MSN - Unsuccessful planes

[TobyV]

Most articles on mainstream news sites are usually a bit poor but this wasn't bad, despite the title:
http://him.uk.msn.com/in-the-know/photo ... =154141152

[Paul K]

I wonder why they deem the B-2 a failure and then go on to say ' they have seen action on numerous occasions, being used in the skies above the former Yugoslavia to drop bombs on Serbian forces as well as over Iraq and Afghanistan. Whilst secrets about its systems are naturally well-guarded, B-2s have appeared at air shows and to great acclaim.' Sounds fairly successful to me.

Oh and one crashes, so the remaining 95% of the fleet are 'survivors' ?

[Garry Russell]

I was puzzelled by that too Paul

Seems to me the only issue was the cut in orders due to a change in military requirement.

To have only lost one is quite an achievement given the complexity of the machine and systems.

[airboatr]

what a mug!

I think the Korabl Maket was the most interesting design mounting the engine
on the tail like they did. .. but one of the more advanced of it's time didn't make the list
Avro Arrow...... even though some would want us to believe it never existed.

And I'd love to have a Hafner Rotabuggy

[Filonian]

I'd hardly call the TSR2 a failure - 'twas the government that failed the aircraft in my book.


Graham

[Garry Russell]

Indeed Graham

Despite the lead referring to failed, the title is "unsuccessful"...which sadly it was, despite being the most advanced aircraft for it's time and many years afterwards

Bad journalism titleing it Unsucessful then saying failed.two very different things.

[SkippyBing]

To be fair there were still issues with the TSR.2 when it was canceled, some of them such as vibration of the cockpit were inherent in the design (the Vigilante suffered the same problem because of the similar long forward fuselage). It also didn't have enough internal fuel capacity to make the required range which could have caused problems in terms of what it could carry and how far it could carry it.

Basically when it was canceled it was by no means the success everyone is now convinced it would have been.

[emfrat]

Yes, well, I finally got round to reading this and almost binned it instanter when I saw the claim that the Wright brothers were wholly and solely responsible for the development of manned flight. What utter nonsense!
However, I pressed on, "with great coolness and determination" only to find that the writer's credibility declined even farther, which I had earlier thought was quite impossible. I could go on, but I don't believe the article merits any further response.

ATB
MikeW

[TobyV]

To be fair there were still issues with the TSR.2 when it was canceled, some of them such as vibration of the cockpit were inherent in the design (the Vigilante suffered the same problem because of the similar long forward fuselage). It also didn't have enough internal fuel capacity to make the required range which could have caused problems in terms of what it could carry and how far it could carry it.

Basically when it was canceled it was by no means the success everyone is now convinced it would have been.

Thats an interesting one. I went to a talk from an ex-RAF guy who flew the F-111 for a while in the USAF and considered it to be better than TSR.2 would have been, I have read another who said the original English Electric design would have been better before Vickers changed it and have wondered myself whether in the end, Tornado was a better aircraft . I think though that it was more the effect it had on development and the industry that was more of an issue perhaps than the aircraft itself. Although being sleek and white and somewhat of a flying "unicorn", it evokes a lot of emotion.

[DaveB]

Hmm.. any statement saying the F-111 was considered better than TSR2 would have been be it from an ex-RAF guy or not is almost like saying the American SST would have been better than Concorde had it been built.. 'informed' comment or not

ATB

DaveB