On Monday 22 November 2004 01:28, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:24:38 +0000, Lee wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:32:12 +0000 (UTC), Martin wrote in > > > message > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Lee Elliott wrote: > > > > > I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate > > > > > less than perfect strips. > > > > > > > > Yes, the main gear looks to be very 'robust'. But I > > > > still wonder why they paid attention to these features. > > > > To my knowledge the TSR-2 was designed for long range > > > > and high cruise speed. This sort of aircraft typically > > > > doesn't need rough, short strips, they could safely > > > > operate from distant bases .... > > > > > > ..you forget this plane was made to fight WWIII. ;-). > > > > In a nut shell, you've got it. The requirements spec was > > very demanding and to a degree lead to it's failure. > > > > Even so, albeit after prolonged development, it seems as > > though it was coming pretty close to actually meeting those > > requirements when the project was cancelled. I've read that > > if just any one of those requirements had been relaxed just > > a little the a/c would have cost a lot less to produce and > > been a lot easier to actually manufacture. > > > > Many, if not most of the people involved in the project seem > > to believe that it was dropped more for political reasons > > (it had the potential to upset the balance of powers) rather > > than technical/manufacturing problems (there have been a > > surprisingly high number of books written about the TSR2) > > and considering the original specs & requirements, it's > > likely that the TSR2 would still be in service today, had > > they ever got into production and service. > > ..any books on it's avionics? These would have needed to be > reliable near nuclear firework too.
Good point - no, I'm not aware of any books that go into the avionics & EMP hardening. However, I've not read anything about an FCS and I believe that the design was aerodynamically stable, so it could have been flown ok as long as fuel was getting to the engines. Perhaps the crew might not have known where they were going but they'd be able to stay in the air. AFAIK, the terrain-following scheme, using a 'ski-toe' ground intersection profile, which was eventually used in the Panavia Tornado, was first developed for the TSR2. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
