TSR2 article in Feb 2012 Aeroplane Monthly

[DamienB]

Oh dear, oh dear...

The article is littered with errors:

Apparently the TSR2 was powered by the Olympus 302 (!); Freddie Page was appointed project leader by the government rather than BAC themselves; TSR designation is noted as being made in 1960 rather than 1959 wrongly explains the '2'; claims Vickers wanted to use Brooklands for first flight (never on the cards - Wisley was their choice)  and perpetuates a wholly inaccurate account of the arguments about first flight location; reheat system was 'complex' (by far the simplest part of the engine); ejector seats capable up to mach 2 (not even close!); terrain following radar was apparently Blue Parrot (that's the Buccaneer radar, not a TFR); what on earth is the lateral oblique radar?; the C in ECM apparently now means 'communications' rather than 'counter'; pic on p80 miscaptioned as being flight 5 is flight 7;  pic at top of p82 miscaptioned as pre-flight attention (but she's tied down!); "all engine problems cured" in January 1965 (not so!); flight 7 saw successful undercarriage retraction (no it didn't, it went wrong - flight 10 was the first successful retraction); one landing was on foam (actually four did); flight 16 had 'several' rolls (pretty sure it was just one, which was foolhardy enough on its own); undercarriage tie struts 'eliminated' vibration problems (not entirely); TSR2 was cancelled 'without prior warning or consultation' (what, apart from the three months worth of consultations and discussions with BAC about getting the price down?). There's more but I've had enough...

It finally dissolves into this: "Documents which may, or may not, give the exact reasons for the cancellation are still hidden away in the archives, and remain untouched because of heavy-handed embargoes." Said documents are available quite freely in various archives and spell out the reasons over and over again. Cost.

Sadly the whole article perpetuates the 'wonder jet' myth, inflating capabilities, ignoring items that were cancelled during development, and brings nothing new to the table at all. A real wasted opportunity and very odd considering the new reference material available in print from myself and others in the last year or so.

[PR19_Kit]

Will there be a letter in the post to the magazine soon then? 

[DamienB]

Perhaps. Gave me the kick I've been needing to cancel my sub anyway, it was the last mag I was bothering to buy but the overall quality has gone downhill since it was sold. There are only so many adverts for hearing aids and incontinence pants a man can take before he decides he isn't the target audience.

[Hman]

Blimey, I nearly bought a copy for that article...a near miss, and money saved!

[ChrisF]

Blimey, I nearly bought a copy for that article...a near miss, and money saved!

Exactly my thought...