Museum Aircraft

Yes, this is a what if scenario, but an interesting question. Could an aircraft in a museum ever be brought back to fly. I have emailed museums if the engines in aircraft like the SR-71 are still installed and some of them said yes. They also said that there was no way they would ever be brought back because there would be no reason to and it would cost too much. But, just by saying this, doesn't that mean that if money wasn't a factor, these historic aircraft could theoretically be flown. I have also heard that the TSR.2 at Cosford is a very complete example because boxes of TSR.2 parts were found and installed on this aircraft, XR222. So, what do you think? Could these birds get back up in the air if we tried hard enough?

Some maybe but most not. You have to get your hands on them before they are properly decomissioned. When that happens alot of the planes will have spares cut and the fuselage cut as well. You can piece them together for a display but to actually retore it to flying condition is almost out of the question since the airframe is extremely damaged with microscopic faults and crack all over the frame after being cut. You would be better off making a new airframe from scratch.

I understand that many of the airframes are cut up, but, for example, the SR-71 in the NMUSAF was flown there and only had its fuel and top secret equipment removed and was just put in the museum. This is the same for many other aircraft there as it is on an Air Force base and planes can land on the runway and be rolled into the hangars. But, as you pointed out, many have to be shipped to museums so their wings have to be cut for transportation. Also, if anyone knows more about Cosford's TSR.2, XR222, please let me know. I have heard that it is practically complete because of boxes of TSR.2 parts they found. Also, it was a few hours away from its first flight when the British government canceled the TSR.2 program.

If you want a person who would have an idea of it condition for something like that I would suggest sending a U2U to waynos. He is a gret resource that we have from the UK and has a more on hand knowledge about the state of UK aircraft. let me know what he says as I'd be interested as well.

You right about some aircraft being just rolled into hangers for displays at the airforces museums not sure if other percautions are made after the fact though. I'm sure I could find out for you though.

I tried sending a u2u to Waynos, but it says I can't because I don't have 20 posts.

bdn12,

Hi, I live in the US, so I have limited knowledge of how the UK handles the aircraft they put into museums. However, as you are unable to send Waynos a U2U at this time because you are still new to our forum, I took the opportunity of sending one to Waynos for you. Hopefully he will use the link I put in it, to pay this thread a visit and share what he knows.

Tim

thank you so much for your help ghost 01. I very much appreciate it.

No problem guys, thanks for the U2U tim, I had managed to miss this thread, which is a bit scary. How many more have I missed?

Of the two surviving TSR 2's it is XR220 that was actually being readied for flight when the axe fell and is the more complete of the two. XR222 wasn't that far behind but to make a flyable aircraft you would probably have to cannibalise one for the other (sacrilige!) plus scour the country for the components of the other 40 aircraft that were in manufacture at cancellation, many of which are gathering dust in various museums. Even after this, many other (electrical) components would have to be made anew. It would make the effort to return XH558 to the sky look like a cakewalk.

Then of course you would have to contend with the development niggles that remained unresolved at the time of cancellation to obtain a CofA. Its a beautiful idea, but the money and resources to make it happen just don't exist, unless Bill Gates suddenly discovered a passion for the plane that equals my own.
Did I ever mention that I was born on the very day in 1965 that the TSR 2 was axed? Oh yes, I did, didn't I.

Originally posted by waynos

Of the two surviving TSR 2's it is XR220 that was actually being readied for flight when the axe fell and is the more complete of the two.

At least you have examples of the plane the Arrow programme collapsed and thanks to the ever insightful goverment they scrapped everylast example. including the flying ones of 201-205. and I think 206 was only a week away from a first true flight.

Anyways I do wish the resources for projects like a flying arrow or the TSR 2 would be made possible some how. Any one have any far out ideas to make this possible?

Unless the aircraft has been mothballed in a particular state, it would be extremely expensive to restore them to flight capability.

The hydraulics systems would be the first to go. Invariably, museum aircraft will have their hydraulics and gas systems drained while being prepped to go on show. This has the side effect of drying out all the piping and seals throughout the airframe, effectively destroying them.

The entire hydraulic system would have to be replaced, and that essentially means a complete strip and rebuild of the airframe.

Next you would have to check the entire airframe for fatigue.

Many museum aircraft would also be near a major fatigue cycle - XH558 for example was purchased from the RAF just before she was due to undergo a major airframe check, and this is why it has taken the Vulcan to the Sky Trust so long to bring her back - she has been totally stripped down and checked. When they were all retired, the Vulcans were essentially end of useful life anyway, so dont expect XH558 to do a lot of flying.

The engines would have to undergo a time based check to ensure that they havent degraded during their time idle - again, XH558 was lucky because she is equipped with the last set of engines to undergo a full overhaul by Rolls Royce in 1984 - they were packed correctly and only required a cursory examination by RR to certify them.

In short, it could be done but many many aircraft would take far far too much money time and effort in order to accomplish it.

Ah, yes Waynos, you are right, XR220 was the one that was almost going to fly. Thanks for the response, too. The TSR.2 is such a beautiful aircraft. It's a shame it didn't go into production. I bet it would have cruised at Mach 2 with those huge Olympus engines.

The TSR 2 was an amazing design and was actually superior to the Tornado that entered service 17 years later. Amongst its advantages were the fact that it had vastly greater range and an internal bomb bay, this coupled with the fact that it was designed to cruise on dry thrust at mach 1.3 at very low level meant it would supercruise with a 4,000lb internal load PLUS externals such as low drag bombs or tanks or Martel missiles (equivalent to the Sea Eagle of the Tornado) whereas the Tornado cannot supercruise at all in any condition.

Evidence of the power reserves of the TSR 2 are given by the test flight in which the chase Lightning (the fastest interceptor the RAF has ever possessed and the fastest in the world until beaten by the F-15) was left for dead despite it being on full power whilst XR219 had the afterburner lit on only one engine! This event is actually commemorated on the box art of the Airfix kit of TSR 2 which was released last year due to overwhelming demand.

I have heard about the TSR.2 outrunning the Lightning and that is just amazing. The Lightning is probably one of the fastest accelerating aircraft ever and to be beat by a plane much bigger and heavier than it is just incredible.

In my research waynos is amazing how similar our 2 programmes where. Not only that the specs of the 2 planes is so close its scary. The TSR-2 was clocked at a climb rate of 50,000 per min while the Arrow would of been around 44 500. The norm combat speed as well for both aircraft I believe was around the 1.25 mach mark but both would of been capable of mach 2 flight though the TSR-2 a little faster in all regards. A question I have was what gave the TSR-2 its massive range in comparison to the Arrow? the Arrow was only at 408 miles while the TSR was at 1,150. I was under the Arrow had a semi capable range but it seems to pale in comparison to the TSR.

On the subjetc of the power plane the Iroquois that was to be used in the Arrow would of also been at the 30,000 pounds of thrust with afterburner with the TSR only 200 pounds more. Keep in mind all of these numbers are in refernce to if the Iroquois would of been used in the Arrow which was developed I think 5 years before the TSR. If only the UK and Canada had pooled together maybe we would of actually made a plane in the flight envelope that these planes where capable of. That would of been a very cool if only indeed eh waynos.

Very cool Canada. Did you know that the Arrow was a very serious contender for an RAF order as a Lightning replacement too?

The reason for the TSR 2's long range was its ability to cruise supersoncially on dry thrust only (F-22? Phhhht ) combined with its large internal fuel capacity. This plane was 90ft long, compared with the Tornado's 54ft for the same mission, this is the primary reason that the Tornado cannot match the capability of the TSR 2, or Eagle GR.1 as it should have become, as a consequence of the design being compromised to meet the needs of three countries . It also had very low frontal area and an extremely small wing which, combined with advanced blown flap technology gave it good low speed handling, STOL and excellent high speed performance and low level ride without the weight penalty of a swing wing mechanism. I imagine this will lead to the question why the Tornado has swing wings then? I confess I do not know, but I'm sure I could look it up.

The only part of the TSR 2 to see RAF service was its EMI recce pack, this was designed to fit snugly into the bomb bay and was extremely advanced for its time. Much, but not all, of the equipment in it was put into a pod which was carried on the centre pylon of the RAF's F-4 Phantoms and it was said at the time to give the best tactical recce results of any of NATO's tactical recce assets, however being in a ventral pod hung under the belly it imposed a performance penalty on the Phantom that the TSR 2 would not have suffered.

I am tempted to wonder how Black Buck might have turned out with these aircraft? It would have required a larger tanker fleet for sure to even have been possible, but it would have been even more impressive.

waynos is amazing

Thank you

[edit on 10-7-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos

waynos is amazing

Thank you

[edit on 10-7-2007 by waynos]

lol I think ii had a spelling mstake there but I think it may have been my true feelings comeing out lol.

Waynos,

If I may add a question of my own to the mix. Why is the plane called the TSR-2?

Over here in the US, we designate planes by their mission like the B-2 or F-16. I'm assuming the UK has a different system for designating its military aircraft. Would you be willing to share with me where the British get the letters of their aircraft designations from?

Thanks in advance!

Tim

well sort of similar i think *tenuous link)


www.xm655.com...

the sound of 4 Olympus run up power (cockpit recorded)

and www.xm655.com...

from outside

Originally posted by waynos
The TSR 2 was an amazing design and was actually superior to the Tornado that entered service 17 years later. Amongst its advantages were the fact that it had vastly greater range and an internal bomb bay, this coupled with the fact that it was designed to cruise on dry thrust at mach 1.3 at very low level meant it would supercruise with a 4,000lb internal load PLUS externals such as low drag bombs or tanks or Martel missiles (equivalent to the Sea Eagle of the Tornado) whereas the Tornado cannot supercruise at all in any condition.

Evidence of the power reserves of the TSR 2 are given by the test flight in which the chase Lightning (the fastest interceptor the RAF has ever possessed and the fastest in the world until beaten by the F-15) was left for dead despite it being on full power whilst XR219 had the afterburner lit on only one engine! This event is actually commemorated on the box art of the Airfix kit of TSR 2 which was released last year due to overwhelming demand.

Australia , Great Britain and Canada should have gone ahead with the
TSR 2 programme and not listen to idiot politicians.
Knowing Canada and Australia they would still be FLYING today.

The in gov is coping flak for the FA18Fs and the F-35s still.(Politically)
However the new warship order seems to be a great thing for the navy.
3 F100 aegis frigates and 2 BPEs are an awesome addition

Originally posted by waynos
The TSR 2 was an amazing design and was actually superior to the Tornado that entered service 17 years later.

What astounds me about the whole TSR2 thing is that the RAF looked at F-111's instead, which were inferior, and - more impressively - Thatcher thought about restarting the programme.

Can you shed some light on why Thatcher passed it over Waynos?