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

[pbfoot]

From Bill Gunston's 'Fighters of the Fifties' re F-104;

"There was, however, one large drawback on the whole programme. Largely because pilots and ground crews were generally inexperienced, the Luftwaffe suffered unacceptable loss-rates, the figure in 1962 being 139 per 100,000 hours. Even in the mid-1960s a Starfighter crashed roughly every ten days, and in many cases the pilot was killed. There followed a political battle to fit the British Martin-Baker ejection seat. American (Lockheed/USAF) pressure prevented it until 1967 (by which time the Danes had quietly had British seats already fitted) when, with no publicity by the British company, they fitted the reliable GQ-7 seat to the Italian and then the German Starfighters".

Originally the seats fired downwards. Which way did the Canadian version 'fire'?

I believe only the early USAF 104's fired downwards but i could be wrong . Nato forces flew the G's and I would think they all fired up.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think by the time the F-104 was hitting National Guard units someone got smart and retrofitted the seats (mid late 60s?)

 

[SoD Stitch]

The thing was fast at 940k you'd probably have about 5 minutes fuel I believe it held the lo level speed record at around 1200knots.

Not quite 1200 . . . Way back in 1965, an ex-Lockheed test pilot and occasional Unlimited air racer named Darryl Greenamyer decided to go after the low-level speed record, which at that time stood at a whopping 482.462 mph when he flew a souped-up Bearcat. Darryl decided to use a -104 airframe to go after the record, and spent the next 12 years scrounging parts up to put it together (including an uprated [17,900 lbs.] J79-17/1 engine "borrowed" from a Phantom). He christened his creation the F-104RB ("RB" stood for "Red Baron", which was the name of the plane), and even included a velvet-covered cockpit coaming.

On October 24, 1977, he shattered the world low-level speed record by posting a speed of 988.26 mph (1590.41 kmh) at an altitude of no more then 100 meters. He was in stage 5 'burner for almost all of the flight, and was also supersonic for most of the 20 minute flight, during which the J79 consumed 850 gallons of JP4 fuel.

 

[Graeme]

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

Do you know what happened?

 

[The Basket]

The RCAF selected the 104 no kickbacks involved and it was not as an interceptor it was purchased as tacticle nuclear strike weapon . The Lightning was a good aircraft but had as one pilot put it "room for your ass and a gallon of gas" or if you bailed out you were always a $5 cab ride awy from your base

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?

 

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The "offical" story....

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

Probably not...

 

[SoD Stitch]

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]

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