quesion for panavia tornado

[rousseau]

Are there any pilots of panavia tornado in this forum?
If you are, may I ask:

Have you ever tried the top climb rate of this jet? if you have, what's the condition your endeavor on the basis of?

The BAe Lightning is an outstanding interceptor with amazing climb capability as we all known. Then how does the tornado compare with it?

According to published data, the initial climb rate the Tornado could approach even is higher than EF-2000 Typhoon, can you rebut it?

Is it possible that Hiddenberg external fuel tank which we normally seen under tornado's wing could be carried under fuselage? if could, who are glad to share such photo to me?

thanks in advance

[gashman]

F3 initial climb rate is probably better because it gets airborne a tad faster. Once it gets above about thirty feet above the ground, I'd have thought the Typhoon would have the edge.

Can't remember the max rate of climb, but if you are flying at 800kts at sea level and pull back, it's about 800kts upwards. Which is a lot. Sustained climb rates in the open source info are probably close enough to reality.

[soddim]

The Lightning was indeed a superb interceptor in its day but it lacked a good weapons system. The Tornado eventually got a good weapons system but it is a bit of a slouch in the climb although with liberal use of reheat it can achieve respectable time to its operating height.

I would not compare its climb rate with Typhoon.

I doubt anybody with accurate knowledge of the figures you are asking for would post them in this open forum.

[taxydual]

Wikipedia give these specs. Notice though, no citation is given for the accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado#Specifications_.28Tornado_GR.4_.28IDS.29.29

[Exrigger]

To add to Taxydual's Wikipedia link ref Tornado, here is the Lightning and Typhoon with the same caveat about accuracy/validity:

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

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

[taxydual]

Thanks Exrigger, I should have thought to include the comparisons myself.

Doh!!!

[rousseau]

let's do some proportional thing

EF-2000 Typhoon: from brake released to 10973 meters during less than 2 minutes.
If this means a velocity of climb at sea level will be 315m/s

then
Panavia Tornado: from brake released to 9150 meters during less than 2 minutes.
what its velocity of climb at sea level will be?

I think that will be faster than BAe Lightning at least if my arithmetics does right way.

[cornish-stormrider]

Beadwindow.......???

Rousseau, not wanting to seem disrespectful but you pitch up on here with no history and start asking deep and meaningful questions, there are a few suspicious types on here. maybe if you explained a little more about who and why etc someone might be willing to give you more info.

[Ali Barber]

When I went from Lightning to the Tornado F2(!), the spec said that the Tornado would get to 25,000 ft a few seconds quicker than a Lightning. This was true in reheat, but if you relied on cold power only, the Lightning would have got there, finished it's sortie and pilot would be back in the crewroom while the Tornado was still climbing!

[reallydeskbound]

When I went from Lightning to the Tornado F2(!), the spec said that the Tornado would get to 25,000 ft a few seconds quicker than a Lightning. This was true in reheat, but if you relied on cold power only, the Lightning would have got there, finished it's sortie and pilot would be back in the crewroom while the Tornado was still climbing!

Ch***t Steve you still in Oman?????

Ref the above quote - yes provided the Lightning's target was just off Spurn Point!

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Rousou,

Definitive answer for you: The Typhoon will be the fastest, Lightning second and Tornado F3 last, but not far behind.

All, will make 30,000Ft in pretty short order, but that misses the point somewhat. In the modern age, 'Combat Climb' is pretty unimportant, Loiter time matters much more. With modern weapons systems, rarely do you actually need to match your opponents altitude, often you can let the missile do the work! Time to height comes from the days of guns only, or very close range missiles (ie Lightning)

However, if you need to visually identify a target, all bets are off, but again the Typhoon will win at all altitudes. (Because it can fly slower higher than the other types)

Hope this helps, and I don't think I've let any secrets go! :hmm:

Advo

[Dominoe]

In the Falklands the mighty Seaking used to easilybeat the F3 from brakes off to 10,000. 78 won many a beer from 1435 Flt proving it. :)

[rousseau]

master:
I don't know why asking climb rate is a sort of deep and meaningful thing?
The record of climb rate of F-15 was revealed after its entried service only 2 years.

[maxburner]

Dominoe, How many missiles did the Sea King haul to 10,000 ft in its race with the F3?

[Occasional Aviator]

Certainly a Merlin or Chinook could carry a whole cabin full of missiles and still beat an F3 brakes-off to 10K.....

[taxydual]

No missiles, but 78 once did it with Al Pork's Park Pie's on board. Talk about Skyflash!!!:D:D:D

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Dominoe,

Yes, the vertical lift, climb, brakes off at 200Ft to go...... won some beers, but means nothing in this chat.

In truth, my question is: Typhoon or Lightning F3 (Full Blower)???? Anyone??? 0-30k

Advo

[blue monday]

Im sure i read somewhere something along the lines of an aircraft has at last beaten the EE lightning in the 0ld 0-30000 ft run, and it was a typhoon, will have a look on google later and see if i can find the article.

[EyesFront]

I recall the F15 adverts claiming that it could beat a Saturn V moonshot from brakes off to - I think - 70,000 feet. After that the Saturn started to pull away ...

I suspect that the F15 was the first aircraft that could give a Lightning a real contest in climbing to altitude, but I remember poring over my dog-eared Observer's Book of Aircraft and noting that the Draken ran it quite close on published figures

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Current Time To Alt Record........

Sub-class : C-1 (Landplanes)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Time to climb to a height of 25 000 m (82 000Ft!) : 2 min 34.2s :D
Date of flight: 17/05/1975
Pilot: Alexandr FEDOTOV (USSR)
Course/place: Podmoskovnoe (USSR)
Aircraft:
Mikoyan/Gurevitch E-266M (Mig 25 M 'Foxbat') (2 RD-F, 14 000 kg each) :eek:

Advo

[rousseau]

well, although all of replies is not directly, but I also get some useful information.
Shall we turn to that external fuel tank? Could that 2200liter tank was loaded under fuselage of Torando?

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Rosseu, NO (direct enough for you?)

More helpfully tho, the Tornado can carry 4 fuel tanks in Heavy Ferry fit. These are the 1500l class tanks (Smaller) one on each inboard wing station, and 2 on the under fusilage. Realistically tho, this is very rare, because you lose most of the weapons capability and the a/c is aproaching it's max AUW. The GR Tornados used to fly a '3 Bag fit', with plenty of fuel, but also able to carry some 'popping stuff'. F3s don't, as you cannot also carry AMRAAMs, hence 'Ferry Fit'.

Hope this has helped, Oh, and it's all open source.

Advo

PS: Try- www.google.co.uk (http://www.google.co.uk)

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Advo,

Regarding ferry fit for the F3, iirc the capability is largely theoretical and I believe only one out of the 'golden fourty' has the required plumbing?

[advocatusDIABOLI]

pba,

Quite right, in the F3, most a/c have the shoulder mounting fuel contacts disabled. Actually, it probably only flew in that fit once for the testing purposes! I've certainly never flown or even seen it.

I never quite understood the GRs doing 3 bag fit tho, surely 2x 2250L tanks are better than 3x 1500L tanks? (Drag?) Perhaps a GR chap might comment.

Regards, and thanks for the correction,

Advo

[flipflopman RB199]

Advo,

Perhaps part of the reason that the GR's tend to use the 3 tank fit, is the availability of the 1500L tanks to them. Having worked both GR and F3 aircraft, whilst on F3's I only ever saw one set of 1500L tanks on station, which were painted in Camo, and similarly, when on GR's, the 2250L tanks were equally as rare and painted Barley Grey.

I have actually seen GR1's with a 3 x 2250L tank fit, however, this was whilst on the SAOEU, so was most likely a one off. Interestingly, the early RAPTOR pod prototype was a modified 2250L tank, painted white and fitted to the LH shoulder pylon.

As you say, the majority of the F3 fleet now have the shoulder pylon fuel points disabled, however, it would not require much to get them back in a serviceable condition. It would likely require a fleets worth of serviceable 28v actuators for the fuel cocks however, as these are the first places a sootie looks for spares in the event of an actuator failure elsewhere in the system!! :E


Flipflopman

[BEagle]

Some years ago, we flew an AAR trial for a Boscombe Girlie in a Tornado F2.

It had 4 tanks fitted.

IIRC, 15000 ft and 15-20 deg AoB at 285 KIAS and it was struggling...:rolleyes:

Whereas the EuropHoon (once it has eventually filled up...:hmm:)... "Off the Tanker, request the block FL450 to FL500".

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Flip,

I think you are right, makes total sense. Although I didn't think the 2250L tanks could be fitted on the shoulders? (Ground Clearance) You might have seen 2 x 2250L on wings and 1 x 1500L on shoulder..... But I could definately be wrong.

Beages, Tanking is always a struggle with tanks in the mighty Fin! 4 Bags, just doesn't bare thinking about! (you'd be in for about a day and a half!) The Triangular Wonder Jet is certainly not short on power, so probably could tank easily at Max AUW.(provided they didn't rip their probe off! :E)

Regards,

Advo

[flipflopman RB199]

Advo,

Was most definitely 3 x 2250L tanks fitted, as I carried out the Leak and Flow checks! :p As I said though, this was on the OEU, so was likely connected to trials work, and not something you'd see on a day to day basis. We regularly flew with a 3 x 1500L fit when trailling out to the USA, so it was fairly unique to see a 3 x 2250L fit.

You are quite correct though, ground clearance is incredibly tight, and throughout the RAPTOR trials, with the modified 2250L tank fitted to the shoulder, the aircraft was only ever flown with 1500L tanks fitted, and many times with internals only.


Flipflopman

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Flip,
Thanks for the info! I guess we all learn something every day. I'm just glad I didn't have to fly it!

Advo

[D O Guerrero]

Cornish-Stormrider - where on earth does beadwindow come into it? Are you suggesting that the secret stuff would be revealed if Rouseau had history on Pprune? Get real...

[rousseau]

Do you still remember the 2250 tank under fuselage was carried by mid-pylon at centr-line or not if it carried 3x2250liter tanks.

[L Peacock]

External tanks usually sit on the shoulder pylons. The centre pylon could carry a fuel tank but I don't believe that option was ever taken up. However, Buddy-Buddy refuelling is operated from the centre on the export IDS.

I bow to FLIP FLOP's obvious first hand experience but I'm surprised that 2250l tanks have been flown underfuse.

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Thinking about it, I'd like to see that jet! 4x 2250L 'Hindenbergs' Wow, it would look like a Tonka perched on 4 monster floats! Still, you'd have 15 Tonnes of Fuel. I wouldn't like to see the Vgo vs Vstop graph tho! :eek:

Advo :hmm:

[Roymac]

Seaking beats F3 to 10,000 - every time !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Falklands the mighty Seaking used to easilybeat the F3 from brakes off to 10,000. 78 won many a beer from 1435 Flt proving it.





Not from me you didn't!
No one spotted the SAR boys con yet?

By the way 2250 Ltr tanks are not fitted normally on the shoulder pylons - only the 1500 ltr tanks.

Roymac

[flipflopman RB199]

LP,

Thank you for bowing so graciously to my first hand knowledge, but if you were to do a spot of research, you would perhaps see that it's not only my word you have to take, but several years of fully documented research, that show that the 2250s can be taken on the shoulders, whether that is in a wet fuel load situation, or a solid external hard stored situation. I spent 3 years on the Strike Attack OEU, 5 years on the F3 OEU and 2 years on the Fast Jet and Weapons OEU, so perhaps my memory is indeed clouded, but somehow I think not.

Roymac,

As I said mate, this was in a Trials environment, on the SAOEU, and was certainl ynot in a situation that you would normally find

As goes the Centre Line Pylon fuel points, they were most certainly designed to carry fuel, and indeed, the GR varient SI194 uses the centre line pylon fuel connection to drain the vent lines on the aircraft. The F3 does not have the plumbing for a centre line pylon, so has its SI194 vent line drain carried out via the Defuel line and the main fuel coupling.

Cheers,


Flipflopman

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Flip.......:D

that covered it!




Advo

[L Peacock]

Flip Flop

What era were you flying 2250s on the shoulders?
It may well have been after my time on Tornado. I just don't recall ever seeing an RTS or SD for that fit (even trials work needs an SD), though I agree they will certainly function. The fuel totaliser won't unwind until you get to 10T remaining though!

[flipflopman RB199]

LP,

This was early to mid 90's. The RAPTOR trials, with the modified 2250L tank as the carrying body for the Raytheon equipment, was 1999. This was all with GR1's. It was also at this time that there was an uncommanded release of a 27mm round into the Arming pan at Boscombe from a certain GR1b, if you care to check the records (PM me for the serial No.)

As goes the RTS, or the SD, sorry mate, that is far beyond my remit, however, as you know full well, there was never an RTS for this fit, nor did I intimate there was one. The work with this fit was clearly trial related, and as such, I didn't have more to do with it than to ensure that the tanks all functioned as advertised, and that the fuel system was in perfect working order for the flights. As goes the RAPTOR fit, my role as Line Walker involved making sure that the prototype RAPTOR pod (as a 2250L tank) was not damaged in any way upon landing or otherwise, and also assisting the Raytheon agents in keeping the pod serviceable. That includes providing the broomhandle to reset the circuit breakers!!


Flipflopman

[L Peacock]

Flip Flop

Interesting stuff. All makes sense.

[frodo_monkey]

c. 2005, XXV(F) did quite a bit of F3 flying in '4 bag' fit to see if it was possible to make it to Akrotiri in a one-r (post AAR in the UK of course).

This was with 2250l tanks underwing and 2x 1500l tanks on the shoulders - takeoff from LEE was naturally tanks empty, you'd suck 12T off the tanker and then it would handle like an utter bag of ****, height loss on hdg changes at 20k :}

It never did get as far as AKR in the end, though the plan initially looked promising - a stonking headwind put the boys into Souda (where they subsequently stayed as it broke).

Not sure how official it was, but certainly on the sqn it was known as 'Hippo' fit...

[rousseau]

I'll be glade to see 4x2250L tanks carried by Tornado, due to 1/48 model, there is enough space under fuselage to pick 2X2250L tanks.

[rousseau]

I'll be glade to see 4x2250L tanks carried by Tornado, due to 1/48 model, there is enough space under fuselage to pick 2X2250L tanks.

[rousseau]

is there kruger flap on Tornado? if there is, why we've never seen it in any photos? could you take photo to us?

http://www.photo-host.org/img/04575120080605130011589.jpghttp://www.Photo-Host.org/view/04575120080605130011589.jpg

[PPRuNeUser0211]

GR fleet only, and IIRC, welded shut?

[flipflopman RB199]

pba,

The Kruger flaps are not physically welded shut, but they are indeed inhibited. As far as I am aware, they still have to be maintained in a serviceable state, and are still part of the functional tests for the Flap/Slat and HLWSCU system, but are electrically inhibited afterwards.

The intake ramps on a GR Tornado are also inhibited, but this is carried out physically, with steel jury struts replacing the redundant actuators.


Flipflopman

[Bo Nalls]

If I recall correctly, the Krugers deployed with full-flap only and reduced the app speed by about 1 or 2 knots!

[rousseau]

Sorry for raising this old thread,
I am back to ask could Tornado carry anti-ship missile big as Hapoon at outboard pylon underwing??
How heavier the ECM pod and IR jamming pod the Tornado normally carried on outboard pylon?

[The Oberon]

I guess it's OK to ask this now but I saw a TV programme a few weeks ago where an ex RAFG Tornado pilot was talking about nukes. Did the Tornado ever have a nuclear capability / role ?

[cornish-stormrider]

Big buckets of sunshine - YES/NO/MAYBE for more info check wiki on british nuclear weapons

A hapoon? or perhaps a harpoon, why would they carry a big pointy fish spear when in a hairyplane??, There were a GR sqn slated to a maritime role but I cannot remember what anti shipping weapon they carried.

Are you building a scale model Rousseau and trying to get the accuracy right??

[Finrider]

12(B) Sqn, Lossiemouth, maritime role with Sea Eagle on GR1(B) until the 90s.

4x1500l tanks used operationally by GR1(A)s in Gulf 1 on a regular basis. Internal recce kit hence no need for under fuselage weapons.

2x2250l inboard wings and 2x1500l underfuselage flown occasionally to ferry the GR4. That just gives Lajes - St Johns if headwind < 100kts. Take-off from Lajes is balanced with the cable, but it is a pig to fly!!

2x2250l is less drag than 3x1500 for the same fuel load, but the g limit with full 2250s is quite restrictive hence Sqns often use 3x1500l and a CBLS if they want more fuel and a respectable ish g limit.

Hope that helps.

Fin

[Finrider]

Sorry for the re-attack - Don't know mass of Harpoon - google it? BOZ and ECM pods are a bit short of 500kg each. No fits that I am aware of have anything other than BOZ/ECM on the outboard pylons.

[TEEEJ]

Oberon,

'WE.177 carriage on port centre pylon of Tornado'

Link to image

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/024-Tornado-loaded.png

Inert drill WE.177 being loaded to a Tornado

Link to image

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/005-Tornado-loading.png

From

nuclear-weapons.info (http://www.nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm)

RAF Marham - 31 Squadron Navigator achieves 4000 Tornado flying hours on OP TELIC (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/newsweather/4000hours31sqn.cfm)

'‘Zonker’, or Daryll as his mother actually named him, first flew the Tornado in 1985. One of the aircraft he trained on has now been scrapped! Zonker moved on to XV(R) Sqn where he held nuclear Quick Reaction Alert during the cold war.'

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 20 Apr 1998 (pt 20) (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980420/text/80420w20.htm)

'Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when training for RAF pilots with the WE177 bomb was ended. [38959]

Dr. Reid: The last formal course for RAF aircrew took place in April 1997. This was supplemented by simulator continuation training in procedures on unit to maintain aircrew currency through to March 1998. The WE177 bomb was withdrawn from service on 31 March 1998.'

Details of NATO air forces nuclear role. Along with the UK the Germans and Italians also employed the Tornado in the nuclear delivery role.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf

[EyesFront]

As this thread's wandered off to nukes, I happened to pop in to the Cosford museum on Sunday and was looking at the WE177s on display under the Valiant. I guess it's just possible that they weren't real ones, but what caught my eye was that the list of aircraft that have carried them included the Sea King...

[The Oberon]

The best known 177 variants were the A and B. There was a C variant designated for nuclear depth charge / mine use.

[TEEEJ]

nuclear-weapons.info (http://www.nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm#WE.177)

Wessex

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-wessex-edited.jpg

Wasp

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-wasp.jpg

Sea King

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/027-Sea-King-NDB-drop.png

[glad rag]

At the risk of seeming pedantic, it's called a shoulder pylon.

[Bo Nalls]

Sorry for the re-attack - Don't know mass of Harpoon - google it? BOZ and ECM pods are a bit short of 500kg each. No fits that I am aware of have anything other than BOZ/ECM on the outboard pylons.

Terma now fitted to LH outboard. See www.terma.com/multimedia/Terma_Update_December_2008.pdf (http://www.terma.com/multimedia/Terma_Update_December_2008.pdf)

[fallmonk]

Just out currosity why did the RAF never order ECR Tornados? same as the German Luftwaffe? to give them a proper eletronic warfare aircraft that can keep up with strike packages , was it just price?

Also on the same note is it just the USA with the EA-6B, the new F18 Growler and the above mentioned german tornados who have a "fast" aircraft?

[Pontius Navigator]

The best known 177 variants were the A and B. There was a C variant designated for nuclear depth charge / mine use.

No.

A = 600lb multi-mode
B = 950lb for V-Force
C = 950lb lower yield for SACEUR and fitted to Jaguar amongst others.

WE.177 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177)

Vulcans in Camera - WE177. (http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/nukes/we177a_b.htm)

The article on the following link states that the information is disputed. That is correct; the information is wrong in several respects.

The comment re-colour of the live weapon is correct in that the early weapons were white which was a better colour for internal carriage of ASW usage as the was better as reflecting thermal pulse. Later, for external carriage on tactical aircraft it was better for camouflage that they be painted green.

[Finrider]

Terma is now open source then.....LH outboard in place of the ECM.

[AndoniP]

the german tornado ids (marineflieger) carries the kormoran anti-ship missile, if that helps?

[TiffyFGR4]

rousseau, this might help you out a bit. Hope it helps.

English Electric / BAC Lightning (http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/bac.htm)

[Brewster Buffalo]

.................I happened to pop in to the Cosford museum on Sunday and was looking at the WE177s on display under the Valiant. I guess it's just possible that they weren't real ones, but what caught my eye was that the list of aircraft that have carried them included the Sea King...I think this is the one you're referring to though it looks bigger than a WE. Anyone id it for me..

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o212/sirius100/Cosford7copy.jpg

[BEagle]

Yellow Sun

.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Yellow SunThanks. I'll keep to myself though those kind people at Wiki have a whole page on it!
Didn't realise that it was designed to have a blunt nose...thought the black part was a cover for the missing warhead..

[Pontius Navigator]

As you will see on the web, the physics package was approximately under the suspension lug.

I am not sure why this one has a black nose. The nose should be a translucent fibreglass. The two red blanks are for the turbine inlets and the red one on the side is the turbine exhaust. The green hatch behind that is for access to the ground impact isolation 'switch' or the switch to make the weapon airburst only.

[The Oberon]

Another question on nukes on FJs. It seems that the Jaguar and Harrier were cleared for the 177. What about the two man rule etc when it came to fitting them on single seaters ?

[The Oberon]

Sorry, no excuses, just wanted to nudge my Harrier / Jaguar question up.

[Double Zero]

The Sea Harrier FRS1 was definitely set up for 'special weapons', presumably WE177 - deleted along with the weapon of course.

Not sure about GR1-3 Harriers, I think they could carry it, but not as far as I remember on GR5 onwards - suppose the weapon was gone by then !

Sea Harrier was of course also set up for the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile, a later & reportedly better item similar to Exocet.

Some RAF Buccaneers were also equipped to carry them for a while as a maritime strike squadron.

That rather good missile was retired even more prematurely than the Sea Harrier...

[bri21]

Oberon. "The best known 177 variants were the A and B. There was a C variant designated for nuclear depth charge / mine use."

An old error that unfortunately gets regurgitated again and again.
WE.177A was the 1/2 kt and 10 kt dual role version with a depth bomb capability. First issued to the Navy in 1969.

WE.177B was the 450 kt strategic model first issued to Vulcans and later handed down to Buccs and Tornadoes. It had no depth bomb functions

WE.177C was a 190 kt land attack only version introduced around the mid-1970s, and had no anti-submarine depth bomb functions. It could be laid down on water (as in shallow, as frequently found inland) but had no depth sensing kit as required for anti-sub depth bomb functioning. It was an RAF-only weapon and not issued to RAF maritime aircraft.

And none of the WE.177 series was ever able to be used as either a land mine or a sea mine. Where do these myths spring from?
:)

[bri21]

Oberon. Another question on nukes on FJs. It seems that the Jaguar and Harrier were cleared for the 177. What about the two man rule etc when it came to fitting them on single seaters ?

It was rewritten to suit the single seater after take-off. Before take off there was always a second someone close by on the ground. Plenty of declassified info available on the rule changes in the National Archives.
:)

[RAFEngO74to09]

As this thread has drifted towards nuclear weapons, here is a link to some pretty comprehensive historical information for anyone who is interested.

nuclear-weapons.info (http://nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm)