On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:32:12 +0000 (UTC), Martin wrote in > message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Lee Elliott wrote: > > > I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less > > > than perfect strips. > > > > Yes, the main gear looks to be very 'robust'. But I still > > wonder why they paid attention to these features. To my > > knowledge the TSR-2 was designed for long range and high > > cruise speed. This sort of aircraft typically doesn't need > > rough, short strips, they could safely operate from distant > > bases .... > > ..you forget this plane was made to fight WWIII. ;-).
In a nut shell, you've got it. The requirements spec was very demanding and to a degree lead to it's failure. Even so, albeit after prolonged development, it seems as though it was coming pretty close to actually meeting those requirements when the project was cancelled. I've read that if just any one of those requirements had been relaxed just a little the a/c would have cost a lot less to produce and been a lot easier to actually manufacture. Many, if not most of the people involved in the project seem to believe that it was dropped more for political reasons (it had the potential to upset the balance of powers) rather than technical/manufacturing problems (there have been a surprisingly high number of books written about the TSR2) and considering the original specs & requirements, it's likely that the TSR2 would still be in service today, had they ever got into production and service. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
