# Talk:BAC TSR-2

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) 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)

I have a feeling it may have been James "JImmy" Dell but may be wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.186 (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It was Jimmy Dell, with Brian McCann as navigator. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wing-commander-jimmy-dell-vqm6smdltmb http://thetartanterror.blogspot.com/2005/10/wg-cdr-james-leonard-dell-obe-1924.html  Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought so. Thanks.

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)

So was TSR-1 the Canberra? Maikel (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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.
The flying fridge wasn't so much the "second TSR" as the "TSR-Mach 2". That's all the designation meant. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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 Beard or WE177 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
'2' = for the intended speed of Mach 2
An interesting 1965 Ferranti film of the development of the Terrain Following Radar originally intended for TSR2 here: [1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.228 (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

" 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)

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 (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Looks like it was added here in 2012 by a long-gone user. Perhaps their explanation will help. (It didn't help me!) BilCat (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@BilCat: Hmmm, the original version right out states "presumably". I'm going to remove that bit, it is wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)