Microsoft VISTA

[narf poit chez BOOM]

To-pic? What is this 'To-pic' of which you speak?

[NullAshton]

The 'To-pic' is what's above and to the right of your cartoony head.

[El_Phil]

Well we've never stayed on topic before. I don't see why we should start now.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

No, no, no, that's the corner of the post border.

[Renegade 13]

There are unfortunately many examples of great aircraft that were scrapped due to politics.

A classic example is the Avro Arrow (CF-105). In the '50's, Canada commissioned the creation of a new fighter-interceptor to counter the threat of new Soviet long-range bombers. It was feared the Soviets would send their bombers the short way to North America, over the North Pole. These fighters were designed to intercept, and destroy the bombers before they reached inhabited areas.

In 1958 after 4 years of production, the first Arrow was completed. However, shortly thereafter, the current government was voted out. The new government, for some inexplicable reason, killed the project, even after a few prototypes had been constructed. All prototypes, blueprints, everything the gov't could get their hands on was destroyed. If the Arrow was allowed to enter service in the Canadian Airforce, they'd in some ways be more advanced than the aircraft of the Canadian military today.

I've left a lot out of the story, but it was simply tragic what happened to the project, if you are familiar with it's history.

If you're curious about the aviation "firsts" that the Avro Arrow incorporated, take a look at This List , it shows the many innovations the Arrow had (remember the year was 1958!)

Some more interesting info on thrust:weight ratios:

At a combined 60,000-Ib thrust for an approximate 60,000-Ib aircraft, the Iroquois would have provided a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. This would have given the Arrow a better than Mach 2 speed and perhaps Mach 3, limitations due to structural heating, not lack of power.

Another webpage with historical, political, and technical information

[El_Phil]

Wouldn't have been as fast the Lightning And that was a design prototype not the production model.

Still the Lightning was an achingly fast plane, by any standards. Some of the stuff that plane did was ridiculous, for a plane designed in 1954 to climb, out speed and out accelerate every other NATO fighter for most of its career.

[Thermodyne]

Again, hind sight would tell us that it was the correct way to go. None of the Mach 3 fighters were built, and as it turned out, they were not needed. At about the same time, the US canceled the F107 and F108 fighter programs. And results of later designs like the SR 71 suggest that the original Mach 3 designs would have never have been completely successful because of unforeseen engineering problems. Also, the two questions that remains unasked and unanswered are how would it have been paid for and where would the titanium have come from. To build the SR 71, the US ran one of the largest ruses in history. The titanium for obtained from the USSR for the alleged purpose of manufacturing paint. Companies were set up all across the third world and the titanium was then diverted to the US. The F12 was also a victim of the titanium shortage, having to compete with the ballistic missile program as well as Gemini and Apollo which had the highest priorities. Only 1 YF12 was built, and the results of it flight testing have never been released.

[El_Phil]

Thermodyne said:
Again, hind sight would tell us that it was the correct way to go. None of the Mach 3 fighters were built, and as it turned out, they were not needed. At about the same time, the US canceled the F107 and F108 fighter programs. And results of later designs like the SR 71 suggest that the original Mach 3 designs would have never have been completely successful because of unforeseen engineering problems.

First off TSR-2 was aviation grade ally-copper alloy, not titanium. No problem there.

As for the costs, you've paid the development costs, so the choice for TSR-2 was, build it or go F-111. As it turned out F-111 had cost overruns, indeed massive cost overruns, so the UK pulled out and brought some F-4s. For the money spunked on F-111 and buying F-4s you could of built as many TSR-2s as you wanted.

The money was there for new planes. I know you can get a bit 'US is best' blinded Thermy, but are you seriously saying you'd take F-4s over TSR-2s?

[Thermodyne]

EDIT: Stupid post removed

[El_Phil]

Thermodyne said:
Blather here.

That was quite the most confused post I've ever seen, I wasn't entirely sure which aircraft you were talking about. Several in one confused mess I think. But frankly as it ranged across several topics I don't actually know.

Here's what I think your saying. Because the US had problems with high speed planes, everyone else would have. So the British govement should have spent the money defending US cities. I know you are US centric, but I hope that is a mistake.

Anyway TSR-2 wasn't an interceptor. Hence the name "Tactical Strike and Reconnisance". Notice the absence of any interceptor term. I agree calling it an interceptor makes it easier to trash, but it isn't one.

Given that nobody wanted TSR-2 interceptor and the F-4s weren't used as interceptors quite where you got that idea from I have no idea.