This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm currently working on Roland Beamont's article, and am currently intrigued to know which test pilot flew TSR-2 on its last flight on 31 March 1965.
If you look at the table in this copy of Flight International)[1] it only lists the 23rd flight on 27 March 1965 piloted by Don Knight. Does anyone have any details of the last flight (24th) on 31 March 1965?
KreyszigB (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can we confirm the engine air intake center-body/half-cones were movable, eg by how much and at what speeds ? How was the intake design developed, was it based on something earlier ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
No. There wasn't a TSR-1. Well, there was, it was the Fairey Swordfish. But that's firstly Silly, secondly it was the wrong acronym (Torpedo-Spotter-Reconnaissance), and thirdly that would have been the prototype Swordfish, as the production Swordfish was already the TSR II.
It wasn't the Canberra. Nada. That's a regular retconning by planespotters, not a whisker to support it.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Strike links to attack aircraft but its role reads more as tactical/strategic bomber or nuclear armed interdiction. Is this a case of chosen British designation differing from modern use of term? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
In RAF parlance the term 'strike' referred to use of nuclear weapons and followed the merging of several RAF Commands into one, 'Strike Command' The newer, smaller nuclear weapons such as the Red BeardorWE177 could be carried by small aircraft such as the Buccaneer, Jaguar, Harrier, Hunter, etc., thus doing away with the need for the larger aeroplanes such as the Vulcan or Victor which had been required for carrying the large-ish early British weapons such as the Blue Danube and Yellow Sun. There was therefore no longer any need for a separate 'Bomber Command'.
Thus in contemporary RAF or RN usage any so-called 'strike' aircraft was capable of carrying and dropping nuclear weapons. So in the case of TSR2 the designation specifically designated one of the roles for which the aeroplane was designed and intended.
Hence;
'Tactical' = for use on (or over) the battlefield
'Strike' = able to be armed with nuclear weapons
'Reconnaissance' = for photo and other forms (e.g., SLIR, FLIR) of reconnaissance, i.e., for going out and finding the targets that might later be attacked with a nuclear or conventional strike
Latest comment: 9 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
" Its theoretical maximum speed was Mach 3 in level flight at 45,000 "
I am trying to figure out what this might mean. The aircraft was absolutely not capable of reaching that speed, it would melt. Nor are the engine intakes capable of injecting air at anything near this speed. What does this "theoretical maximum" refer to? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't have the source but I would take it to mean the speed at which maximum thrust from the engines can no longer accelerate the aircraft due to drag increasing with the square of the airspeed. I would take 'theoretical' to mean discounting any heat or structural limitations. The F-104 had excess thrust and could exceed its design airspeed limits, a warning system was incorporated to prevent airframe and engine damage. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)19:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply