Bristol 188/TSR2

It was probably a jokey summarisation from the era, but wasn’t the 188 known as the aircraft that couldn’t fly long enough, to go fast enough, to get hot enough?!
In other words it was too heavy and fuel thirsty to achieve the kinetic and surface friction heating on the trials that it was designed to carry out.

If you get the chance take your time to look over XF926 at Cosford, the workmanship involved in that stainless steel airframe construction is almost a work of art.

Thunderbird – I think we have got crossed somehwere.
The photo at post 2 would have been taken about 1968 as it first appeared in the Southend Standard newspaper around that time when they ran an article on Foulness. It shows TSR2 XR219 and what is almost certainly XF926 and caused a bit of a stir amongst the Southend spotters who had all believed, even then, that these treasures were long gone. We all tried to work out ways of getting to view them but the chances of getting anywhere near Foulness were pretty slim. I am fairly sure that even then this was said to be the last surviving Bristol 188 so it is likely that XF923 was either scrapped or more likely destroyed in explosives tests before 1968. The same picture seems to have been published much later in Aeroplane Monthly.
There was a fair bit of pressure to save both XF926 and XR219 but unfortunately the TSR2 never managed to escape and according to other threads on this forum suffered an undercarriage failure due to corossion and was subsequently scrapped at Foulness.

[/QUOTE] From what i understand the Bristol Type 188 was a disaster.[/QUOTE]

Dead right. But that’s what research is for, isn’t it? You learn from it and, had the opportunity been given, a high altitude Mach 3 interceptor might have been successfully developed in the UK.

Dead wrong actually – The airframe construction was really pretty successful, if a little overweight (one off are always expensive), thermodynamically the stainless steel structure preformed flawlessly and the flight testing validated that its supersonic aerodynamic were correctly predicted. The validated of these supersonic prediction method lead directly to Concorde.

The T188 problems came from the engines, which by the time it flew were orphans in terms of design support. This lead to a massive fuel consumption which put the aircraft in fuel emergency pretty much when it left the runway. Budget restriction, prevented sorting the engine, or fitting a different engine (the nacelles was sized for this) or fitting air to air refueling (designs were done……really low cost option)

It certainly was not underpowered as claimed

According to wiki XF926 went to Cosford in 1972 and XF923 was scrapped at Foulness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_188

This may also be of interest

Photo intact at Shoeburyness adjacent to TSR-2 XR219 April 1968; Aeroplane Monthly July 1994 p.40; photo of one of the ‘188s intact adjacent still to the TSR.2, circa early 1971; Flight International 27 May 1971 p.789. By 9 Feb 1972 when visited by Jack Bruce of the RAF Museum the aircraft was dismantled and minus engines. XF923 was scrapped at Foulness.

Extracted from http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/aircraft_histories/83-A-1112%20BRISTOL%20188%20XF926.pdf

It’s photos like that that conjure up warm fuzzy feelings of what was once magnificent… being a child of the 80’s I missed out on most things exciting in the field of Aviation!

I am pretty sure that the photo at post 2 first appeared in the Southend Standard newspaper in the late 60’s when they ran an article about Foulness.
The TSR2 is XR219 the only one to fly.
Even then I think there was only a single Bristol 188 there so the other one must have been used for tests quite soon after arrival. From memory the second one probably escaped to Cosford in the late 70’s / early 80’s. According to Wrecks and Relics it was definitely at Cosford by 1984.

sh: To do what, exactly?

The Meteor-esque layout of T.188 was proof-of-concept of 1953 RAE views of high/fast long range cruise, ordered in 1954 as Avro 730 recce, later bomber. That’s why fellow Hawker Siddeley firm AWA had great chunks of T.188 design/build. By early-1957 we had all decided that (to be SA-2 Guideline) would be a health hazard to highflyers, so Their Airships told the new Minister that 730 was not needed. A couple of years later Gary Powers regretted that CIA had not told Ike the same for his U-2.

The same logic caused F.155T (Fairey “FD.3”) to expire in 1957. It wasn’t stupid Sandys. A belt of long range Bloodhound variants, some with nuclear warheads, would take out any Sov.-730. Electronics technology outpaced aerodynamic in the 1953-58 timeframe.

Dead right. But that’s what research is for, isn’t it? You learn from it and, had the opportunity been given, a high altitude Mach 3 interceptor might have been successfully developed in the UK.

Type 188

From what i understand the Bristol Type 188 was a disaster- very very underpowered and the manufacture in Stainless Steel very expensive and difficult- at least it didnt rust at PPE!

They both went to Shoebury but how long they remained before one was scrapped at Foulness and the other went to Cosford, I don’t know. Someone will!;)

AFAIK wasnt the other 188 scrapped a lot earlier?

Marvellous – many thanks!:) UK aerospace engineering and design wasn’t bad in the late 50s/early 60s, was it? Who knows howm it might have developed but for Sandys et al……..?:(

Scan

Here:
[ATTACH]190449[/ATTACH]

The Bristol 188 is the one now at Cosford

Tony Andrews