eatthis wrote: |
bondoman wrote: | eatthis wrote: | spiralcity wrote: | eatthis wrote: | any idea if theres a kit of the tsr2 available? |
|
I have no clue. I never heard of the project. Who was the maker? |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR2 basically it did everythin the tornado did at least as well years before it. it was a damn good aircraft that got killed by politics. i beleive it used a version of the concord/vulcan engines too 30,000 lb thrust each! |
|
The Engine comparisons are a little vague but the Concorde with the Olympus 593 wins hands down. TSR2 had two engines that had twice the performance of the Olymp's in the Vulcan (4). ie about equal and Vulcan is subsonic.Sad to say the same output as the two J79's in the Phantom II. But was designed as a nuclear strike bomber. I don't see it working; either the F-4 or the later F-111 wins. The Tornado is a whole other story. |
|
why dont you see it workin mate what way do you mean? |
|
Purely subjective opinion for one single reason. We don't know what tsr.2 could do becuase it's all silly ##'s from bae like 10 mile a minute rate of climb etc...,
I'm impressed that it could outrun a Lightning, my alltime favorite hot jet.
If tsr.2 is an interceptor, it can't be better than a Phantom, which was a single mission aircraft- dash to the Pole and kill Soviets. If tsr.2 was designed as a strike aircraft, it is more like a B-58 or a B-1 which were dead ends. Because they would realistically never achieve their mission in meaningful numbers. Recon sure but Phantoms still do that.
I think the Tornado is a better deal, as a multi-use platform. I threw out the F-111 as a bit of a red herring, but it had a good run and spawned a lot of wasteful Soviet countermeasures.