But not as good as the Blackburn Buccaneer or as fast at low level neither was the F111

TSR 2 was designed from the outset to fly low, fast pop up, drop the bucket of sunshine, and scram. The F111 was a different weapon, as was the Buccaneer which was designed for low level over water indiction of shipping. Oh and could the Bucc's exceed Mach 1 at zero feet? Nope!

I also had a few beers in the Derby Arms at Treales - pronounced Trailes, about 4 miles from Warton. My parents lived in the village. He was fascinating to talk to.

@@JohnSmith-bx8zb It could fly faster than a Bucc, and lower over land. It had Terrain Following Radar!

@@Volcano-Man well Buc pilots differ

Oh yes , specially with it's drooped wingtips down ... 👍

What you're saying here , are only empty words and for sure mostly not true ... !!!

@@supersonic1246 Well, it DID have a lot of defects (fuel pumps, undercarriage vibration, etc, huge cost overruns and delays needed to fix), it DID have totally inadequate range (only about 1/3 of the F-111 range, less than the distance from Britain to any iron curtain area, could not reach any likely enemy), it DIDN'T have terrain following, so except over flat land, WAS easily detected, and it WAS cancelled by the fed up government. The British expected Australia to buy it and so make the production run big enough to pay - that was laughable, given it could not fly from one Australian airbase to another, let alone go out and attack anybody. It's no good having a supposedly strike and reconnaissance aircraft if all it can do is fly round in loops around its' home airbase and never reach another country. Perhaps you expected the enemy to kindly allow it to be trucked to one of their airports. So, which part isn't true? Unless you states which fact is not true and explain why, it's your words that are meaningless and empty.

@@keithammleter3824 Well, it's questionable that some claim to know these things better than ROLAND Prosper "Bee" BEAUMONT... ! :))

@@supersonic1246 : Yes - he was the TSR-2 test pilot and very experienced in military jets. He said flight control was pretty good, but he also reported a whole host of serious defects, and made it clear that flying it was a risky business. It took Wikipedia 340 words to list the TSR-2 defects he reported in its article on Beaumont. And as test pilot, it wasn't his job to comment on the useless range or that it could not actually be used at altitudes low enough to avoid radar. I notice you have been unable to say which of my earlier words are not true as you claimed.

@@keithammleter3824 He was the Chief test-pilot and made it clear it was to fly the FIRST Prototype of this craft heading to the air ! He stated it was very satisfying to fly and very controllable ! All what you're typing here about the weakness of then future TSR-2's is only a phrase, no more no less. You are not able to lead provable evidence about that. I assume we both didn't live as grown-ups in the mid sixties to evidence that ! The XR-220 and XR-222 would had improved better, because the learning curve is going on in flight testing , that is normally experience of test-pilots . The serious defects and 340 Wikipedia-words became at least less (for ex add metal bar at boogies from XR-220 onwards) and more test-flying would had solved the problems! TSR-2 would had fulfilled the ambitious flying capabilities from GOR 339, you set in question . Lets say takeoff from short ,rudimentary airfields of 600 metres lenght (without need of swing Wing!),or all terrain/all weather low level flight (for ex 1000 feet) under Radar screen! Otherwise ministry wouldn't had given go ahead at the very beginning to BAC ! The most difficult circumstance for this plane was , as you know , the 20 or more subcontractors in the meetings instead to bundle them in One or two in General . That led to extended time and budget overrun . Friendly Grets from Europe :))