I know the GOR spec called for a bomber that could fly 1000Nm.
My question is, could the TSR2 do this on internal tanks only, or did it rely on drop tanks and/or AAR? Also, I assume the 1000Nm is one way, and not 1000 there and a 1000 back?
I'm trying to figure out what it would take to get a TSR2 to bomb the Falklands from Ascension, in lieu of the Vulcan. Theres no point in doing it if all hardpoints are filled with drop tanks.....
1,000 nautical miles was expressed as 'combat radius', so that would be out and back.
Thought so. Now, I take it that was on internal tanks?
Quote from: Devilfish on March 10, 2014, 08:55:01 AM
I'm trying to figure out what it would take to get a TSR2 to bomb the Falklands from Ascension, in lieu of the Vulcan.
Well it would only take one TSR with a refueling probe and a whole bunch of tankers. Remember even each Black Buck Vulcan strike required multiple tankers in a VERY carefully designed plan. I believe there were 13 Victors required (some as spares) for each Vulcan going all the way, some Victors refueled other Victors so that a few could pass off fuel to the primary strike Vulcan.
A TSR2 by itself, no air to refueling, from Ascension to the Falklands? Not even close to possible.
No all is lost however for a WHIF, you could still have a WHIF Falklands TSR2, just have to have some tanker support for the scenario from either Victors, Vulcans, VC-10's. Put a probe on a TSR2 and hang some tanks and iron boms on it.
One of my TSR2's will be set up like this --
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FBAC%2520Eagle%2520GR7a%2FTSR-2Eagle.jpg&hash=3b44cef3ae0cfb13fee24b272c67931b4f2ffe20) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/BAC%20Eagle%20GR7a/TSR-2Eagle.jpg.html)
Which then looks like this;
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FBAC%2520Eagle%2520GR7a%2FTSR2003.jpg&hash=e685991b38a90e6d1f0bcc20fce3ff6f69d67e55) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/BAC%20Eagle%20GR7a/TSR2003.jpg.html)
tanks are the hinderburg ones from a Tornado
mind you, I have been told that a tank this large had been proposed, roughly a 1000 Gal and using a Blue Water pylon;
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FBAC%2520Eagle%2520GR7a%2FTSR2LargeTank_zpsf69c7f9a.jpg&hash=13975ec5203608eabc7b39abb4220e2392f137ac) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/BAC%20Eagle%20GR7a/TSR2LargeTank_zpsf69c7f9a.jpg.html)
Quote from: Devilfish on March 10, 2014, 08:55:01 AM
I'm trying to figure out what it would take to get a TSR2 to bomb the Falklands from Ascension, in lieu of the Vulcan. Theres no point in doing it if all hardpoints are filled with drop tanks.....
Scientific wild-arsed guess follows:
The TSR.2 was designed for a radius of 1,000 nautical miles; the Vulcan for a radius of 1,500 nautical miles. Taking into account the tankers to refuel the other tankers, we can assume that the number of aircraft goes as number of radii squared. But the TSR.2 is half the size of a Vulcan, so only needs half as much fuel. So.... fourteen and five-eighths Victors. Call it fifteen. Ish. Maybe.
Now, at overload and with drop tanks on the inner hardpoints, BAC reckoned you could do 1,800 nautical miles. In which case you need four and a half Victors, or nine for two TSR.2s. Not a lot of bombs (6,000 lbs at most, more likely 4,000 lbs) on each, but if they're laser guided and a couple of blokes from Poole with pixellated faces camp out on the east end of Wireless Ridge with a designator, that might just work. :wacko:
Don't think 'they' had laser designators back then. Uncle Sam was keeping those type of toys for 'speshul farces'
The RAF didn't have TSR.2 either, and the US lent us all sorts of nice toys for the duration of hostilities. It's plausible enough for whiffing purposes!
The RAF was flying Harrier GR3's during the Falklands and had in fact been flying them for some time all with LRMTS noses just looking for that little laser splash from the men from Pool. So I say laser designation for TSR2's would have been entirely feasible without too much stretching of the imagination.
Gondor
It's not the fuel that's the problem, it's the amount of engine oil for a mission of the duration NOT the range.
Quote from: The Rat on March 10, 2014, 09:04:25 AM
1,000 nautical miles was expressed as 'combat radius', so that would be out and back.
Realise I said that wrong, it should read 1,000 nautical miles out, and 1,000 back. 1,000 is the radius.
Cheers for the replies. I realise a TSR2 on it's own couldn't hope to make it, I was trying to figure out the tankerage needed and if it could be done without drop tanks, so more ordenance could be carried. Having just completed my GR6 with Hindenburgs (which look tiny on the huge airframe), 2 LGBs and 4 internal iron bombs, I was looking at a mission with maybe 2 aircraft, carrying as many iron bombs as possible, doing a fast and low run of the airfield.
Quote from: Devilfish on March 11, 2014, 12:13:57 AM
Cheers for the replies. I realise a TSR2 on it's own couldn't hope to make it, I was trying to figure out the tankerage needed and if it could be done without drop tanks, so more ordenance could be carried. Having just completed my GR6 with Hindenburgs (which look tiny on the huge airframe), 2 LGBs and 4 internal iron bombs, I was looking at a mission with maybe 2 aircraft, carrying as many iron bombs as possible, doing a fast and low run of the airfield.
Understood. I think it is doable for a WHIF scenario, and I think with tanks is a more realistic configuration. From this source http://www.targetlock.org.uk/tsr2/systems.html "The total amount of fuel carried was 5650 gallons (25425 liters). Two pylons could be fitted under each wing, to carry missiles, bombs, or more fuel; the ferry tanks contained 1213 gallons (5460 liters) each." So figure about 20% extra fuel with the external tanks. This is significant for long overwater flights. Even with tanker support, you want to have as much fuel as possible for emergency diverts due to probe failure, tanker failure etc. This exta fuel would be appreciated. As pointed out, extra engine oil would be required as well- you could have something internal for that.
A VERY rough calculation: a bit less than four thousand miles each way, with the return trip being a bit lighter without ordinance. High all the way except for the strike. You would want to top off quite frequently to keep diverts possible (very few options down south). So perhaps pass two thousand gallons (13,400 pounds) at a time. So perhaps 160,000 lbs of gas for each TSR2 round trip? Figure around 5 plug ins going south and 2-3 on the return. We can now (again VERY roughly) figure your tanker support. Total fuel required for 2 TSR2 is roughly similar to a single Vulcan stike, with the added complication of likely wanting 2 tankers go as far as possbible to give a last top offs before the strike. You would require a simialr tanker package to the Black Buck raides. So figure ~12 tankers for the two TSR2.
The Rat
Was this 1,000 nm combat radius premised on a supersonic ingress/egress?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 11, 2014, 05:37:04 PM
The Rat
Was this 1,000 nm combat radius premised on a supersonic ingress/egress?
No idea.
I like the idea. I'm sure it could/ would work.
Also love that TSR.2 beating up the Loch. Wow.
:tornado:
The 1,000 nm sortie was specified as:
- Economical cruise to 650 nautical miles from the target
- 100 nautical miles at a speed in excess of Mach 1.7
- Descent at maximum speed to less than 200 feet and a speed in excess of Mach 0.9
- Deliver a 2,000 lb weapons[/i]
- Return to 200 nautical miles at low altitude and a speed in excess of Mach 0.9
- Return to base at economical cruising speed and altitude
The odd 50 nautical miles in the outbound leg is taken up in the ascent and descent.
I thought of a scenario where a and "older" almost worn out TSR2 takes off from ascension to bomb stanley/tierra del fuego and then land with the aid of arrestor hook which the TSR2 was designed for, landing/crash landing on the Hermes
That aircraft would then have to be pushed over the side to clear the deck for normal ops. Very expensive air raid.
Could the Hermes even take the weight? It was never cleared for Phantom ops....
I know this is possibly off topic but can anyone confirm that the 1/48 Airfix TSR-2 kit is just pantographed from 1/72. I've built the 1/48 kit three times in one real and two whiffs and found it straightforward enough. Will I find the same issues in the 1/72 kit or are there other vices? Tempted to go the whole hog with aftermarket sets.
Quote from: Librarian on March 13, 2014, 04:59:54 AM
I know this is possibly off topic but can anyone confirm that the 1/48 Airfix TSR-2 kit is just pantographed from 1/72. I've built the 1/48 kit three times in one real and two whiffs and found it straightforward enough. Will I find the same issues in the 1/72 kit or are there other vices? Tempted to go the whole hog with aftermarket sets.
In a word....no. The 1/48 one goes together a whole lot better than the 1/72 one, but, the 1/72 one is more accurate in shape.
Quote from: crudebuteffective on March 12, 2014, 02:12:50 PM
I thought of a scenario where a and "older" almost worn out TSR2 takes off from ascension to bomb stanley/tierra del fuego and then land with the aid of arrestor hook which the TSR2 was designed for, landing/crash landing on the Hermes
Quote from: Devilfish on March 13, 2014, 12:28:39 AM
Could the Hermes even take the weight? It was never cleared for Phantom ops....
No a TSR2 could not land on a carrier. Really too far fetched for a credible WHIF scenario. TSRs was too fast, too heavy, not strengthened for carrier ops. The arresting hook on the TSR2 was for land based barrier engagements, not for carrier ops. Land based barrier engagmenet are very different from carrier based arresting gear in how much strain they can take and place on the aircraft. The Hermes arresting gear had long since been removed with the conversion to Commando carrier, and even then would not have been able to handle a TSR2. If you wanted to go with a one way mission, the crew would slow down, set up for a controlled ejection and eject over land or near a freidly ship.
Now a one way mission lauched FROM a carrier could be WHIFed with a bunch of JATO bottles or ZELL.....
I have an AH scenario in which TSR.2s from South Georgia are used to stiffen a raid by carrierborne Buccaneers against Stanley. There again, the war opens with Argentine Vulcans bombing Ascension.
Quote from: kerick on March 12, 2014, 05:14:53 PM
That aircraft would then have to be pushed over the side to clear the deck for normal ops. Very expensive air raid.
yeah that was my idea being an old TSR2 they'd just unceremoniously dump it off the back, very wasteful but I think good British initiative, the end result would be the same the argies keeping back mirages on the mainland to defend against a strike on tierra del fuego or commodore rividavia.
This is giving me some great ideas for a TSR-2 whiff. Let's just say for arguments sake (and the glorious world of whiff) that the fuselage etc has the strength for carrier landings. Those awful wobbly legs have gone and a pair of serious beefcake affairs like on the SU-24 have been fitted. Now the fun bit.....we take those luverly wings and do to them what Mr Vought did to the Crusader, but as the wing lifts up it reveals at the forward junction point an intake such as found on a certain *&$%^&*$£"$%^ ;D machine we are acquiring. This leads into a long elongated s-curve forward to a vertically mounted lift engine and voila....a well-whiffed STOL capability.
Now tell me someone else has already done it :banghead:.
Not quite, but I did build an FAA TSR2. I called it a Barracuda and added a third Spey boost engine housed in the bomb bay of the Vigilante fuselage which was melded with the TSR2 one. It also has Vigilante wings with the tips turned down. Naturally they're longer.... ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg541.imageshack.us%2Fimg541%2F4826%2Fnwul.jpg&hash=2bc7c06c3e9c2d025db3853cd7fabacf3cffd531)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg69.imageshack.us%2Fimg69%2F7066%2Fpf7d.jpg&hash=6586ce67a3d570d177da80e24a07a13258de1a5b)
Oh, now I do like that. :ph34r:
:o
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 13, 2014, 05:49:46 PM
Not quite, but I did build an FAA TSR2. I called it a Barracuda and added a third Spey boost engine housed in the bomb bay of the Vigilante fuselage which was melded with the TSR2 one. It also has Vigilante wings with the tips turned down. Naturally they're longer.... ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg541.imageshack.us%2Fimg541%2F4826%2Fnwul.jpg&hash=2bc7c06c3e9c2d025db3853cd7fabacf3cffd531)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg69.imageshack.us%2Fimg69%2F7066%2Fpf7d.jpg&hash=6586ce67a3d570d177da80e24a07a13258de1a5b)
You mean Olympus?
Great looking whif tho..... :thumbsup:
No, the two main engines are Olympuses (Olympii?) but the boost engine is a Spey, it says so in the backstory which I think is around here somewhere.
The kit was an Merlin TSR2 and as it's impossible to build a TSR2 from it I had to do something else...
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 14, 2014, 08:48:24 AM
No, the two main engines are Olympuses (Olympii?) but the boost engine is a Spey, it says so in the backstory which I think is around here somewhere.
The kit was an Merlin TSR2 and as it's impossible to build a TSR2 from it I had to do something else...
loving the wings but the tsr wasnt exactly underpowered was it :lol:
Quote from: eatthis on March 14, 2014, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 14, 2014, 08:48:24 AM
No, the two main engines are Olympuses (Olympii?) but the boost engine is a Spey, it says so in the backstory which I think is around here somewhere.
The kit was an Merlin TSR2 and as it's impossible to build a TSR2 from it I had to do something else...
loving the wings but the tsr wasnt exactly underpowered was it :lol:
The backstory says the Barracuda S3 had the boost engine intalled for improved launch performance with limited strole catapults and for over target dash performance. The earlier S2s were severely limited in those areas, thus the larger wing and the extra engine....
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 14, 2014, 02:51:26 PM
Quote from: eatthis on March 14, 2014, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 14, 2014, 08:48:24 AM
No, the two main engines are Olympuses (Olympii?) but the boost engine is a Spey, it says so in the backstory which I think is around here somewhere.
The kit was an Merlin TSR2 and as it's impossible to build a TSR2 from it I had to do something else...
loving the wings but the tsr wasnt exactly underpowered was it :lol:
The backstory says the Barracuda S3 had the boost engine intalled for improved launch performance with limited strole catapults and for over target dash performance. The earlier S2s were severely limited in those areas, thus the larger wing and the extra engine....
fair enough on the extra welly for cat launches but no chance did it need extra power for a high speed dash lol
do you know if the concorde olympus motors would fit in the tsr2? that would take it from 60,000 lb (prototype) to 76,000 lb of thrust thats HUGE power considering the frontal area
Quote from: eatthis on March 15, 2014, 07:14:26 AM
fair enough on the extra welly for cat launches but no chance did it need extra power for a high speed dash lol
do you know if the concorde olympus motors would fit in the tsr2? that would take it from 60,000 lb (prototype) to 76,000 lb of thrust thats HUGE power considering the frontal area
The Barracuda S3s had more underwing stores pylons and the FAA tended to carry all their weapons there, using the bomb bay for fuel which increased the drag, thus the boost engine requirement.
I checked and I haven't posted the backstory anywhere on here, perhaps because I haven't actually finished writing it yet. :-\
I should get on with that and then all possible questions about the 'Cuda will be answered.
Re the Concorde Olympii, I believe they would actually fit in the bays as my Prof at Cranfield was trying to do just that with XR222 when it was there. Whether the systems would have been compatible is open to question of course. The 'burners were very different on the Concorde engines, just look at the exhausts.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 15, 2014, 07:26:01 AM
Quote from: eatthis on March 15, 2014, 07:14:26 AM
fair enough on the extra welly for cat launches but no chance did it need extra power for a high speed dash lol
do you know if the concorde olympus motors would fit in the tsr2? that would take it from 60,000 lb (prototype) to 76,000 lb of thrust thats HUGE power considering the frontal area
The Barracuda S3s had more underwing stores pylons and the FAA tended to carry all their weapons there, using the bomb bay for fuel which increased the drag, thus the boost engine requirement.
I checked and I haven't posted the backstory anywhere on here, perhaps because I haven't actually finished writing it yet. :-\
I should get on with that and then all possible questions about the 'Cuda will be answered.
Re the Concorde Olympii, I believe they would actually fit in the bays as my Prof at Cranfield was trying to do just that with XR222 when it was there. Whether the systems would have been compatible is open to question of course. The 'burners were very different on the Concorde engines, just look at the exhausts.
iv only seen the exhausts with the thrust reversers on so iv no idea apart from that. tsr2 with that much power would be totally uncatchable on the deck (probably at higher alt too!!)
ps i look forward to the backstory :)
You could always use a pair of burner cans like this (the RAF bomber would not have had the reverser buckets I've been told by those in the know)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcordeBuildProgress025.jpg&hash=705e5726322a5faacd8602175cd9405db5ee22fa) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/ConcordeBuildProgress025.jpg.html)
The prototype Concordes had military style nozzles. My PR5 will be having Concorde derived Olympus's so it can super cruise at Mach 2+ and then sprint at M 2.5+ (classified) :thumbsup:
Quote from: sandiego89 on March 10, 2014, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: Devilfish on March 10, 2014, 08:55:01 AM
I'm trying to figure out what it would take to get a TSR2 to bomb the Falklands from Ascension, in lieu of the Vulcan.
Well it would only take one TSR with a refueling probe and a whole bunch of tankers. Remember even each Black Buck Vulcan strike required multiple tankers in a VERY carefully designed plan. I believe there were 13 Victors required (some as spares) for each Vulcan going all the way, some Victors refueled other Victors so that a few could pass off fuel to the primary strike Vulcan.
A TSR2 by itself, no air to refueling, from Ascension to the Falklands? Not even close to possible.
No all is lost however for a WHIF, you could still have a WHIF Falklands TSR2, just have to have some tanker support for the scenario from either Victors, Vulcans, VC-10's. Put a probe on a TSR2 and hang some tanks and iron boms on it.
Odd thought: How about other TSR.2's configured as tankers? Overload tanks on centerline and largest possible tanks on inner stores locations with one or two probe and drogue units on the outboard stores locations.
Been reading up on the TSR2 lately, I was surprised that it was only planned to carry 2000 lb bomb for 1000 nm. Any heavier load greatly reduced it's range. My scenario of one carrying a TV guided Tallboy would really push it limits as to range, it might just get over the Channel let alone down half the Atlantic.
Quote from: elmayerle on December 04, 2017, 11:09:13 AM
Odd thought: How about other TSR.2's configured as tankers? Overload tanks on centerline and largest possible tanks on inner stores locations with one or two probe and drogue units on the outboard stores locations.
There was hardware designed to do exactly that, and the bits were available in 1/72 in resin from SAM and then from Freightdog (I think....) and I've got most of the resin bits that they planned.
But even with all that lot a tanker TSR2 wouldn't have given the required range for a bomber TSR2 to reach the Falklands from Ascension unless there were an awful lot of them. Victors would have made a lot more sense, even if they'd have had to space them out along the route.
TSR couldn't have done Black Buck - and before you all cry "Tankers" fuel isn't the issue. Engine oil is and that can't be topped up enroute.