BAC TSR2 (as expected to be when in service)

by   7,282 RamboJutter  2 months ago

The best all british bomber we nearly had (nastly americans / politics). Right, complicated this one, retract wheels as normal, big bays open, close them again with vtol up ( oh for a cycle option), vtol down opens the bomb bays. Airbrakes and air intakes are controlled on throttle. last one from me for a bit, I need a rest. enjoyski. Oh, and i hate simple planes custom wheels, why they have jelly suspension i have no idea.

Spotlights

General Characteristics

  • Successors 1 airplane(s) +7 bonus
  • This plane has been featured
  • Created On Windows
  • Wingspan 23.4ft (7.1m)
  • Length 41.6ft (12.7m)
  • Height 13.0ft (3.9m)
  • Empty Weight 11,248lbs (5,102kg)
  • Loaded Weight 15,031lbs (6,818kg)

Performance

  • Power/Weight Ratio 4.485
  • Wing Loading 45.7lbs/ft2 (223.1kg/m2)
  • Wing Area 329.0ft2 (30.6m2)
  • Drag Points 4792

Parts

  • Number of Parts 382
  • Control Surfaces 1
  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image
    1,746 asg

    Looks great and oh yeah thanks for clearing up the discrepancies about the starfighter's safety record.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    120k Pilotmario

    @RamboJutter That's no fault of the design. Japan lost only three of its 230 Starfighters in the 24 years of service, two to a mid-air collision. Italy, while losing about 38% of its fleet over a 50 year span, had an accident rate of 14.2 flight hours per 100,000 hours, a fairly average rate for an aircraft of its era. Spain, who flew 17,000 flight hours with its 21 aircraft over 12 years, lost none.

    As the above statistics show, it's not exactly an unsafe aircraft when flown correctly. The fault for the accidents were Lockheed's unscrupulous marketing, which in my opinion should not mar an objective assessment of the aircraft.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    7,282 RamboJutter

    @Pilotmario at the risk of starting this off again, One common saying / question asked was how you could get your own F-104. The answer was, “Buy a plot of land and wait for a Starfighter to crash on it.” Canada lost over 100 of its 200 aircraft, Germany had 917 and lost 270 with 110 pilots lost..... I think it earned it's reputation. Yes they may have been using it for multiple roles that it wasn't initially designed for BUT it was sold to them as capable of those roles.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    120k Pilotmario

    @F104Deathtrap I think we cancelled Valkyrie because of things like the S-75 Dvina SAM. You know, Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 spyplane got knocked out of the sky.

    Because of things like that, the meta changed to low-altitude penetration with cruise missiles. In that role, the projected performance of B-52, B-58, and XB-70 would be not much greater. And the B-52 was a far more versatile system.

    Development thus went toward low-altitude, high-speed systems such as the F-111 and B-1, which served the US well.

    As for the F-104 being a deathtrap, the aircraft was relatively safe as long as you weren't an idiot. I believe in the 17,000 flight hours in the Spanish Air Force, they did not lose a single aircraft. Likewise, the JASDF only lost three out of their 210+ machines in their 24 years of fending off frequent Soviet intrusions.

    Then again, these guys only used them as interceptors, as intended. The air forces that suffered the most losses were those who did not use the plane ot their strengths.

    The US didn't use the F-104 because the idea of a relatively lightweight air superiority fighter was not desirable. The US Air Force wanted heavier fighter-bombers and missile-laden interceptors, something which the F-104 isn't that good for. That being said, they did see service in Vietnam. They didn't bring down any MiGs and lost three (one from a Chinese MiG-19 copy and two which crashed into each other trying to chase it down) in combat, but they were considered effective at protecting strike aircraft.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    120k Pilotmario

    looks at comments

    Glad I wasn't in that shitstorm of political discourse.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    28.4k Blue0Bull

    I just noticed this beauty, Great job

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @RamboJutter Right on. Good build. Sorry.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    13.3k ChiChiWerx

    @F104Deathtrap you are correct, sir!

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    7,282 RamboJutter

    Guys/girls, end of argument, I like both tsr2 and the valkerie. I'd have posted my simpleplanes valkerie before this but I did it without mods so needs adapting. No more arguments plix, interesting as they are (ps wiki shouldn't be used for referencing as my degree lecturers kept telling me :p )

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @F104Deathtrap why you sent me a youtube link lol just accept your wrong i have checked every bit of imformation what i have sent to you and its all right if you dont believe look it all up on wiki

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @ChiChiWerx It is apples to oranges, the TSR has more in common with the F-105 or the A-5 Vigilante, except for one main similarity: they were both expensive strategic strike projects that got cancelled because they were more expensive and less effective than missiles. Could the TSR have soldiered on as a recon aircraft? Sure, just like the A-5. But would that have justified the enormous effort it took to bring such a cutting edge plane into production? Unlikely. In many ways, the UK sidestepped quite a few of the expensive boondoggles that the US undertook during the second generation of jet aircraft.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    Not bad and such controversy in the comments! wow!!!!

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    13.3k ChiChiWerx

    @F104Deathtrap @superdeltaforce it's all cool...comparing the XB-70 to the TSR2 is comparing apples to oranges. One was a high altitude Mach 3 heavy bomber, the other a Mach 2 low altitude tactical/small to medium sized bomber penetrating bomber more akin to a Tornado or F-111. IMHO it was a tragedy to cancel either; politics and dirty play factored in both cancellations, though I do agree that US orgs or gov't probably did push for the U.K. To cnx the TSR2. Bottom line the XB-70 and TSR2 did not compete against each other and they were both amazing aircraft in their own right.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @superdeltaforce https://youtu.be/R7uC5m-IRns

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @F104Deathtrap Mate i dont know where you get your facts from but they are completely wrong ?? if you say the xb-70 was so fine why in 1965 did AV1 engine intake ramp brake off in flight damaging all the engines beyond repair and in the same year while surpassing mach3 the panels on the xb70 brake off due to heat and stress and caused the left wing to be left missing in flight. So they had to limit the xb70 to mach 2.5. The program cost 1.5 billion and they only ever built two. look it up lol and Saunders Roe 177 rocket jet fighter was tested with the SR53 and performed perfectly and had no problems. It would have used hawker red top misslies and a interception radar. The SR 53 did not have these because it was a prototype lol lack of funding and dirty dealing with lockeed and germany caused the 177 not to be built. and we did use the ee lightning up to 1988 and then we used the f4 phantom but only til 1992 but it was nothing compared to our tornado GR4 which is faster and better armed and is still in service unlike your f4 phantom lol and look up when america was trying to ban concord from coming to new york in the 70s. America wanted to make there own concord but to build a bigger and faster one which was technically impossible at the time btw before you comment look up your facts first try wiki lol.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    12.6k CRJ900Pilot

    That way when you get airborne turn off 8 so when you vtol down for bomb bay the gear doors don't go up @RamboJutter

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @RamboJutter You know, this thing is very similar to the A5 Vigilante. Same roles, same basic layout, same time period. I wonder if this bird influenced the designers over at North American?

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    I seeeee @F104Deathtrap

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @superdeltaforce We cancelled the Valkyrie because a missile could deliver ordinance faster and cheaper than a gigantic mach 3 jet. The prototypes flew just fine, and we only lost one of them because (surprise-surprise) a Starfighter crashed into it. NASA used the surviving one for years, without issue.

    As for your rocket interceptor, all I can say is that they tend to need radar and weapons. By the time it was cancelled, Saunders Roe had admitted that their prototype would have to be redesigned before it could carry either. I suspect your government recalled the strategic blunder the Germans experienced with their Komet project. The Starfighter was a terrible plane, thus my username, and the only reason we exported so many was corruption, if you notice, the USAF used relatively few of them.

    All of these planes (and the Lightning, which was/is a very cool plane) were made obsolete by our final fighter design of the 1950s, the F-110 Spectre (now known as the F-4 Phantom II). A plane not only faster than these other aircraft, but designed to work in all weather and with less demands on the pilot.

    As for the Concorde, I always loved it. I have no idea where your assumption that we hated it came from. I hope the idea of an SST is revived at some point while I'm still alive.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @F104Deathtrap Your forgetting who run all the funding for the UN. It was abit strange why we couldnt get funding for the tsr2 or the Saunders-Roe SR.177 which was strangely replaced by the american f-104 when the SR177 had superior performance to the f-104.The Saunders-Roe SR.177 would have even out performed the ee lighting due to its rocket jet engine and america only cancelled the xb 70 bomber because it had list long of problems lol but dont forget concord which was funded by the english and french and was able to be made in perfect success and the americans hated it that much they wanted to build there own.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    7,282 RamboJutter

    @CRJ900Pilot run that by me again, so I set the undercarriage doors to vtol 8? What does that gain me/do?

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    7,282 RamboJutter

    @F104Deathtrap yeah your not wrong (look at the ee lightning to Germany deal, oh look they ended up with starfighters/ new holes in fields).TSR-2 was cancelled due to rising costs, in favour of purchasing an adapted version of the General Dynamics F-111, a decision that itself was later rescinded as costs and development times increased..... I think that says a lot about the politics of the time. Tsr was never designed to be hypersonic, and even in test flights it out accelerated the lightning I understand (the lightning out accelerated the early f15s in climbs and f105s for fun.) Still enjoyed the build though

    2 months ago
  • Profile image

    @Ihavenorealideawhatiamdoing They blame us for their aircraft industry imploding. It's a fair accusation, their government used to be amazingly corrupt and some of our biggest corporations (Lockheed, particularly) would bribe UK officials to buy American jets instead of investing locally. The TSR2 was a prestige program for them, England's attempt to reclaim their position as the best aircraft designers on Earth. But supersonic bombers were irrelevant once ICBMs became smaller/reliable, and low altitude strike aircraft can only go so fast. In the end, she came in WAY over budget and much slower than required. For the record, we cancelled our own hypersonic bomber program, the B-70 Valkyrie despite being almost 500mph faster.

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    12.6k CRJ900Pilot

    You could have used ag 8 and disable it inflight @RamboJutter

    2 months ago
  • Profile image
    7,282 RamboJutter

    Almost every part has collisions disabled, I could have increased the rotation of the undercarriage legs but I wanted them to be in the scale location, if sp didn't have slogger or the rotators it wouldn't be a problem with wheels appearing through the doors, but to be fair you wouldn't pull that hard in real life, I could limit the elevator movement to also solve this. As for the gear doors I didn't want to start messing about and having parts on different numbers, again all I needed was sp to have a cycle option on rotators instead I have to use 2 sets... I was more concerned with getting the doors so you had them open and an option to shut after wheels are retracted. Which way is it auto rolling? I fly with a joystick and it was fine.

    2 months ago
  • Log in to see more comments