As a young 13 / 14 year old, I was lucky enough to see just one TSR2 take off from Filton, after spending hrs and hrs at the end of the runway, alas gone now.
A critical requirement was crew comfort when flying at high speed and low level. This means a small, highly swept, low aspect-ratio wing offering high loading to reduce bumpiness in the cockpit. Frequency of 1/2g bumps was less than 1 per minute at Mach 0.8. To put this in context, the Buccaneer, a plane known for it's stability and smooth ride, gets a dozen bumps a minute.
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.
... it's very fine and important i think that the men and women who spent working time on her are still there and tell something ... ... about this beautyful , outstanding aeroplane ... !! you had done very well, thank you for this :) Friendly greetings from northern-germany
The Americans told the Wilson Government to cancel it so they could sell the F111 instead. It was a brilliant aeroplane destroyed by self-serving third rate politicians.
Mark Lilley Wellll - one of the main reasons the TSR2 was cancelled was that the Australian Govt decided to buy 24 American F111s instead of the TSR2, so the market for it dropped away.
It was the other way round. The RAAF chose 24 x F111s and so there were no external customers for the TSR2 and the program was dropped. Wicked looking aircraft. In the end, the F111 was called the F trouble-1, and has caused huge health problems for crews reselling the fuel tanks. Costly beast too. The boomerang shaped antenna under the aircraft (part of the terrain following system) cost over $20,000 to replace when it cracked. Tech officers at DSTO Adelaide pulled one apart and found they could build them in house for under $1,000. I used to work at DSTO. We ended up running them a lot longer than the USA and bought 5 of their leftovers for spares.
That was one very beautiful and powerful bird, original in both looks and design. It is a crying shame that the TSR2 did not go into production. It could have changed the world in ways we cannot possibly imagine.....
Saw the one at Cosford yesterday. Just one word to describe it really..... WOW!!! Read the description about it. Some sort of problem with it in the morning, canceled in the afternoon.. What a waste of money and of a stunning plane.
I didn't see this particular landing but enjoyed seeing the TSR2 fly ahead of the lightening fighter it had as a shadow. I am sure if it had gone onto serious production it would have been a world beater!
Perhaps if you understood anything about the topic it might help. 1. It’s death warrant was written by Tory Duncan Sands in his government review. 2. Russian SAM development made it venerable 3. It was made by 2 companies 1 did the front 1 did the rear with endless arguments etc 4. The endless massive committees slow the pace of development and increased costs. 5 It was not that fast at low level.. 6. Just like the Avro Arrow the Americans wanted it dead 7 Now enter Wilson and a Labour government confronted with the wreckage of a dysfunctional Tory economy 8. The Americans offering a similar aircraft F111 at ‘mates rates’ 9. The RAF fly off of the F111 revealed that the Blackburn Buccaneer was faster at low level than either the F111 or TSR2 10. The Buccaneer could do the job at 10% of the price of either of the other 2 11. The Royal Navy took over the country’s nuclear deterrent
No it wouldn't. It was obsolete when cancelled and still didn't work. It was an expensive bag of spanners and a monumental embarrassment of project management, that had no role to serve as missiles fulfilled the delivery of tactical weapons. TSR2 had become a hanger queen by 1963 when Mountbatten, then the Tory Chief of Defence Staff told the Australian mission, enquiring about sales, that it would never be built. That pretty much finished it. By the end, even the RAF had lost interest in it as there were far better aircraft coming along. Mig-25, an interceptor that would have made mincemeat of TSR2, had already been flying for 6 months when TSR2 made its first flight. F111, which the Australians bought was a far better plane in every way.
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....
I lived at the end of the BAC (warton) runway which actually ends in Freckleton lancs .The TSR2 was by far the loudest plane I ever heard take off from there ,Only the Lightning came close.I saw many test flights and 2 crashes there .
I actually saw here come home in February 1965. I was nearly 15, out with my dad, parked in a layby on the A584 between Freckleton and Three Nooks. When I heard a noise, and TSR2 came in to view climbing towards Lea Gate. She disappeared in to the cloud, the sound of her engines slowly fading. A few minutes later she reappeared, did a bank to starboard as she headed towards the Ribble estuary, and then shortly afterwards she came in and landed. Something at 72 I still relish. We moved to Treales, I went to university, joined the RAF, and one evening I went in to the Derby Arms at Treales, ordered a pint, a group standing by the bar. One looked familiar, and realisation dawned. Roly Beaumont. I waited fir a quiet moment, asked him if he was who I thought, he said he was. I introduced myself - I was commissioned aircrew by then. He was involved with MRCA. We chatted for a few minutes and parted. He evidently would frequently visit the Derby Arms for a quiet drink after work.
My Father worked on TSR2. The man worked on the seals on the cockpit. He passed away recently. I have show him this. he was so happy. Lovely aircraft shame it got cancelled
What 2 of the TST2 Pilots thought. Asked what the TSR2 was like to fly, Jimmy Dell replied "It was easy to fly for such a big aeroplane - a great thrill, especially as you couldn't see any of it from the cockpit! We were devastated when it was cancelled, as we knew we had a world-beater. It was a great privilege to fly it." Don Knight agreed: "It was simply amazing. It flew just like a big Lightning - only faster! We couldn't imagine it would be cancelled - it was all going so well.
trespire I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I'm not sure what you mean by "out pace". Do you mean acceleration, or top speed? If you mean top speed, how about SR-71, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, F-4, F-14, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-20, YF-23, F-105, F-106, F-111, Tu-160, XB-70, B-58, Mirage 2000, Panavia Tornado, Saab Gripen, and Saab Draken? All of those aircraft were at least as fast, many were much faster.
+bjmccann1 The design brief of the Lightning was developed intercept & knock down Soviet nuclear bombers over the UK. The ultimate QRA but at a price. Most fighter jets are not designed for such extreme performance. F4 phantoms lumber into the air like a lazy hippo after a good meal, yet could carry tons & tons of munitions, had a good range, take hits & survive (1/4" steel armor plating under the cockpit). It was a very good plane for what it was designed for. The Lightning is a very different machine, more akin to a 100m dash with a one chance to kill the target, in essence a piloted ground to air missile. There was a case where the Concord flying at Mach2 was offered up as a target practice for high altitude high speed intercept. Guess which plane was the only one to make the intercept ?
The TSR-2 certainly wasn't "all muscle and no brains". Terrain-following radar was first pioneered on the TSR-2 and was vital for its mission. The USAF and RAF wanted two different aircraft and the TSR-2 was perfect for the RAF
Cost overruns and mismanagement denied this bird flight. Is just such a terrible shame that it happened so far along in development. An absolute beauty.
The government is to blame for the cost overruns asking for an aircraft to do the work of up to four aircraft not thinking this was going to cost more than normal like we have seen with the F35. In the long run it would have saved money and saved lives.
I was a schoolboy when this fiasco was precipitated by the incoming Wilson Labour government. TSR-2 became my all-time favourite aeroplane during my aircraft apprenticeship with ANSETT Airlines in Melbourne. I created a 1m long (non-flying) model made of balsawood. It featured the all-moving horizontal and vertical stabilisers operated by controls in the cockpit, and the L/G could be crudely retracted. TSR-2 was the finest aircraft design, eclipsed only by Concorde and SR71.
Yeah. It disappeared into piles of documentaries and plenty of the "ordered to be destroyed" parts and "airframes" somehow "survived" for propaganda purposes.
Whoever got this plane cancelled knew exactly what it meant. The F111 was nowhere near being a competitor for this aircraft and it wasn't cancelled because of that. It was cancelled because of not just the unassailable performance of it but also that iteratively improved versions of this plane, and further planes based off its technology, would have given the UK pretty much an unassailable lead in aviation. TSR2 would merely have been the beginning. It's not the plane itself that represented a danger to others. It had a lot of firsts that for the 60s were just incredible. Fly-by-wire controls, autopilot with terrain following radar which allowed it to fly at above the speed of sound at sea level all at a time before any kind of modern electronics were even thought of. God only knows what its high altitude, high speed performance limits would have been but it's likely that as any kind of high altitude reconnaissance aircraft nothing would have had the remotest chance of shooting it down for decades. Lest we forget, even though someone tried to destroy not just the airframes but also the tooling to ever build them again the knowledge gained filtered straight into Concorde. They already knew that the SR71 layout, as tested with the Bristol 188, was entirely the wrong direction to go in.
As much as I regret the fate of the TSR-2 - I wonder perhaps peversely, if had it gone into production, it might have ended up being such a game changer and perceived threat by the USSR, that it might have tipped the balance into a something we rather wouldn't like to mention or even think about.
Beautiful aeroplane indeed, but with some disastrous underlying problems, engine changes took weeks because the clearance with the fuselage components was only a few tenths of an inch and they was running ten years ahead of the had to be entirely installed from the tail end. The avionic suite, more advanced than any other for over a decade, had a cumulative mean time of a few minutes. It unfortunately burdened with an impossible specification.
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.
lol I like when it went supersonic for the first and only time, by engaging reheat on only 1 engine, and leaving the Lightning following behind. Even though the lightning had engaged full reheat on both its engines - man that bird woulda been fast
@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...
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
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.
@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.
From a non-British perspective, when you look at the political blunders of the British government, like scrapping TSR 2 and selling Nene Jet engine to the USSR, you know that the phrase stating the Army (are) "lions led by sheep" can be extended.
TSR 2 was meant to fly under Soviet radar from the start and at 1.2 mach. At the time this was seen as the only way of penetrating Soviet airspace. Yes, the con-trails and exhaust were a problem, but were being worked on, with only 24 flights flown before cancellation, other more pressing problems took priority.
Am I correct in saying that the tory goverment pondered over the idea of resurecting tsr2 in 1981? The round air intakes being relpaced by square tornado type ones?
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 UA-cam. Labour also cancelled Hawker 1154 (VTOL Supersonic Fighter) earlier in the same year.
Britain couldn't afford the TSR2. There was still a large nuclear & conventional bomber force. The supersonic harrier was little more than a drawing exercise with no evidence it would have been viable. The Conservatives had their 1957 Sandys Defence Review.
The problem is that it will take many years to overcome the damage wrought on the British Aviation industry courtesy of healy and sandys. That means we should start ASAP at rebuilding confidence in the industry.
I would like to revise and extend my remarks on this subject. Apparently Lord Mountbatten was highly placed in the MOD at the time when the TSR2 was cancelled - and he was a Navy man. The TSR2 had NO ability to operate from carriers, while the F111 could (in theory). I think that Mountbatten wanted to keep the RNs power projection capability and saw the F111 or Bucc+ as the way to do it. Ironically years later the EF111a was mothballed in favor of the inferior EA6b for the same reason.
@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!
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.
Wrong - the F111 was NEVER a reconaissance aircraft. The F111 had problems but it did most of the heavy lifting in Gulf War one and it was the ONLY aircraft that could have performed the Libya strike. One F111 could carry the bombload of four F4s. Certainly it wasn't a fighter - but trying to fill too many roles at once isn't the aircrafts' fault. The best indication of the ability of the F111 is that the Soviets copied it with the Su-24.
It's true abut the F-111, but at least we are ahead of the aussies who actually bought them and believed the yanks as to price and delivery times. It cost them 10 times the amount and was way behind schedule. Both of these criteria were levelled at the TSR 2 as a reason to cancel.
There's absolutely no evidence that anyone was 'paid' to cancel TSR2, and it was in trouble politically when the Tories were in power. Defence Minister didn't like it, nor did the Chief Scientific advisor, nor did the Chief of Defence staff. What killed TSR2 was lack of confidence in successive Govts that costs could be contained, coupled with dodgy 'assurances' from US industry that they could deliver the F111 cheaper. Hindsight's a great thing. I would have loved to see TSR in RAF colours..
Well one fact well documented was the behaviour of Mountbatten. He persuaded Wilson that for the cost of one TSR2 they could buy 6 Buccaneers, totally ignoring the fact that they were two different weapons systems. Mountbatten is also on record as stating the same information to the Australians. So if anyone killed TSR2 Mountbatten did.
True, I think the truth of the matter is that the TSR2 acceleration caught the Lightning pilot off guard and he had to give it some real welly to catch up! Thanks
Appreciate that this is 10 years later, but an alternative explanation is that the TSR2 was very lightly loaded with fuel while the Lightning had a lot more fuel on board (in percentage terms).
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
An amazing piece of British Engineering that would have made any aircraft in the world at that time obsolete. But due to that factor what many dont tell you about, because of The yanks, we was forced to scrap it. Thankfully the TSR2 still survives.
The TSR shares a likeness to the A-5 Vigilante. I like planes. If we share the money properly we could have seen F-111 with TSR's. Another possibility for example would be with the XB-70 and the SR-71. They competed for one contract however with a little vision they could have combined the two designs adding the SR-71 to the XB-70 and share the contract. A mach 3 platform for recon and or bomb.
That surprised me as well. USA is'nt known for buying foriegn military planes. But it is in conjuntion with Northrop (i think). But this is probably due to finanial limitations on Northrops part, and inter-company rivalry in America between Northrop and Boeing. The british government used TSR2 to batter all the rival aeronautical companies into one as this was the only plane design in town, with no other in the forseeable future.
Maneuvarability is not important when you are flying at ridiculous speed at very low level. Would have been a total beauty. But you could achieve 70% much the mission effectiveness with an upgraded Bucaneer on a fraction of the budget
lyle holland Not to mention that the small wing area would have given it high wing loading, and thus increased stability in the thick air- an ideal trait for low altitude strike.
Large wings are good for low speed handling, such as the A-10 and Su-25 which are supposed to "loiter" over a combat area. But low-altitude strike planes were meant to come in at very high speed, drop their warload and get out. In that case, a smaller wing for higher loading provides more stability against buffeting.
@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.
I wouldn't take too much stock in that story. The TSR-2 was never flown beyond mach 1.12. Certainly it could've done faster but it never did. Burning off a Lightning would require a bit more than mach 1.12.
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.
@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?.
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?
Appreciate the humour, but it was painted white because, at this time, all of Britains nuclear bomber fleet was White. Cammoflage colour schemes came in in later for this group of planes. You will also note that the roundels are pale in colour, another feature for the nuclear fleet of planes.
This was only a draught idea and very quickly abandoned. The destruction of the prototypes was too complete. Tooling, jigs, blue prints all gone(or nearly gone, theres bound to be someone whos squirreled away something). XR220 at RAF Cosford due to fly when cancellation was announced but was saved, but the wiring looms were cut everywhere possible, so it's not viable to resurect it.
Air streams follow geodesic surfaces. Britain's zeroeth White Elephant for the minus one White Elephants that never flew see The Bristol Brabazon. You could say we have had our share of turkeys here but there seems to be an increasing popular demand for hs2
what killed this Aircraft was Politics , Politicians, Political intrigues and dramas at high Military levels, bad Companies unable to keep the logistics going, pre BAC, plus Naval types pushing the Buccaneer. NOT as people think that is was Australia's fault choosing the F-111 which had and outstanding Operational record , check use in Vietnam alone. Your were a small economy , bankrupt, and then got a Labour "slash and burn " Govt, that is just part of the story which will never be known........still apart from the Lockheed SR-71-the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, and perhaps Concorde was beautiful to behold
***** i am amazed how you manage to blame germany for everything that comes into your mind. As long you dont have to grow a pair, man up and take responsibility for your own fate. (And as a nation too - blaming EU for countless things that EU had nothing to do with was comedy gold) It is so much easier to say germany is an agressor (even today) all germans fault. But when i trolled you before, i already knew how the typical low educated brexiter would respond, so i am not surprised. But i tell you a secret, promise me not to share with others: The succsess of VW has to do with good management, good relationship to employees (plant workers have stock in the company, and dont get fired so quickly during crisises - this creates "m-o-ti-va-tion" - in 2016 - VWs success is homegrown.. it is not germanies fault that you sell all good car brands to indians germans and what not... I hear tata motor owns land rover .. i mean .. is that germanys fault too? dont be ridiculous.. wait.. you already are. What made germany succsessful back then and today is not "nazis" - but it was the middeclass businesses with their apprenticeship system that guarantees a large highly qualified workforce in all things mechanical, construction and electric. the other thing was a decen number of innovative thinkers and disciplined accurate execution. What has england? a dying coal industry.. a dead car industry.. involvement in european aerospace survival guaranteed by german participation. (EADS/ESA/Airbus etc) Your main "industry" is the london city, which is now sliding into nothing due to brexit. Well done. I dont think the fusion with frankfurt stock exchange is now a go anymore. - Stop blaming us, start to roll up your sleeves and get something done. no matter what. Blaming and lamenting does not seem to work so well...
***** you rnew PM has not enough stagetime to be judged, but i undertand she is the only one who did not step backwards fast enough when every other candidate was running for the hills. the german perspective is - we have our own set of problems to deal with, whom are we to judge some other countries PMs. If she leads the UK to glory, then that will be better for all of us. like a strong germany, more than once pulled the EU (including the UK) out of recessions .... a strong UK would be, in union or not - good for us all. In that sense, in sincerely hope you knew what you were doing when you got a clown as foreign minister and this .. lady of which i dont know much as MP. Regarding your statement "britain was the best country" - that depends on how you define "best". Much of your success was based on plundering the commonwalth and the industrialisation based on steam engines and coal. Today coal mines are empty, and coal is unpopular due to the global warming - also steam engines are out of fashion. The commonwealth stopped beeing raped (english crown killed more natives on foreign soil, than three hitlers) You spend money on military, instead a refomation of the educationsystem and removal of "class differences" the secret in succsess of tomorrow is to stop living in the past. I know of no german who speculates how things would be better if germany had won the war. It is the english who cant stop hammering the evil german kliché into their minds... its tiring.. stupid.. and foremost very sad. ps: i loved land rover... until you sold it... and i trust rolls royce turbines everytime i step into a plane... pull your self together england we need you in your best shape if we are to weather the problems of this world as allies:
***** you did not build the railways "for india" it was ur indian slaves who built it for you,you just did not dismantle it when you left india. You invaded and rule by force - show some honesty please. Some "primitive folk" would actually have been happier without your "blessings" and dependencies that came with it. same goes for spaniards - and the "americans" were settlers from europe - so that term is bullshit - majority were english settlers, but also french and germans and others of course - but you can see, still today that for example the finnish settlers have had a eyelevel relationship with the natives and no history of bloodshed, which was not the case with british settlers. Finns traded with the red, allowed them to enter their stores and intermarriage. The english did nothing of the kind. But lets leave america out of this. ---- the migrant crisis - well, the problem is - there is an international charta of human rights, which i believe the brits have co-authored. Its a binding law, that you cannot refuse a refugee shelter: Due to the unmanageable mass, there are bound to be a number of unjustified asylumseekers in the mix, even some dangerous ones. I can see that, we germans - even merkel sees it - but there is no solution to the problem. Pulling up a large fence may be against that internatonal law. maybe next time it is us, who need shelter... who knows? Of course i am not happy with it, but i dont think hysteria is the answer. We will manage. Because we have no choice but to manage. We cant leave this burden to italy and greece to deal with alone .... Unfortunately the countries causing the mess starting with the unjustified war on IRAQ courtesy of tony blair and g.w. busch - and continued destabilisation in afgahnistan and pakistan. Dont pull their weight when it comes to sheltering civillians that became targets. One nation that had nothing to do with it all has now stepped in to assist the southern EU states with the onslaught. And you have the nerve to blame it.. again.. you should be fucking grateful germany is not passing the whole stream along via calais.
***** solidarity is something the brits never understood. nothing i say will change that. The day comes when england needs solidarity... Excuse me now sir. This conversation has already eaten too much of my time, and i have so much else on my plate to deal with. have a good life. may your dreams come true.
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.
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.
Landing on foam it looks like a swan landing on water. Leaving a Lightning for dead is amazing. A great shame that it was shot down by appeasing politicians and bureaucratic wrangling.
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... :-)
@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
They would have to have flown it under soviet radar, with those wing tip con-trails and smokey exhaust it wouldn't been hard to see at any higher altitude!
I disagree with your point on being forced to hand over the plans for the Miles M52, under an agreement of mutual knowledge exchange we handed over all info on sound barrier problems and solutions (about 7 years of research), but the US did not reply and claimed the all-moving tailplane as theirs. The M52 has this and its production started in 1942! I assume that it's their invention because they made it work first.
@@supersonic1246 No. It could only go 2400. The 2700 figure is a miscalculation spread by uneducated non-engineers. This error stems from said non-engineers multiplying the Mach 2.35 speed at 36000 ft with the speed of sound at sea level. They are wrong because the speed of sound decreases in the colder air at high altitude. The BAE website shows the correct figure: www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/bac-tsr-2
The USSR reveal the MIG25 - the faster fighter jet that can fly MACH 3 in 1967. This TSR.2 is obsolete before the completing development and it didn't achieve the goal of taking off on a short run way.
@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
Do not need a catapult system with the SVTOL F35 as being the only planes needed about 40 on board i believe ? ,the readyness for deployment is so much quicker to off load and land the planes , Superior in the fact they are more sophisticated in the most advanced Technology available now , i didnt mean in Might .The new generation of Carriers WILL NOT NEED DESTROYER SUPPORT FOR PROTECTION due to the Technology within them and the rapid deployment of the F35s , very capable in a fight. youll see
@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.
As a young 13 / 14 year old, I was lucky enough to see just one TSR2 take off from Filton, after spending hrs and hrs at the end of the runway, alas gone now.
YEAH--WAS IT LOUD? WE LIKE LOUD. THANKS TO CONCORDE.
@@MrDaiseymay It was loud enough for me Philip.
A critical requirement was crew comfort when flying at high speed and low level. This means a small, highly swept, low aspect-ratio wing offering high loading to reduce bumpiness in the cockpit. Frequency of 1/2g bumps was less than 1 per minute at Mach 0.8.
To put this in context, the Buccaneer, a plane known for it's stability and smooth ride, gets a dozen bumps a minute.
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.
Nice to see the TSR2 again. I spent many hours working on the instrumentation at Boscombe Down.!
... it's very fine and important i think that the men and women who spent working time on her are still there and tell something ...
... about this beautyful , outstanding aeroplane ... !! you had done very well, thank you for this :) Friendly greetings from northern-germany
TSR 2 : more feared by allies than enemies just like the Canadian Arrow
The Americans told the Wilson Government to cancel it so they could sell the F111 instead. It was a brilliant aeroplane destroyed by self-serving third rate politicians.
Mark Lilley Wellll - one of the main reasons the TSR2 was cancelled was that the Australian Govt decided to buy 24 American F111s instead of the TSR2, so the market for it dropped away.
+Mark Lilley in the end they didn't even buy the F111 and the RAF had to make do with Buccaneers
I thought Australia purchased F 111s because we stopped production of the TSR2.
It was the other way round. The RAAF chose 24 x F111s and so there were no external customers for the TSR2 and the program was dropped. Wicked looking aircraft. In the end, the F111 was called the F trouble-1, and has caused huge health problems for crews reselling the fuel tanks. Costly beast too. The boomerang shaped antenna under the aircraft (part of the terrain following system) cost over $20,000 to replace when it cracked. Tech officers at DSTO Adelaide pulled one apart and found they could build them in house for under $1,000. I used to work at DSTO. We ended up running them a lot longer than the USA and bought 5 of their leftovers for spares.
That was one very beautiful and powerful bird, original in both looks and design. It is a crying shame that the TSR2 did not go into production. It could have changed the world in ways we cannot possibly imagine.....
WELL--we are BRITISH after all, it's what we do best, create fantastic things--then crap on it--or give it away.
Saw the one at Cosford yesterday.
Just one word to describe it really..... WOW!!!
Read the description about it. Some sort of problem with it in the morning, canceled in the afternoon..
What a waste of money and of a stunning plane.
British government are useless
.. yes , that's true , but sadly perhabs it could have changed the world to war again that times ... who knows .. !
@@TheOldschoolfool .. ja , a beautyful stunner for the skies .. :)
Such a beautiful plane.
... i felt exactly the same once i saw her on the videos first ... :)
I didn't see this particular landing but enjoyed seeing the TSR2 fly ahead of the lightening fighter it had as a shadow. I am sure if it had gone onto serious production it would have been a world beater!
Utter disgrace of Labour’s Harold Wilson cancelling this project. This aircraft would have been a world beater. Something we could have been proud of.
Perhaps if you understood anything about the topic it might help.
1. It’s death warrant was written by Tory Duncan Sands in his government review.
2. Russian SAM development made it venerable
3. It was made by 2 companies 1 did the front 1 did the rear with endless arguments etc
4. The endless massive committees slow the pace of development and increased costs.
5 It was not that fast at low level..
6. Just like the Avro Arrow the Americans wanted it dead
7 Now enter Wilson and a Labour government confronted with the wreckage of a dysfunctional Tory economy
8. The Americans offering a similar aircraft F111 at ‘mates rates’
9. The RAF fly off of the F111 revealed that the Blackburn Buccaneer was faster at low level than either the F111 or TSR2
10. The Buccaneer could do the job at 10% of the price of either of the other 2
11. The Royal Navy took over the country’s nuclear deterrent
No it wouldn't. It was obsolete when cancelled and still didn't work. It was an expensive bag of spanners and a monumental embarrassment of project management, that had no role to serve as missiles fulfilled the delivery of tactical weapons. TSR2 had become a hanger queen by 1963 when Mountbatten, then the Tory Chief of Defence Staff told the Australian mission, enquiring about sales, that it would never be built. That pretty much finished it. By the end, even the RAF had lost interest in it as there were far better aircraft coming along. Mig-25, an interceptor that would have made mincemeat of TSR2, had already been flying for 6 months when TSR2 made its first flight. F111, which the Australians bought was a far better plane in every way.
Saw this at Boscombe Down around the time it was cancelled. Looked fabulous.
... i believe ... :) beautyful white stunner
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....
I lived at the end of the BAC (warton) runway which actually ends in Freckleton lancs .The TSR2 was by far the loudest plane I ever heard take off from there ,Only the Lightning came close.I saw many test flights and 2 crashes there .
I actually saw here come home in February 1965. I was nearly 15, out with my dad, parked in a layby on the A584 between Freckleton and Three Nooks. When I heard a noise, and TSR2 came in to view climbing towards Lea Gate. She disappeared in to the cloud, the sound of her engines slowly fading. A few minutes later she reappeared, did a bank to starboard as she headed towards the Ribble estuary, and then shortly afterwards she came in and landed. Something at 72 I still relish.
We moved to Treales, I went to university, joined the RAF, and one evening I went in to the Derby Arms at Treales, ordered a pint, a group standing by the bar. One looked familiar, and realisation dawned. Roly Beaumont. I waited fir a quiet moment, asked him if he was who I thought, he said he was. I introduced myself - I was commissioned aircrew by then. He was involved with MRCA. We chatted for a few minutes and parted. He evidently would frequently visit the Derby Arms for a quiet drink after work.
My Father worked on TSR2. The man worked on the seals on the cockpit. He passed away recently. I have show him this. he was so happy. Lovely aircraft shame it got cancelled
What 2 of the TST2 Pilots thought.
Asked what the TSR2 was like to fly, Jimmy Dell replied "It was easy to fly for such a big aeroplane - a great thrill, especially as you couldn't see any of it from the cockpit! We were devastated when it was cancelled, as we knew we had a world-beater. It was a great privilege to fly it." Don Knight agreed: "It was simply amazing. It flew just like a big Lightning - only faster! We couldn't imagine it would be cancelled - it was all going so well.
Corruption inept Management and strong coercion from the US.
There is one of these at the Air Museum at RAF Cosford - West Midlands- Well worth a visit
It left a lightening behind with one engine on afterburn? hole crap thats some power
+blackchallis What is a "lightening" ? Presumably you are referring to the English Electric Lightning, the chase aircraft, Yes ?
+blackchallis Those engines were resurrected and re-worked a bit to power an airliner... Concorde.
The Lightning could outpace anything in the air, even today. Accept for a Concord.
As for rate of climb, forget about it !!
trespire I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I'm not sure what you mean by "out pace". Do you mean acceleration, or top speed? If you mean top speed, how about SR-71, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, F-4, F-14, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-20, YF-23, F-105, F-106, F-111, Tu-160, XB-70, B-58, Mirage 2000, Panavia Tornado, Saab Gripen, and Saab Draken? All of those aircraft were at least as fast, many were much faster.
+bjmccann1 The design brief of the Lightning was developed intercept & knock down Soviet nuclear bombers over the UK. The ultimate QRA but at a price.
Most fighter jets are not designed for such extreme performance. F4 phantoms lumber into the air like a lazy hippo after a good meal, yet could carry tons & tons of munitions, had a good range, take hits & survive (1/4" steel armor plating under the cockpit). It was a very good plane for what it was designed for.
The Lightning is a very different machine, more akin to a 100m dash with a one chance to kill the target, in essence a piloted ground to air missile.
There was a case where the Concord flying at Mach2 was offered up as a target practice for high altitude high speed intercept. Guess which plane was the only one to make the intercept ?
the engines in the tsr 2 olympus 320 (22R) were later developed for the concorde olympus 593
The TSR-2 certainly wasn't "all muscle and no brains". Terrain-following radar was first pioneered on the TSR-2 and was vital for its mission. The USAF and RAF wanted two different aircraft and the TSR-2 was perfect for the RAF
Cost overruns and mismanagement denied this bird flight. Is just such a terrible shame that it happened so far along in development. An absolute beauty.
The government is to blame for the cost overruns asking for an aircraft to do the work of up to four aircraft not thinking this was going to cost more than normal like we have seen with the F35. In the long run it would have saved money and saved lives.
I was a schoolboy when this fiasco was precipitated by the incoming Wilson Labour government. TSR-2 became my all-time favourite aeroplane during my aircraft apprenticeship with ANSETT Airlines in Melbourne. I created a 1m long (non-flying) model made of balsawood. It featured the all-moving horizontal and vertical stabilisers operated by controls in the cockpit, and the L/G could be crudely retracted. TSR-2 was the finest aircraft design, eclipsed only by Concorde and SR71.
Bruce Blake, and then it just simply dissappeared...
Must have been heartbreaking for all those involved
Yeah. It disappeared into piles of documentaries and plenty of the "ordered to be destroyed" parts and "airframes" somehow "survived" for propaganda purposes.
@@deeremeyer1749 ?
Beutifull bird, reeked of sheer speed, from every angle.
Whoever got this plane cancelled knew exactly what it meant. The F111 was nowhere near being a competitor for this aircraft and it wasn't cancelled because of that. It was cancelled because of not just the unassailable performance of it but also that iteratively improved versions of this plane, and further planes based off its technology, would have given the UK pretty much an unassailable lead in aviation. TSR2 would merely have been the beginning. It's not the plane itself that represented a danger to others.
It had a lot of firsts that for the 60s were just incredible. Fly-by-wire controls, autopilot with terrain following radar which allowed it to fly at above the speed of sound at sea level all at a time before any kind of modern electronics were even thought of. God only knows what its high altitude, high speed performance limits would have been but it's likely that as any kind of high altitude reconnaissance aircraft nothing would have had the remotest chance of shooting it down for decades.
Lest we forget, even though someone tried to destroy not just the airframes but also the tooling to ever build them again the knowledge gained filtered straight into Concorde. They already knew that the SR71 layout, as tested with the Bristol 188, was entirely the wrong direction to go in.
El Ta Try the USA. They got earlier projects cancelled like the SR-51 & 53.
As much as I regret the fate of the TSR-2 - I wonder perhaps peversely, if had it gone into production, it might have ended up being such a game changer and perceived threat by the USSR, that it might have tipped the balance into a something we rather wouldn't like to mention or even think about.
Beautiful aeroplane indeed, but with some disastrous underlying problems, engine changes took weeks because the clearance with the fuselage components was only a few tenths of an inch and they was running ten years ahead of the had to be entirely installed from the tail end. The avionic suite, more advanced than any other for over a decade, had a cumulative mean time of a few minutes. It unfortunately burdened with an impossible specification.
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.
lol I like when it went supersonic for the first and only time, by engaging reheat on only 1 engine, and leaving the Lightning following behind. Even though the lightning had engaged full reheat on both its engines - man that bird woulda been fast
@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...
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
I was made redundant in 1965 thanks to Wilson
Thanks for uploading this its great footage gives me a better idea of the real T
I especially paid attn to the landing gear
... ya ... special one in boogie , later with stabilisers because of the twanged behaviour and vibrations ...
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.
@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.
From a non-British perspective, when you look at the political blunders of the British government, like scrapping TSR 2 and selling Nene Jet engine to the USSR, you know that the phrase stating the Army (are) "lions led by sheep" can be extended.
Yes, because they absolutely could afford it.
Lucky for them they binned it so they could later afford carriers and Harriers.
"Lions led by donkeys."
what should have been... thanks yanks
nOT THE FIRST TIME AND NOT THE LAST
TSR 2 was meant to fly under Soviet radar from the start and at 1.2 mach. At the time this was seen as the only way of penetrating Soviet airspace. Yes, the con-trails and exhaust were a problem, but were being worked on, with only 24 flights flown before cancellation, other more pressing problems took priority.
Am I correct in saying that the tory goverment pondered over the idea of resurecting tsr2 in 1981? The round air intakes being relpaced by square tornado type ones?
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 UA-cam. Labour also cancelled Hawker 1154 (VTOL Supersonic Fighter) earlier in the same year.
Britain couldn't afford the TSR2. There was still a large nuclear & conventional bomber force. The supersonic harrier was little more than a drawing exercise with no evidence it would have been viable.
The Conservatives had their 1957 Sandys Defence Review.
No the AVRO Arrow was something completely different. For starters it was a fighter. The TSR-2 was for Tactical Strike & Reconaisance.
Anyone remember the cardboard cutout model of this that came free with some boy's comic, back in 1964?
You are correct, their names were ALLEN and STEWART, Allen took over from Pierrepoint when he reseigned in 1956. Thankyou for the correction.
The problem is that it will take many years to overcome the damage wrought on the British Aviation industry courtesy of healy and sandys. That means we should start ASAP at rebuilding confidence in the industry.
I would like to revise and extend my remarks on this subject.
Apparently Lord Mountbatten was highly placed in the MOD at the time when the TSR2 was cancelled - and he was a Navy man.
The TSR2 had NO ability to operate from carriers, while the F111 could (in theory). I think that Mountbatten wanted to keep the RNs power projection capability and saw the F111 or Bucc+ as the way to do it.
Ironically years later the EF111a was mothballed in favor of the inferior EA6b for the same reason.
@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!
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.
Wrong - the F111 was NEVER a reconaissance aircraft. The F111 had problems but it did most of the heavy lifting in Gulf War one and it was the ONLY aircraft that could have performed the Libya strike. One F111 could carry the bombload of four F4s. Certainly it wasn't a fighter - but trying to fill too many roles at once isn't the aircrafts' fault. The best indication of the ability of the F111 is that the Soviets copied it with the Su-24.
It's true abut the F-111, but at least we are ahead of the aussies who actually bought them and believed the yanks as to price and delivery times. It cost them 10 times the amount and was way behind schedule. Both of these criteria were levelled at the TSR 2 as a reason to cancel.
There's absolutely no evidence that anyone was 'paid' to cancel TSR2, and it was in trouble politically when the Tories were in power. Defence Minister didn't like it, nor did the Chief Scientific advisor, nor did the Chief of Defence staff. What killed TSR2 was lack of confidence in successive Govts that costs could be contained, coupled with dodgy 'assurances' from US industry that they could deliver the F111 cheaper. Hindsight's a great thing. I would have loved to see TSR in RAF colours..
Well one fact well documented was the behaviour of Mountbatten. He persuaded Wilson that for the cost of one TSR2 they could buy 6 Buccaneers, totally ignoring the fact that they were two different weapons systems. Mountbatten is also on record as stating the same information to the Australians. So if anyone killed TSR2 Mountbatten did.
True, I think the truth of the matter is that the TSR2 acceleration caught the Lightning pilot off guard and he had to give it some real welly to catch up!
Thanks
Appreciate that this is 10 years later, but an alternative explanation is that the TSR2 was very lightly loaded with fuel while the Lightning had a lot more fuel on board (in percentage terms).
Fantastic to see the TSR-2 at Duxford
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
This thing got away from a lightning on one after burner!!! WOW!
An amazing piece of British Engineering that would have made any aircraft in the world at that time obsolete. But due to that factor what many dont tell you about, because of The yanks, we was forced to scrap it. Thankfully the TSR2 still survives.
It went into service as the Jaguar
The TSR shares a likeness to the A-5 Vigilante. I like planes. If we share the money properly we could have seen F-111 with TSR's. Another possibility for example would be with the XB-70 and the SR-71. They competed for one contract however with a little vision they could have combined the two designs adding the SR-71 to the XB-70 and share the contract. A mach 3 platform for recon and or bomb.
That surprised me as well. USA is'nt known for buying foriegn military planes. But it is in conjuntion with Northrop (i think). But this is probably due to finanial limitations on Northrops part, and inter-company rivalry in America between Northrop and Boeing. The british government used TSR2 to batter all the rival aeronautical companies into one as this was the only plane design in town, with no other in the forseeable future.
It looks to me that this aircraft had a small wing compared to it body like the F-35 and F-104. How was the maneuverability?
Maneuvarability is not important when you are flying at ridiculous speed at very low level. Would have been a total beauty. But you could achieve 70% much the mission effectiveness with an upgraded Bucaneer on a fraction of the budget
lyle holland
Not to mention that the small wing area would have given it high wing loading, and thus increased stability in the thick air- an ideal trait for low altitude strike.
Robert Cornhole So the large wings of dedicated GA air craft such as the A-10 are unnecessary?
Large wings are good for low speed handling, such as the A-10 and Su-25 which are supposed to "loiter" over a combat area.
But low-altitude strike planes were meant to come in at very high speed, drop their warload and get out. In that case, a smaller wing for higher loading provides more stability against buffeting.
Robert Cornhole Cool
I have posted more footage under TST2 First Flight
I watched it's last "flight", transported across grass on a hover platform, en route to it's museum home.
@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.
Is it just Me of does the TSR2 look alot like a Swan in the way it lands and takes off?
@parkaoz Maneuverability wasn't the main point of the TSR2
I wouldn't take too much stock in that story. The TSR-2 was never flown beyond mach 1.12. Certainly it could've done faster but it never did. Burning off a Lightning would require a bit more than mach 1.12.
Listen to the comments at 1m 26secs. Burnt off lightning which had both Avons on reheat and it only had one engine on reheat.
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.
@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?.
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?
Appreciate the humour, but it was painted white because, at this time, all of Britains nuclear bomber fleet was White. Cammoflage colour schemes came in in later for this group of planes. You will also note that the roundels are pale in colour, another feature for the nuclear fleet of planes.
@G777GUN apparantly the airframe was capable of mach 3 in theory! how practical that was iv no idea and well never know
Cool vid! ✈️
Was the angle of attack always that high on landing
What a beautiful airplane....
This was only a draught idea and very quickly abandoned. The destruction of the prototypes was too complete. Tooling, jigs, blue prints all gone(or nearly gone, theres bound to be someone whos squirreled away something). XR220 at RAF Cosford due to fly when cancellation was announced but was saved, but the wiring looms were cut everywhere possible, so it's not viable to resurect it.
Air streams follow geodesic surfaces. Britain's zeroeth White Elephant for the minus one White Elephants that never flew see The Bristol Brabazon. You could say we have had our share of turkeys here but there seems to be an increasing popular demand for hs2
what killed this Aircraft was Politics , Politicians, Political intrigues and dramas at high Military levels, bad Companies unable to keep the logistics going, pre BAC, plus Naval types pushing the Buccaneer. NOT as people think that is was Australia's fault choosing the F-111 which had and outstanding Operational record , check use in Vietnam alone. Your were a small economy , bankrupt, and then got a Labour "slash and burn " Govt, that is just part of the story which will never be known........still apart from the Lockheed SR-71-the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, and perhaps Concorde was beautiful to behold
TSR 2 and the Vulcan. Both best at their time and didn't get to show it.. :(
yes, where would the world be w/o german tech :)
***** i am amazed how you manage to blame germany for everything that comes into your mind.
As long you dont have to grow a pair, man up and take responsibility for your own fate.
(And as a nation too - blaming EU for countless things that EU had nothing to do with was comedy gold)
It is so much easier to say germany is an agressor (even today) all germans fault.
But when i trolled you before, i already knew how the typical low educated brexiter would respond, so i am not surprised.
But i tell you a secret, promise me not to share with others:
The succsess of VW has to do with good management, good relationship to employees (plant workers have stock in the company, and dont get fired so quickly during crisises - this creates "m-o-ti-va-tion" - in 2016 - VWs success is homegrown.. it is not germanies fault that you sell all good car brands to indians germans and what not...
I hear tata motor owns land rover .. i mean .. is that germanys fault too?
dont be ridiculous.. wait.. you already are.
What made germany succsessful back then and today is not "nazis" - but it was the middeclass businesses with their apprenticeship system that guarantees a large highly qualified workforce in all things mechanical, construction and electric.
the other thing was a decen number of innovative thinkers and disciplined accurate execution.
What has england? a dying coal industry.. a dead car industry.. involvement in european aerospace survival guaranteed by german participation. (EADS/ESA/Airbus etc)
Your main "industry" is the london city, which is now sliding into nothing due to brexit. Well done. I dont think the fusion with frankfurt stock exchange is now a go anymore.
- Stop blaming us, start to roll up your sleeves and get something done. no matter what.
Blaming and lamenting does not seem to work so well...
***** you rnew PM has not enough stagetime to be judged, but i undertand she is the only one who did not step backwards fast enough when every other candidate was running for the hills.
the german perspective is - we have our own set of problems to deal with, whom are we to judge some other countries PMs.
If she leads the UK to glory, then that will be better for all of us.
like a strong germany, more than once pulled the EU (including the UK) out of recessions ....
a strong UK would be, in union or not - good for us all.
In that sense, in sincerely hope you knew what you were doing when you got a clown as foreign minister and this .. lady of which i dont know much as MP.
Regarding your statement "britain was the best country" - that depends on how you define "best".
Much of your success was based on plundering the commonwalth and the industrialisation based on steam engines and coal.
Today coal mines are empty, and coal is unpopular due to the global warming - also steam engines are out of fashion.
The commonwealth stopped beeing raped (english crown killed more natives on foreign soil, than three hitlers)
You spend money on military, instead a refomation of the educationsystem and removal of "class differences"
the secret in succsess of tomorrow is to stop living in the past.
I know of no german who speculates how things would be better if germany had won the war. It is the english who cant stop hammering the evil german kliché into their minds... its tiring.. stupid.. and foremost very sad.
ps: i loved land rover... until you sold it...
and i trust rolls royce turbines everytime i step into a plane...
pull your self together england
we need you in your best shape if we are
to weather the problems of this world as allies:
***** you did not build the railways "for india" it was ur indian slaves who built it for you,you just did not dismantle it when you left india.
You invaded and rule by force - show some honesty please. Some "primitive folk" would actually have been happier without your "blessings" and dependencies that came with it.
same goes for spaniards - and the "americans" were settlers from europe - so that term is bullshit - majority were english settlers, but also french and germans and others of course - but you can see, still today that for example
the finnish settlers have had a eyelevel relationship with the natives and no history of bloodshed, which was not the case with british settlers. Finns traded with the red, allowed them to enter their stores and intermarriage.
The english did nothing of the kind.
But lets leave america out of this.
----
the migrant crisis - well, the problem
is - there is an international charta of human rights, which i believe the brits have co-authored.
Its a binding law, that you cannot refuse a refugee shelter:
Due to the unmanageable mass, there are bound to be a number of unjustified asylumseekers in the mix, even some dangerous ones.
I can see that, we germans - even merkel sees it - but there is no solution to the problem.
Pulling up a large fence may be against that internatonal law. maybe next time it is us, who need shelter... who knows?
Of course i am not happy with it, but i dont think hysteria is the answer.
We will manage. Because we have no choice but to manage. We cant leave this burden to italy and greece to deal with alone ....
Unfortunately the countries causing the mess
starting with the unjustified war on IRAQ courtesy of tony blair and g.w. busch - and continued destabilisation in afgahnistan and pakistan. Dont pull their weight when it comes to sheltering civillians that became targets.
One nation that had nothing to do with it all has now stepped in to assist the southern EU states with the onslaught. And you have the nerve to blame it.. again.. you should be fucking grateful germany is not passing the whole stream along via calais.
***** solidarity is something the brits never understood. nothing i say will change that.
The day comes when england needs solidarity...
Excuse me now sir.
This conversation has already eaten too much of my time, and i have so much else on my plate to deal with.
have a good life. may your dreams come true.
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.
looks like the Avro Arrow!
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.
Landing on foam it looks like a swan landing on water. Leaving a Lightning for dead is amazing. A great shame that it was shot down by appeasing politicians and bureaucratic wrangling.
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... :-)
@shaun8195 yup it strikes me as a baby tsr2 much smaller and less capable but a similer plane in many ways
@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
Was this a jump jet like the harrier?
They would have to have flown it under soviet radar, with those wing tip con-trails and smokey exhaust it wouldn't been hard to see at any higher altitude!
Who is the first narrator?
I disagree with your point on being forced to hand over the plans for the Miles M52, under an agreement of mutual knowledge exchange we handed over all info on sound barrier problems and solutions (about 7 years of research), but the US did not reply and claimed the all-moving tailplane as theirs. The M52 has this and its production started in 1942! I assume that it's their invention because they made it work first.
Lovely to see some truth on UargueTube! and your bang on with wat you say bout Germany!
Lightning with afterburners both lit was left for dead by TSR2 with just one engine lit. Absolutely ridiculous aircraft. Why was this scrapped?
Americans wanted their Starfighter pushed to nato countries.
Not really that was the Lightening myth, actually the Lightning caught up when it’s pilot saw what was going on.
Not many planes can out run a Lightning.
Any plane that can stay in the air for more than 30-45 minutes max will eventually "out run a Lightning".
Well the F-111 was faster.
@@deeremeyer1749 And yet by the time those 30-45 minutes have passed the lightening will be hundreds of kilometers ahead, if we're talking a race.
@@米空軍パイロット ... don't believe this ..TSR 2 would have done 2700km/h as target ,, F-111 maybe at least more expensive ...
@@supersonic1246 No. It could only go 2400. The 2700 figure is a miscalculation spread by uneducated non-engineers. This error stems from said non-engineers multiplying the Mach 2.35 speed at 36000 ft with the speed of sound at sea level. They are wrong because the speed of sound decreases in the colder air at high altitude. The BAE website shows the correct figure:
www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/bac-tsr-2
The USSR reveal the MIG25 - the faster fighter jet that can fly MACH 3 in 1967. This TSR.2 is obsolete before the completing development and it didn't achieve the goal of taking off on a short run way.
majestic - very very sad it never made it - guess, same fate as the arrow
the old RAF Jaguar fighter looks similar to that plane
@Stakker It's no Concorde or Valkyrie... but I' ve always liked its vulture-like stance. Like it actually wants to kill you!
The amazing Brits, what more can you say.
@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
Blue Streak, Black Knight, TSR2.......we just sort of gave up really.
@kaw1970 sums it up very well
Do not need a catapult system with the SVTOL F35 as being the only planes needed about 40 on board i believe ? ,the readyness for deployment is so much quicker to off load and land the planes , Superior in the fact they are more sophisticated in the most advanced Technology available now , i didnt mean in Might .The new generation of Carriers WILL NOT NEED DESTROYER SUPPORT FOR PROTECTION due to the Technology within them and the rapid deployment of the F35s , very capable in a fight. youll see
@tommyboomboom Just about ANY remark about this aircraft HAS to be ended with an exclamation mark!
@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.
so is the Lady, SR 71 ripeaces
sorry for finishing every comment with an exclamation mark