Typhoon ground refeulling trial photos 1998

[sunshine band]

The British prototype lined up behind a Tristar KC1 to check refuelling boom compatability. It was covered in test equipment, including the camera seen in the canopy.

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo116/sband/zh588side.jpg

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo116/sband/zh588back.jpg

And, whilst we are talking of Timmys, if I remember correctly, they were ferrying a spare engine out for another one which was broken downroute- it was too big to fit through the cargo door, so they bolted it onto the wing...

I do love my new scanner!

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo116/sband/zd953eng1.jpg

SB

[Green Flash]

I would have thought that a fairing of some sort would be put over the spare donk intake - the drag must have some influence on performance? Or is it allowed to windmill, letting the air flow through?

[Sl4yer]

:ok:Nice pics. It's sometimes hard to remember how long the Typhoon has been around!

Of course, the spare engine capability has been done before:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c161/sl4yer2001/1426738.jpg

Can't wait to see a pod for the A400 engine! :ok:

[XV277]

Tristar spare engine carrying was built in from the start (and also on other aircraft - somewhere I'm sure I've seen a photo of a 5 engined 747)

[99luftballon]

Tristar spare engine has LP fan blades removed, and core blanked to prevent windmilling. It is mounted inboard of the number 3 engine if my memory serves me correctly. Not much need for the kit these days, C-17 has a sufficiently large cargo door:D

[FlightTester]

Looks like DA2 (before it was painted black)

[peekay]

Certainly is DA2. It has the Spin Recovery System fitted and still has the RB199 engines. I would have said it was 1997 but I could be wrong. Nice photos btw.

[Green Flash]

Thank you 99:ok:

Can RAF VC-10's carry a spare engine pod?

[Double Zero]

Well wasn't there a Victor with an underfuselage Pegasus ?! For test, not delivery purposes - must have been tempting for the pilot to try some new moves though !

[Tim McLelland]

er... no! (you're thinking of the Valiant).

Incidentally, what was the outcome of these refuelling trials? Was either aircraft found guilty?

:)

[MrBernoulli]

Yes, the Typhoon was found guilty of taking on fuel like a complete big-girl's-blouse! Flow rate is pathetic. AAR pipework added as an afterthought, and consequently worse than that in a cheap central heating system.:rolleyes:

[Double Zero]

Alright Tim,

Keep your hair on, I was right it was some sort of V-bomber ( tis' a long time since I had the photo's ).

When the Harrier GR5 appeared, it had the feature of 'hot refuelling', ie filling up on the ground without shutting down the engine.

A test pilot got a bit carried away one day when in a Sea Harrier, and requested hot refuelling - snag being on the Harrier 1 series the refuelling point is aft of the forward nozzle !

To his credit ( ? ) the groundcrew chap did try, before backing off hastily.

[NoHoverstop]

When the Harrier GR5 appeared, it had the feature of 'hot refuelling', ie filling up on the ground without shutting down the engine.

A test pilot got a bit carried away one day when in a Sea Harrier, and requested hot refuelling - snag being on the Harrier 1 series the refuelling point is aft of the forward nozzle !

We used to do it "all the time" with our 1st-gen Harrier. As long as the nozzles were deflected down a bit it was pretty snagless.

Sorry about the thread drift.

[Fishtailed]

It's sometimes hard to remember how long the Typhoon has been around!

Back another 12 years from there. Yes, 22 years ago:eek: (Maybe this belongs in AH&N)

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fishtailed/scan0001-7.jpg

A few photos of the beast in action:ok:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fishtailed/scan0004-6.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fishtailed/scan0005-5.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fishtailed/scan0006-4.jpg

[Fishtailed]

Typhoon was found guilty of taking on fuel like a complete big-girl's-blouse! Flow rate is pathetic. AAR pipework added as an afterthought, and consequently worse than that in a cheap central heating system.


As no one else has risen to Mr. B's bait, I cant let that go, as it's all shhh*te. AAR designed in from the outset, (OK, EAP didn't have it).
The retractable probe is a wonderful piece of engineering and works as designed on the production aircraft.:D

[Squirrel 41]

**THREAD CREEP ALERT**

22 years since EAP? Time flies and all that.

However: when I asked a BAe bloke who'd worked on said EAP, he said that it was millions of miles away from being a production combat a/c, and that the fuselage structure was actually based on a Tonka.

Anyone out there able to shed more light?

Many thanks,

S41

[FlightTester]

The retractable probe is a wonderful piece of engineering and works as designed on the production aircraft.


I do seem to remember a certain guest TP getting over zealous during AAR trials with a VC 10 - the frangible link definitely works as advertised!:O

[Fishtailed]

it was millions of miles away from being a production combat a/c,


It was a proof of concept vehicle, so--yes:ugh:

the fuselage structure was actually based on a Tonka.

Only the arse end was.:)

[Squirrel 41]

Fishtailed

Many thanks - I was just curious, because a member of the local pub experten was recently telling anyone who'd listen that we could've had EAP in Sqn service by 1990, and that the decision to "bin it" and go for Typhoon was a total waste (and worse, pro-European! :rolleyes:).

I'd not dispute that the management of the Typhoon programme could er, be "improved", but it did sound like little-Englandism to try and cast EAP as another TSR-2 might-have-been.

Out of interest, what happened to the EAP airframes?

S41

[FlightTester]

I think one of them is at Loughborough Uni

[Focks 2]

I think one of them is at Loughborough Uni

What subject is it studying?

soz.

[EAP86]

When the prog was called the ACA, there were plans for flying more than one. When it was restyled EAP, the number was cut down to one. It is on loan at Loughborough.

[Fishtailed]

S42, your local pub experten is way off the mark. EAP was far removed from ACA, but was the prototype EFA, although it didn't look exactly the same, but,- look at the P1A and the Lightning! There was no project EAP, just the one demonstrator.

[L Peacock]

Squirrel41 "**THREAD CREEP ALERT**

22 years since EAP? Time flies and all that.

However: when I asked a BAe bloke who'd worked on said EAP, he said that it was millions of miles away from being a production combat a/c, and that the fuselage structure was actually based on a Tonka.

Anyone out there able to shed more light?

Many thanks,

S41"

Squirrel, Take a close look at the fin for starters.

[Brain Potter]

Fishtailed,

Mr B's statement about the AAR flow-rate into Typhoon is not "shiiite". It is a well-known fact that Typhoon takes fuel at a lower rate than just about any other receiver. The rate is about a quarter of that into equivalent American designed aircraft.

There is a widely-held assumption that this flaw must exist because AAR was an afterthought that forced the fuel system designers to use complex narrow-diameter pipework, giving a slow rate of onload. The grounds for such an assumption may be rooted in the idea that Typhoon was primarily intended for RAFG, which did not use AAR in their warplans.

However, you appear to have some inside knowledge of the design and manufacture of this aircraft type and have stated that AAR system was not an afterthought, implying that it functions as was intended from the outset. If that is true, then you have demolished the excuse for the performance of this system and indicted the designers for saddling the aircraft with a feature that is markedly inferior to that fitted in comparable aircaft. It is possible that the designers may have had to work within tighter constraints of space and weight than those who plumbed, for example, the F/A-18 but that can only be indicative of the lack of importance placed on the perfomance of the AAR system - which returns us to the original premise of Mr B's assertion.

It may not have been an afterthought - but it sure looks like one.

[FlightTester]

The rate is about a quarter of that into equivalent American designed aircraft.



Sorry I don't know what the rate is on the F-22 or F-35.

But I suspect that I do know why the Typhoon AAR capability is apparently slower than say a Tornado, Harrier or Jag, but I don't think an open forum is the place to discuss it.:=

[Brain Potter]

When I said "equivalent aircraft" that's exactly what I meant - ie fourth generation fighters like F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

I also do not know the AAR onload rates of the latest American fifth+ generation fighters, but I'd wager that they not as puny as that of Typhoon. US aircraft have consistently demonstrated a better AAR onload rate when compared to those of European origin. For USAF aircraft this is probably explained by the inherent nature of the boom system, where the high flow rates must be properly utilized to minimize the disadvantage of the single dispense point. USN aircraft also exhibit much better onload rates than other probe receivers and I would guess that the nature of blue-water ops, using an single-point emergency terminal tanker, causes the AAR characteristics of their aircraft to assume greater significance than it does to Europeans.

You have alluded to a specific reason for Typhoon achieving such a low rate, which I think I have already heard about. However, this reason seems to me to be another example of designers coming-up with a clever solution for one specific scenario, which then proves to be a limitation in many other ways. Another example of this kind of thinking is the omission of an ILS system from some military aircraft in order to save weight. I can only imagine that the basis of such an idea was that all-weather recovery to military bases would normally be achieved by GCA or other methods. Of course, in the real world, such aircraft often need to use civilian airports or foreign military bases where ILS is the primary aid and are forever handicapped by the narrow view of those involved in the original procurement.

I don't believe that the low AAR rate is in any way a significant enough factor to be regarded as Typhoon's Achilles heel, and hope that the underlying reason for it does indeed give the aircraft many other advantages. However, the fact remains that a low AAR rate can only be a weakness and is clearly something that has been compromised in this design to allow priority for other characteristics.