Originally Posted by
Engines
Glad,
Thank you for that response - what an interesting subject. Three quite different (?) responses on 2250 litre tanks on the F3. Perhaps, to square the circle, the big tanks generated some lift, probably depending on speed and angle of attack, possibly at lower speeds, but seem to have had a significant effect on available 'G' and also the (already not exactly stellar) SEP curves of the F3.
For my part, they looked like ferry tanks, and would probably have had a serious effect in a fight. I have to observe that (just my opinion) the Tornado was slightly more optimised as a bomber than it was as a fighter, and the use of a tank as big as the 2250 litre seems to confirm that it had some challenges meeting the fighter sortie profile requirements.
None of which, of course, takes anything away from the professionalism and dedication of the crews flying and supporting them.
Best regards as ever to those doing the fuel calculations,
Engines
PS: beaten to the punch by ORAC - I have to say that when you have a fighter that can't get over the Alps in dry thrust, you have unusual thrust/weight and SEP values. For a fighter. I'd love to know how many of the tanks were provisioned if the plan was to bang them off in combat.
The F3 wasn't a fighter. It was a missile carrying interceptor optimised by original (short arsed) design for low level.
If we wanted a fighter we should have bought Eagles instead. And retrofitted speys to **** it up just like the last time...