior in every aspect. It's performance in Desert Storm and its 37 year career with the RAAF shows this clearly. Damien Burke's excellent book on the TSR2 shine a light on the reality of this magnificent but flawed aircraft.
@@Completeaerogeek You are comparing a fully-developed aircraft with many iterations throughout its life with a prototype that only went supersonic once, only using 1 engine. To anyone looking up the stats on Wikipedia, it does indeed look like the F-11 trumps the TSR.2 in practically every quantifiable respect. But notice that the model for which the stats are listed was F, the final production variant, with pretty much the equivalent of a 3rd engine's worth of extra thrust compared to the initial A model. If the TSR.2 had been allowed a similar level of upgrades, say getting the Concorde's Olympus 593 engines rather than the prototype's Olympus Mk.320 engines... then there is no reason to think that it wouldn't have been capable of a similar level of performance as the F-111F.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 I understand what you are saying but actually you are making a bit of my point for me. The TSR2 as flown was MUCH lighter than it would have been in developed form. Military aircraft rarely get lighter in service! It carried none of the normal service equipment with the inevitable decrease in range and performance. It could carry external stores or fuel tanks but not both in any amount. It's small wing was an Achilles heel and the VG solution for the F-111 was much more flexible. The Olympus 'Bell Mode' problem took years to sort out, time that was not available for the TSR2. There is a reason our air force (RAAF) looked at the rejected the TSR2. You should also know that the F model only gained in acceleration from the P-100 engines. The payload, range and top speed remained pretty much the same. This was shown when our C models were upgraded with the P-108 engines. Please read Damien Burke's excellent book on TSR2. It debunks many of the myths and wishful thinking regarding this otherwise promising aircraft. Don't get me wrong I admire the TSR2. I travelled halfway around the world to see it last year but uncomfortable reality is just that. No amount of patriotism or sentimentality can overcome it.
Which government cancelled Black Arrow? The Uks space program, that would be those Conservatives. We need better governments from both sides. Just think of all the CO2 that these types of planes and space programs have made. Now we have global warming. The ice caps melting, jungles dug up for cheap food. Flooding, heat waves. Which is way more sad.
Cool looking aircraft and very impressive performance. I think it was just a victim of cost overrun and the wrong government in power. But the real disgrace is that they destroyed them.
Nope. That's a myth. There are two beautiful complete examples one at Cosford and one at Duxford. I travelled halfway around the world to see them. A beautiful but flawed and overpriced aircraft that the UK's struggling economy couldn't afford. Reality sucks but it is still reality.
We were also ahead in the space race with a rocket ready to fly years before the US & Russia and our government cancelled that saying what do we need to go to space for obviously guided by the space between there ears.
The real problem, and it is very sad, that after two highly destructive wars and the looting by the USA of the British gold reserves just prior WWII which made our currency one of the strongest, we suffered. The USA has never been a friend, no way, at least the administration. Some American people think possibly differently. I have respect for the people, but not very often their rotten governments.
I wish I could fly one through the Grand Canyon at high speed and low altitude. To those who are interested in such things, my 3 favorite aviation/science fiction art books are: - Icon by Frank Frazetta - Great Fighter Jets of the Galaxy 1 by Tim Gibson - Beyond the Horizon by John Harris
I vaguely remember seeing it once at Duxford. Before the IMP took over. Then the Duxford aviation society. The cockpit seat was made from Dexion. No idea what happened to it.
I knew a guy who was an apprentice working around the TSR2. He told me that as part of the US bailout of the UK economy various highly competitive technologies had the be destroyed and the TSR2 was one of them. He said they were towed outside and the apprentices cut them up whilst people in dark coats and suits stood on the other side of the airfield fence photographing... Who knows?
My Dad's friend worked at a very high level on TSR2 and other projects. He said exactly the same as you, word for word. Complete destruction of TSR2 and cancellation of HS681 and P1154 was LBJ's quid pro quo for refraining from destroying Sterling. Our American allies. Don't make me laugh.
They did the same "destroy the prototypes and burn the drawings" thing with the Miles M52. And Miles weren't allowed to tell their workforce then, either.
Exactly... The American government were indirectly responsible for the elimination of 2 aircraft vastly superior to anything we had here in the States.
@@BobbyGeneric145 The American government were -indirectly- *directly* responsible for the elimination of 2 aircraft vastly superior to anything we had here in the States. *FTFY*
Sorry but there is little evidence the TSR2 wouldve been a great aircraft. Most multi role aircraft are like sporty all rounders, pretty good at all sorts of things but not great at any one task. It was wildy expensive, the main reason it was cancelled after all, there were better alternatives, like the F4 for example, which was physically smaller, faster, and could be used as land based or carrier operations. It would have been complicated to maintain, like most British designed aircraft of the period - the Lightning was a nightmare to work on - so all in all cancelling it was a blow to British prestige, but not much else.
Hi, I saw it fly over in 1964 -65 whilst working near Boscombe Down ,I was 16 years old , a jaw dropping sight never to be missed . then as said a Labour government killed it off , and an Aircraft Industry . Government kills every thing ? canals filled in railway lines ripped up ,we have failed so no one is going to prove us wrong and look what people did for them selves ,I rest my case .
Exactly. I'm the same age. The cancellation at the last minute of such wonders that included the Rotodyne, the abandonment of almost new locomotives and the loss of the Great Central main line (built to Continental loading gauge) all had a profound and negative influence on me.
@@johnjephcote7636 Hi glad to see you have made it this long ,but at our age we could be classed as Dinosaurs ,bring back the 1970,s a three day week ,miners strikes and a 25 hour day as we use to work through our lunch break , after voting for Ted HEATH to break the strikes ,he lost ,so I thought well a working life for me then .
Know a bit about this business/industry. A lot of very forward thinking and design is always underway on several fronts. Have had 4 close family members who were and are (McDonnell) aviation/aerospace engineers. One designed the F-101 and later headed up the F-15 program. Another was transferred to England to head-up successfully taking the Harrier supersonic. Along with problem solving on the F4, the other two were and the last is now involved in the commercial aviation side with Boeing. Both the General Dynamics F-111 and the Rockwell B-1A were on the advanced drawing boards when the TSR2 was being readied for testing. The Grumman F-14 was nearing flight testing. The F-15 was well into design and development. If one looks closely at these four aircraft designs in comparison to both the TSR2 and the XB-70, one can readily see the advancement from a very angular, high speed penetration design toward the smoothness and superior versatility of the profiles of the newer swing-wing and F-15 designs. Yes, at conception, the TSR2 was very highly advanced. But, by the time it got off the ground, it was already obsolete. Politics and available money and preservation/sustenance of design and development interests all play a significant role in government sponsored interdiction-defense programs, especially warfare and weapon design and delivery systems, programs. Cuts happen, generally for good, forward-looking reasons. But, those cuts are necessarily painful. Like the XB-70 design, the TSR2 had practically no "Stealth" capabilities. Yet, in the late 1960's "Stealth" with maneuverability and long range was already understood to be a critical design coupling. The TSR2 at Mach 2 was not particularly fast. Yes, it was fast at the time of concept. But the F-111 at Mach 2.5 and both the F-14 and the F-15 designed to be capable of Mach +2.8, all with a high degree of maneuverability, were clearly beyond the TSR2. Still in functional roles today, the B-1B and the F-15 will both be in service until or past Y2030 as penetrating fighter bombers with low and high altitude, high speed and long range semi-stealth capabilities. In some ways, the TSR2 was an important experiment that tested, demonstrated and heralded the imminent arrival of significant advancements in technology. But, in itself, just could not make the grade into a service role - much like the YF-23 Black Widow.
Romance and nostalgia are hard things to overcome....if Britain had developed 10 different jet at that time, and one of them was cancelled, no one would give it a second thought. Just like Arrow in Canada, it was all or nothing.
Landing gear. I don't need any big program to see immediately that this layout is not a good idea. I can not understand that this was not discovered long before, in fact, when it was still on paper. And the whole thing could easily have been a lot shorter and with twin wheels side by side. See Jaguar, on the drawing board at the time.
@ The Arrow was a truly state of the art aeroplane. It could have been the beginning of a golden age for Canadian aviation. It wouldn't have looked out of place in RAF service as well as other allied air forces around the world.
3 года назад
@@junior602002 my dad was an air traffic controller in the RCAF from 1950 to 1972.We were stationed in Downsview Ontario when the Arrow was tested.I was only five but I remember seeing it a few times.We were in Goose Bay Labrador in the early sixties and i would watch the Vulcan, Victor and Valiant take off and land.I even managed to go into the cockpit on one of them.
That says it all . "We wanted a tactical, strike, reconnaissance aircraft that could work at low-level and 60,000 feet." (And by the way, could it put the bins out at night)
Strange how the "cousins" across the water influence things. I worked with military aircaft both on maintenance and production. I did an MOD apprenticeship and we had a TSR2 nose wheel bogey sitting quietly in our apprentice school. When certain people found out what we had it just upped and disappeared one day. Another instance I worked on a project for the US Navy with a sea going version of the Hawker Siddeley Hawk later to become the BAe Hawk. The american drawings of this project that was designed and re-engineered (retro engineering) was all done here in Yorkshire however the drawings all said McDonnel Douglas/BAe Goshawk (probably says Boeing now).
@@vivekraychowdhury4348 I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find the Russians had managed to obtain the latest drawings and parts for the TSR 2. The TSR 2 had the very desirable characteristic of being able to land at low speed on grass run ways. The Apollo project design drawings were all obtained by the Russians, several articulate lorries worth of drawings. They had to use their own designs as they were unable to replicate the steel used by the Americans.
It's an absolute disgrace when politicians and money hungry people can put their hands in projects that are funded by the public tsr2 was highly advanced and should have been put into service I believe
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. Out of the ashes came the SEPECAT Jaguar, which was in every way the same aircraft.The Australians developed a deep affection for their F-111s, flying them until 2010.
At the same time on the other side of the Atlantic, in Canada, the Avro Arrow programme was abandoned and destroyed with no explanation and no one admitting to the decision. The Americans then sold us their aicraft and scooped up our greatest aerospace designers and engineers thus effectively destroying our aircraft industry
Something that I see as troubling is the extreme angle-of-attack this bird carried while taking off and landing. This was with flap-blowing in operation? Try to picture taking off at maximum combat weight. What also does the landing look like if the bleed-air for the flap-blowing is inoperative? There is also the issue of side-area of fuselage with respects to the effects of crosswinds during landing/takeoff.
A side effect of the requirement to be able to land and take off on a grass runway. Despite being supersonic the TSR 2 had to be able to take off and land at low speed. The Harrier solved the problem by VTOL. The TSR 2 used air holes to supply or extract air from the wings surfaces to increase the lift and maximum angle of attack.
Another hugely advanced aircraft shut down in the mid sixties was XB-70 Valkyrie. Times were changing and ICBM’s were showing progress. Governments thought that no matter how great an aircraft, it would never be able to out run a rocket or intercept one entering the atmosphere over the homeland.
While it is a shame that the only one that flew wasn't preserved, at least there are two complete aircraft and a nose section to view. Some of our innovative planes like the P6M Seamaster or XB-35/YB-49 and Canada's F-105 Arrow were completely wiped out with no airframes saved for a museum. (Although a full size replica of the Arrow now exists, it's not the real deal and that is a shame.)
Prior to the election labour had posters around Preston saying they would not cancel TSR2 . When he got in power he promptly scrapped it and went off to Moscow on a trip to get his medal.
@@peterhopkins7505 Acually no. The US paid the Russian for the rights to the turn down of the rear engine exhaust. I don't no , if any tech was taken from the Harrier?
@@Erik-rp1hi Also lift fan idea, in other words the whole concept of the F35 with regards to vertical take of and landing came from Russia. Stealth added and reliability. Uk got a piece of the pie with the lift fan and engine being Rolls Royce.
The sad fact is that UK government funding for anything technical that will take over 9 months to complete is a total and complete risk. There is no one in politics that can even imagine something that takes more than 9 months form start to finish. If you are going to do such a bold project - stay well away from the UK government.
An after the fact moot query. But, with the success of AVRO CANADA'S CF-100 and their skill at developing the CF-105 titanium airframe, advanced avionics, and ORENDA IROQUOIS engine, why didn't Britain and Canada meld the development and fabrication of the TSR-2 with the CF-105 ?
As per usual we Brits have had to bow down to the wants and whims of the Americans when they see that we have made something significant that would stand up in competition and comparison to the aircraft that they had to offer at the time!! Something that would compete directly with the F111 Aardvark and show to all international customers that the UK had an offering that surpassed the F111 by a long chalk!! So they had to put the squeeze on us with the threat of withdrawal of support for our application to the international monetary fund for a loan desperately needed at a time when the chips were down and the UK was struggling through its problems and issues!! It's always muted in the press about how special the relationship is between the US and the UK but it has always stood on a foundation of the Americans telling us what to do and how to do it and repercussions for us should we stray from the path they want!!! They even tried to tell us that we couldn't go down to the south Atlantic in the eighties to reclaim our own territory that had illegally been invaded!!! One of my proudest moments wasn't winning that war and reclaiming the Falkland Islands (which did make me feel very proud indeed)!!..no the proudest moment was when the American government told us not to go to war with Argentina and to turn back the task force and our then prime minister Margaret Thatcher (who apart from this action provokes nothing more than disdain) listened, thought about it and then carried on regardless!!...and the rest as they say is history!!! But the story of the Trs2 unfortunately is one of many similar incidents!!! The Americans have consistently feathered their own nest decade after decade since WW2 when they left the UK to fight on against the Axis alone for 2 years and then joined in to take all the glory and all the finances and resources!! Germany destroyed completely, destitute, bankrupt and had to start again! France bankrupt and had to start again!, Japan reduced to rubble and had to start again from further behind! Soviet Union lost millions of people but gained a lot in territory, Great Britain won but was bankrupt and destitute and for stopping tyranny taking hold permanently in Europe had to go with their begging bowl, cap in hand for help from the rest of the world....and the US???...They were the only country to finish the war twice as wealthy as when it started!!!
I could swear I've heard the narrator's voice before narrating a funny video... potentially using profanity... My memory of the video and narration is very hazy, but this specific bit triggered the memory: 37:14. Anybody know what video I'm talking about? It might be a synthesized voice that I'm recalling, if that helps.
The F-111 had a fine record of service with the RAAF for over 40 years. By the 1960s the US had been Australia's most important ally for two decades. With Britain on the verge of withdrawal from East of Suez there was no value in buying a British aircraft. I suspect that some individuals in the Dept of Air in Canberra also remembered Britain's reluctance to provide modern aircraft in WWII too.
Not only did they remember, they knew American equipment was usually better and easier to maintain. And there were high level arrogant British officials who thought of Australia as a colony and expected Australia too buy British because "its British" and "Britain knows what's best for Britain and knows what's best for the colonies too."
9:07 They had to be out of their minds or smoking something when they came up with the p-17 concept. Even today with modern avionics it would be impossible.
