TSR-2 - "Perfect example for unmasterable technology and mismanagement?"

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by The Basket

Canada officially doesn't have nukes so buying the F-104 as a nuclear bomber seems a bit rum.

Where did the nukes come from and did Canada have control once they had them?

Canada was supplied nukes by the US up until the late 70's the cf101 also used nukes in the Genie missle

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Jane's mentions that Greenamyer's F-104 was "subsequently destroyed"

Do you know what happened?

I worked for the savage company that picked up the wreckage. There were rumours the aircraft was worth more destroyed than it was being operated. Greenamyer was said to have a landing gear problem and rather than belly in (He had a downward ejection seat) he went up to altitude and punched out.

[Graeme]

he went up to altitude and punched out.

If he was low and in 'trouble' could he have quickly inverted the plane and ejected? Or am I not comprehending how difficult that manoeuvre would be?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Graeme

If he was low and in 'trouble' could he have quickly inverted the plane and ejected? Or am I not comprehending how difficult that manoeuvre would be?

He didn't invert - he had a hydraulic problem (landing gear). He pointed the nose up, got to a safe altitude (my guess would be anywhere above 5000' AGL) and blew out from the bottom.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That has to suck, punching out through the bottom. I know they do it on B-52s, but the crew members on the lower deck dont have any other option but otherwise that has to blow monkey balls.

[FLYBOYJ]

From what understand the downward charge in this system was not as abrupt on a conventional system.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I worked for the savage company that picked up the wreckage. There were rumours the aircraft was worth more destroyed than it was being operated. Greenamyer was said to have a landing gear problem and rather than belly in (He had a downward ejection seat) he went up to altitude and punched out.

The reason he didn't attempt to belly-land was not because of the ejection seat, but because the main fuel lines ran along the bottom of the aircraft in between the main wheel wells, and they didn't want to risk a belly landing and a potential catastrophe; it was safer for Greenamyer to punch out at altitude rather than to try & land.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

The reason he didn't attempt to belly-land was not because of the ejection seat, but because the main fuel lines ran along the bottom of the aircraft in between the main wheel wells, and they didn't want to risk a belly landing and a potential catastrophe; it was safer for Greenamyer to punch out at altitude rather than to try & land.

The "offical" story....

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The "offical" story....

Oh . . . I suppose we'll never know the "truth".

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

Oh . . . I suppose we'll never know the "truth".

Probably not...

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Canada was supplied nukes by the US up until the late 70's the cf101 also used nukes in the Genie missle

Canada had to have authorization from NATO (read: "United States") to use them. I believe they could only be armed by a member of the US military forces; Canada (or any other country for that matter) may have had possesion of the nukes, but we owned them.

[pbfoot]

Don;t know what would be preferrable landing the 104 at 180-200knots without gear doesn't sound to appealling . And the downward ejection seat was not used by many of the 1000's of 104's built . Most were the G model and I believe only the A through C model ejected downward and these were the early USAF models. And your correct when the 101 was nuke armed the nukes were guarded by USAF guys and you had your own bunkers

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the great discussion! :-) Though inevitably, some posts didn't even mention the TSR-2, I think they're on topic just the same as the capabilities of contemporary designs are important for an evaluation, too! :-)

So it seems that no one here really thinks that there were any insurmountable problems with the TSR-2, regardless of whether it was the right design for the role. I'd say that from your comments, the level of mismanagement and the margin of the cost overrun of the TSR-2 seems to have been nothing special compared to that of other contemporary projects, especially the F-111 which was designed in the USA for the same role.

Does that sound like a reasonable summary? :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the great discussion! Though inevitably, some posts didn't even mention the TSR-2, I think they're on topic just the same as the capabilities of contemporary designs are important for an evaluation, too!

So it seems that no one here really thinks that there were any insurmountable problems with the TSR-2, regardless of whether it was the right design for the role. I'd say that from your comments, the level of mismanagement and the margin of the cost overrun of the TSR-2 seems to have been nothing special compared to that of other contemporary projects, especially the F-111 which was designed in the USA for the same role.

Does that sound like a reasonable summary?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Yes. The second post, from Adler, supplied the answer-Politics.
All the rest is good old beer talk.

[mosquitoman]

Not that good old beer talk is bad