Tornado ADV

[Pureteenlard]

Can anyone confirm or deny the old story of Tornado ADV's needing to use re-heat to keep up with Bears? I know that the Tornado engines and airframe were designed to goo whoosh at very low levels but it still sounds unlikely to me that they couldn't keep up with a Bear at high altitude on dry thrust alone.

[Backwards PLT]

Depends how high and how SLOW (slow is bad!)

[BOAC]

Certainly even the BAC 'Frightening' was well on the back of the drag curve at times with the Bears, although the only time I had to use reheat in a 'real aeroplane' :cool: at an 'odd time' was whilst tanking at high level due to Italian ATC restrictions.

[Art Field]

The Bear had (has) such a wide speed range it was very difficult to stay close both slow and fast. Trying to stay with a slow one in a VC10, particularly a K2 with its less efficient wing, was tricky and the Bear could open up those incredibly noisy engines and accelerate very rapidly, sometimes also descending into cloud. I suspect that would be when the Tornado struggled.They took no notice of appropriate flt levels, often crossing airways close to civil traffic. Good sport though.

[BEagle]

It sure was:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/HelloBoris.jpg

Lizard and Bear!

[Wader2]

I am struggling to recall the name of the pilot, RCAF on 42 Sqn, who was shadowing a Bear which decided to depart in the vertical and turn away. The Mighty Hunter was unable to match the climb performance but managed to turn inside, roll, and get his A-A piccies, before nose down and recover of airspeed.

Did the slow ADV fly with one in min burner just to give that extra burst of power if necessary?

[MrBernoulli]

I recall moving around a Bear, in a Victor K2, in loose formation (taking pictures for the int boys) and he didn't seem to be travelling at all slowly. Could clearly hear the hum of the turboprops, even with a helmet on!

[Pureteenlard]

Ah . . as I suspected. There is more to this seamingly simple question than meets the eye!
Thanks to all.

[Pontius Navigator]

Aviation is never simple else we would not have accidents. With combat aircraft the combat starts at the specification stages.

[MrBernoulli]

Beags,

Why does the K2 in your post look llike its bent in the middle. Scanned from the page of a book?

[BEagle]

The colour break (white underside) on 141 emphasises the wing angle of incidence....

It looks the same on the original photo (not publisjed in any book, incidentally) - and the effect of camouflage is to break up the shape and confuse - see if you can tell which is the left wing tip and which is the left tailplane.

Taken by some mate in the F4 on our right wing - not the world's best photographic platform!

This was in the days when we suggested to the boss that we wrote and thanked the Sovs for all the formation practice they were giving us - far more than we were getting VC10K/VC10K!

[Art Field]

MrBernoulli

I agree the Bears were usually rumbling along at a fair speed, around 260kts maybe, but on occasions they would deliberately make life difficult for us by varying the speed knowing it would cause us problems. Another trick, when there were two of them in trail was for the No2 to creep up behind us and try and sandwich us between them and then slow speed and manoeuvre.

Beags pic does look a little weird, maybe proof of the effectiveness of camouflage. I see Beags has just beaten me to it.

[Lima Juliet]

I have the answer...

The poor old VC-10 is bent in the middle because of the 4 lard-arsed truckie mates eating pies in the cockpit :E

LJ

PS Also probably why they installed 4 RR Conways in the beast...to get it off of the ground with all the pies.

[BEagle]

Gosh, that's such a very funny post........

[Lima Juliet]

Banter old chap or is that a raw nerve?

[artyhug]

No no LJ you miss the point, everything BEagle posts is witty, erudite and clearly beyond reproach.

Everything anyone else posts is just padding..........

[BEagle]

In your case, that would certainly seem to be true....:bored:

There must a few piccies of Bears with Fag Chariots alongside?

Surely?

[Pierre Argh]

I think the Tornado F3 (aka ADV) is an amazing plane that epitomises the concept of Air Power... it's such an awesome machine that in almost 30yrs in service it has never had to fire a shot in anger. Now you couldn't say that about the Sea Harrier could you Navaleye.

No wonder the RAF are spending so much money on its replacement!

[ZH875]

Worm bitten

I think you will find that the ADV has a lot less than 30yrs service, if the Frightning was chopped in '88, that makes around 18 years maximum for the ADV.

And please remember that the ADV is not a fighter, unlike the SHAR, it is a long range standoff missile carrying platform.

Now as for its replacement, as long as it flies very fast, and is very agile, who cares if it can actually shoot down anything.

The basic design of an RAF fighter is fun first, fun second and fun third.

[ZH875]

In your case, that would certainly seem to be true....:bored:

There must a few piccies of Bears with Fag Chariots alongside?

Surely?

Triangular 'Fighter' with no gun or just another Tanker and Bear photo:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/Bear.jpg

[Navaleye]

Now you couldn't say that about the Sea Harrier could you Navaleye

Both types have had to earn their keep in different ways. The Shar had glory thrust upon it. It would be naive to say the the F3 has kept the UK safe from the nasty Russians, considering that for many years it was inferior to the aircraft it replaced. I do think we now have a great aircraft in the F3, but its taken so long to get to this point.

[Pontius Navigator]

Worm bitten

I think you will find that the ADV has a lot less than 30yrs service, if the Frightning was chopped in '88, that makes around 18 years maximum for the ADV.

And please remember that the ADV is not a fighter, unlike the SHAR, it is a long range standoff missile carrying platform.

Now as for its replacement, as long as it flies very fast, and is very agile, who cares if it can actually shoot down anything.

The basic design of an RAF fighter is fun first, fun second and fun third.

First F3 visited Coningsby during its airshow in 1986. Prior to that 229 OCU was equipped with F2 from about 1984.

[scroggs]

ZH875

What's that under the tail boom of the Vulcan? Or am I not allowed to ask?

CBA

It's a Vulcan tanker. That's the HDU. One more thing the Vulcan did very well, IIRC.

[BEagle]

Under the tailcone of the Vulcan is the chemtrail dispersal system....
















Well, no. Actually 'tis a Vulcan tanker (note the 50 sqn 'shagging rats' on the fin!) - and the object is the MFI wardrobe which housed the HDU. There are very few photos of the Vulcan tanker around - let alone near a Bear!

Can't really see that clearly, but isn't it a Bear C?

Aarrgh - Scroggs beat me to it! A good refuelling platform, the Vulcan. Much easier to prod than the Victor.

[ZH875]

ZH875

What's that under the tail boom of the Vulcan? Or am I not allowed to ask?

CBA

As Scroggs says, it is the HDU.

Here is a slightly better picture, XM571 at RAFU Goose Bay around 1983 IIRC.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/Tanker.jpg

[NoseGunner]

ZH875

Just got to ask why isn't the F3 a fighter and the SHar is?:confused:

And while we're there is the Jag, GR4 or Harrier GR7/9 a fighter?????

[ZH875]

IIRC the F3 was designed to take down the bad guys at long range with missiles, and not actually get into the fast manoeuvering end game, thus being a stand off missile launching aeroplane.

From the Leuchars Website "Based around the Tornado GR1 airframe, the F3 was developed for the RAF as a long-range interceptor"

Probably the last real fighter we had was the Lightning.:)

[Lima Juliet]

I'd vote for the Hunter, myself...:ok:

[NoseGunner]

Yes but how is a SHar a fighter????

[ZH875]

Ok, SHAR is not a fighter, it is a museum piece.

Maybe, it was a fighter type aircraft with missiles and guns and shot down some Argie aircraft, but it is still more of a fighter than the Tonka will ever be.:)

[NoseGunner]

Hmm dont think so! But there you go.

Some mate once said it so it must be true

[Pontius Navigator]

The Vulcan 1 tanker was supposed to suffer from intense downward turbulence but of course that was compared with a Valiant. Then of course the Vulcan 1 would have had a bombbay HDU and no sting in the tail. Th ereceiver would have been much further forward.

As for the F3, quite right, push through and MRMs, turning round and becoming embedded in the grain of the raid for SRM attacks both brought you into gun range and also running at your own interceptors and SAM.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Pontius N

You did mean the Victor 1 tanker? Can't find any Vulcan 1s even trialled as tankers.

My memory from Annual Camp at Marham, AUG 68, was that the Victor 1s (ah, the sound of Saphires) were 3 pointers as per the later 2s.

[Pontius Navigator]

No, I did mean Vulcan 1.

I agree the basis for this, which I will relate, is tenuous.

In 1967 the Recognition Journal mentioned the Vulcan BPK1. When I challenged this I was told that there had been a tanker variant.

Now this might have been a plan that was not proceded with or it might have been a formation trial to test fesibility or whatever. If they were looking at a tanker similar to the Valiant it would have been a bomb fuel pack, single hose etc and clearly much further forward.

The tanker plan may have been associated with the Airborne QRA trial which was also abandoned as we simply had insufficient assets compared with SAC.

Maybe one of the really senior V-force crew may wish to add something.

[maxburner]

Yep, Bear C.

[Archimedes]

There was supposed to be a Mk1 Vulcan tanker, as PN describes. I've seen reference to this in a file somewhere, but can't for the life of me recall where...

Kev Darling's recent book on the Vulcan (Crowood Press, 2005) refers to the tanker/recce capability on p.68.

Another modification proposed for the Vulcan B1 was that of air-refuelling tanker <snip> With the appearance of the Valiant and Victor tankers, this requirement was dropped, the already manufactured fittings being scrapped under Modification 996

The original specification for the aircraft had also called for a reconnaissance capability, complete with a photoflash compartment, but other aircraft joining the RAF took up the slack [Victor? Canberra PR9?] and these modificatgions were deleted by Modifications 12 and 98

Whether any Mk1s were fitted with the tanker or the photo-recce capability, I have no idea, but someone on Pprune may well do? Milt, perhaps?

[Mud Clubber]

It's all about what you do with it (so someone told me once)! I've lost count the number of times I've used an F3 to issue the smack-down to a vastly more manoeuvrable foe in visual DACT. How can that make it anything other than a fighter?
:rolleyes:

[Art Field]

I am sure there was never a Mk1 Vulcan tanker. Trial 448, which ran for two weeks in July of 1962, used Valiant Tankers to refuel Vulcan Mk1s attempting to maintain an airborne QRA. Because of the relatively small number of tankers and receiver qualified Vulcan pilots I think we just about made it but any thoughts of a long term airborne QRA using the Vulcan were shown to be out of the question. The only other Vulcan Mk1 AAR was a run to Australia in July 1963 in an attempt to sell Vulcans to the Aussies.

[orca]

Mud Clubber, old chap

Did you lose count because the last time was so long ago, or you can't count very high?

OK, calm down every one...

[Backwards PLT]

SHar = fighter
F3 = fighter
Jag = bomber
GR4 = Bomber
GR7 = slow bomber

All above (except matbe GR7) = fast jet!

I thought it was obvious?

;) ;)

[Human Factor]

I remember flying with an ex-Phantom driver who talked of intercepting a Bear at night, needing to get the airframe number and flying somewhat adjacent to both inboard props in order for the nav to get the number from underneath using his torch!! :eek:

Is that feasible?

[ZH875]

Very nice piccie of XL445 – was it on 06 Mar 1984?? If so, I was there!! Two Bears on the day, an “A” & an “F” - & yes, the b*ggers could slow down very quickly & then accelerate away with amazing rapidity!

The day was made even more interesting on the approach back at Waddo with min fuel, as the F4 ahead went off the runway & the crew banged out (safely) – we scooted for Scampton & forced the Sparrows to cancel a practice display! The F4 Bangout was great, it was during an exercise and due to the blacked runway, the exercise was paused. It meant that 50 Sqn nightshift actually got a bit of kip.

The only reason the crew banged out, was that the aircraft was heading towards the nice new LOX building.

This is the same LOX building that now finds itself too close to the newly expanded Foxtrot dispersal, so close that if any aircraft have engines running on that side of the pan, then all LOX bay work must cease. :ugh:

Still, mustn't have noisy jet engines closer to Air Tragic than needs be eh!:)

[Pureteenlard]

SHar = fighter
F3 = fighter
Jag = bomber
GR4 = Bomber
GR7 = slow bomber
All above (except matbe GR7) = fast jet!
I thought it was obvious?
;) ;)

The great thing about the GR7 is that it doesn't get any slower no matter how much you hang off it.

[ORAC]

I remember flying with an ex-Phantom driver who talked of intercepting a Bear at night, needing to get the airframe number and flying somewhat adjacent to both inboard props in order for the nav to get the number from underneath using his torch!! Is that feasible?

Normal practice, the airframe number was painted on the nosewheel doors so you flew underneath to get them. Sometimes risky, there was one occasion a Bear F dropped a sonobuoy which hit and cracked the canopy. They were never sure if it was deliberate or an accident.

The Bears normally flew in pairs, but sometimes split by up to 20-30 miles. The tanker would shadow one, the fighter the other, with the two swapping over for the fighter to get the door numbers.

There was an occasion when, after the fighter came back with the first number, the tanker immediately came back with the second. The Russians filed a complaint and, IIRC, they worked it out that there would have been about 2 foot separation between the top of the tanker tail and the belly of the Bear. Then was when the manual changed to include a minimum closure distance for the tanker.

On a subsequent occasion someone then queried the close up photos taken by one of the tankers. They were, it was, explained, taken with a telephoto lens....

[Wader2]

I remember flying with an ex-Phantom driver who talked of intercepting a Bear at night, needing to get the airframe number and flying somewhat adjacent to both inboard props in order for the nav to get the number from underneath using his torch!! :eek:

Is that feasible?

One dark night in a Shack the F4 parked himself between port inboard and port outboard to look for a suspect oil leak on the port inboard. Unfortunately, not being a QRA jet they did not have a very powerful torch. Also, the pilot flying the aircraft had to get the nav to use his torch, the aircrew torch with a beam length of about 6 inchs.

Yes, agree, not just feasible, absolutely true.

[Human Factor]

Thanks very much.:eek:

[Mud Clubber]

Orca,

Luckily the SHAR had an AAR probe which allowed it only to turn one way! No wonder they have all become baked bean tins.