Additional feedback

Firstly, many thanks to Frank Barnett-Jones for the wonderful picture of the two TSR2s during final assembly at Boscombe Down.

There have been numerous books and documentaries made on the subject of TSR2, however, what is very inconclusive is the verdict on what sort of aeroplane it would have been if it hadn't been abandoned. Some articles have expressed the opinion that it was truly staggering in reality and potential (even by today's standards), others that it was a seriously flawed design and would have cost vast sums (even in comparison to its already considerable cost) to rectify. One book on the subject states that it exceeded every aspect of design performance specification, another that it was barely capable of safely landing and taking off. What is the truth?

And we all love a conspiracy theory, don't we? Well, why was the government of the day so set on making sure that nothing of the project could ever be resurrected? The very day of the project cancellation the government issued instructions for teams to descend on all production and assembly plants to destroy aircraft, part built units, components, jigs and tooling, drawings, plans and photographs. Not only an unprecedented step but, to my knowledge, one that has never been repeated. Could it be that they knew very well that they deliberately destroying a perfectly good aircraft (and a fair hunk of the British aviation industry with it!) for political reasons, and they wanted to make sure that it could never be proved how good it would have been? Or could it have been simply that by totally destroying the project they would not be continually pestered by those who wanted it reinstated? Or was there another reason? Whatever. . . . . . .talk about burning bridges, and rather expensive ones at that!
Peter Woodcock

Reply from Len Townend, Melton Mowbray
TSR2 was first flown by test pilot Roland Beaumont at Boscombe Down on Sept 27th 1964. The project was cancelled by Harold Wilson's Government
April 2 1965. We were supposed to get F111 (Instead of TSR2) from the US of A but, too late to go back to TSR2, the deal for the F111 fell through. Thus the nuke deterrent passed from the RAF to RN in the form of sub-launch Polaris. (Another story).

Nine aircraft were in various states of production when the axe fell. Only one, XR219, actually took to the air. It was later used for target practice at Shoeburyness firing rage! Two other part completed airframes were used as ground targets. All TSR2s were supposed to be destroyed, as were all spares and in-build components. One of my jobs at Swanton Morley CSDE was to go round various component manufacturers and obtain certificates to confirm destruction of test-rigs and components specific to TSR2 (so that payment could be made to the Manufacturers). A few years later it came as a complete surprise to me to run into XR222 minus engines at Duxford. I understand that a second TSR2, X220 has survived and is on display at Cosford.

Even before the cancellation it was becoming obvious to us at CSDE, that Manufacturers were becoming a bit disillusioned with Government projects. I was sent to a firm to assess the reliability and spares costs for the TSR2 braking parachute release mechanism. The manager who interviewed me seemed to be more interested in incoming phone calls. I, in an overblown idea of RAF importance, said to him;
"You don't seem to be worried about this project, do you?"
" Well," he said, "you lot are asking us to supply 12 of these units. That guy I have just been talking to on the phone wants 2 million of those", pointing to some mundane window light opening mechanisms, "so no, we
aren't too worried about the TSR2 order"!

Len Townend

From Ian Nesbitt via Email:

Did you know of the restoration process to which the Duxford bird is subject at the moment? Actually, it is being structuraly surveyed by IWM staff with a view to hanging it from one of the ceilings. Rumour has it (from a well informed source) that they have got their hands on the original wrap-around camoflage scheme for operational TSR 2's; and the guy in charge of the work has suggested to his boss that they paint it as such, given that another example still exists in the original white. Personally, I'm all for the idea; it'd be great to see her 'as nature intended'.

Peter's Comment:
I had no idea that it was ever intended to camouflage TSR2. Anti flash white and low contrast markings where, I thought, the colour scheme for all nuclear carrying aircraft of the day, including the Vs. I assumed that the all over camouflage was introduced AFTER the scrapping of TSR2 when Victors and Vulcans where modified for LABS (Low Altitude Bombing System).

It is a sinister looking aircraft in any case, but will look even more the part in camouflage paint.

Ian replies:
I did wonder whether or not the idea of wrap-around cam. was developed with the TSR 2 in mind, then shelved with the rest of the project; to rear its head again with a change in tactics later in the decade. Purely conjecture...

(Sounds good to me, anybody else got any ideas? - Peter)

And lastly, does anyone out there know if the TSR 2 was designated a name, as full production was barely a breath away upon cancellation? I'm intrigued.
(more following from Ian, probably) Follow up

More from Ian Nesbitt

"An informed source" has indicated that lots of official info. docs. on the TSR 2 have come to light, which the MOD had assumed had been destroyed, as was directed when the project was axed. It would seem that, when contacted, the men-from-the-ministry were - even after 36 years - very wary regarding its content. It is alleged that the documents imply that work at B.A.C. continued, on the quiet, up until the early 1970's, in the (mistaken) belief that the next Conservative government would reinstate the project. It is also alleged that due to problems experienced in the introduction of the Panavia Tornado in the early 1980's, serious thought was given to resurrecting TSR 2 - more than 25 years after its cancellation! If that doesn't prove that the RAF was denied a world beating aircraft many years ahead of its time, I'll eat Denis Healeys' hat!

It's a strange feeling, knowing that one is photographing the working parts of a piece of military hardware still covered by the Official Secrets Act. Paint it and be damned I say!

The following photgraphs were kindly sent by Ian; depicting the commencement of refurbishing work on XR222 at Duxford, May 2001.

John Burtenshaw writes, (via email) in response to Ian's question about an "in service" name, that a Whitehall Official (who!) had suggested that it be named the Trenchard. Despite the suggestion, John questions whether or not the RAF would have gone with that, despite the pedigree of the name. In a follow up on the subject, John says:

I've been trying the name out in light of recent conflicts " ....last night RAF Trenchards bombed Baghdad" - nope doesn't sound right does it?

 Dear RAFA-Eastern
As a seven year old, I saw XR219 flying at Warton, I have seen XR222, and have been planning a trip to Cosford for years, I intend doing so early next year. The TSR2 project has been part of my families history, I'm not sure why, my uncle was in the RAF at the time, and had a very,very minor role, so I'm led to believe. He has an original circa 1963/64 model. I have read every book, have two copies of the Discovery video, which incense me every time I watch it.

All feedback to contact@rafa-eastern.co.uk