GR4 Supersonic ?

[CoffmanStarter]

The Boss of XV Squadron made a comment this week on Tw@tter that got me thinking ...

Highlight of today? Supersonic flight in the climb - doesn't happen often in a Tornado! No banter required from my Typhoon pilot followers!!

So what are the conditions to get a GR4 to drop one in the climb ...

I'm assuming it wasn't a problem for the old F3 Tonka

Best ...

Coff.

Leon ... Expert comment ?

[Duplo]

Clean jet, wings back, burners in... simples....

[cornish-stormrider]

you forgot eject the nav, or at least his pies and sandwiches.....

[CoffmanStarter]

OK ... so not that complicated/troublesome ... just that the Boss of XV doesn't get to fly a clean aircraft that often then :cool:

[MPN11]

When 20's Hunter 9s popped over to Seletar for major servicing, they were stripped. No tanks, no pylons, and even the Sabrinas were removed. There was then a roster for who got to play with it during the delivery flight - which seemed to last about 20 minutes IIRC.

Not sure whether supersonic was involved, but I would guess it might :cool:

[glad rag]

Depends if it was an up climb or a down climb.:}

Did he mention how the ramps worked?? :p:}:}:p

[gr4techie]

I was working on the very sqn where it happened. It had a clean ish fit.... No inboard wing pylons (and therefore no underwing tanks), no shoulder pylons, no centreline pylon, no refuel probe. I'm guessing only the outboard wing pylons are left on to reduce fatigue from wing flex?

It was an unusual experience not banging my head on a pylon as I crawled underneath the aircraft.

[NutLoose]

Had a clean Jag depart Gut no drops or pylons after we had done an engine change, put the ladder and chocks in the Landy, drove in and called Bruggen to tell them he was enroute to be told at the other end he was taxying in. Wondered why we could hear the reheat for ages and a big smile on the pilots face, first time probably he had been in a "fast jet"


..

[Courtney Mil]

'corse it can. It's just that the operational fit requires all sorts of dangly bits with all their drag. Take them off and it's just a draggy F3. F3 could do it easily (even with some of it's draggy bits and the GR certainly can. Is it realistic? Well, yes. If you've done your mission and you need to escape (and you have the fuel) it's completely practical to clear the wings and run. The engines aren't that different and the airframe on the GR is only slightly draggier (what a great word!)

[just another jocky]

Supersonic was part of trip 3 (I think it was 3) at TTTE (Tri-National Tornado Training Establishment). Low level, over sea, most frames went supersonic easily but they had no pylons at all so no baggage (other than the talking baggage :}). They also had less powerful engines than the sqn jets, never mind the GR4.

Sqn GR1/4 was a different thing though, >1.5kkg of pylons alone, never mind the drag from whatever hung on them. Still, with the single-crystal turbine blades and a bit decent trimming, I managed 590kts in dry power in one once, tanks, pods & all. She would go supersonic in reheat, but then stepped sideways when the fuel tanks started protesting so no real idea of max speed in B11 fit. :O

[Peter G-W]

I remember picking a new aircraft up from Warton and being most impressed with the performance, being used to the Batch 2 101 engined ac we had on the squadron. The climb into the Lichfield Corridor at FL180 happened rather quickly and I forgot to select Mach in the HUD. As the speed picked up through 420 kts, I selected Mach to see it clicking over from .98 to .99. Oops. I remember my TTTE supersonic run at 500 ft over the North Sea which seemed to hit a brick wall at well under 700kts which was really disappointing but it did make a really good noise in the cockpit.

Some earlier pre-mod GR1s had a 560ish kt limitation on the SPS Bay doors as I discovered to my cost one night trying to make our TOT at Tain and the £40 000 left hand panel probably still lies on a Highland hillside gathering moss. I told the Boss that I might not have secured the panel properly on the aircrew turnround in Machrihanish, believing that to be better than telling him the truth. Christmas Dinner for me that year was taken in the Airmen's Mess, not that SDO was ever to be used as a punishment. The 27 Sqn display pilot also discovered the problem a few years later during a practice over Marham but I think he lost both panels.

My recollection from Goose Bay was that the GR1 would start going sideways at around 640 kts with the tanks, outboards and CBLS on (if that is B11 fit) so the 600 kt VNE seemed appropriate.

Happy Days.

Well... apart from 25 Dec 85!

[XV277]

Early in the MRCA program, there was a 'supersonic' underwing tank with a smaller capacity than the one that entered service. Can't remember the details now, but it was flown on some of the development aircraft.

[just another jocky]

Early in the MRCA program, there was a 'supersonic' underwing tank with a smaller capacity than the one that entered service. Can't remember the details now, but it was flown on some of the development aircraft.

And yet it's the smaller tanks that are subsonic now; the larger 'Hindenburger' tanks have a supersonic clearance.

Perhaps that smaller one you mention never made it to sqn service. :confused:

[XV277]

Perhaps that smaller one you mention never made it to sqn service. :confused:

It didn't, at least not in the RAF (It was an IDS/GR1 tank). Don't think the Germans or Italians used it either.

[Scruffy Fanny]

So back to the point - the F3 was cleared to Mach 2 plus because the ramps worked - I was under the impression the GR4 no longer had movable ramps and was therefore subsonic ? - just curious

[L J R]

I've taken the GR-4 supersonic, :D also took F-111 supersonic (twice) - that is M2...both were lots of fun, but F-111 supersonic lasted longer...:ok:
Never released a weapon at supersonic speed in the GR-4 though. .:ugh: ..F-111 did on more than one occasion!:p

[Geezers of Nazareth]

What's the normal operating height for a GR4 then? ... I normally see them pootling around at FL240 to about FL280. Earlier this week one was at FL380 over Anglia, and I don't recollect seeing one that high before.

[Rhino power]

Where's Anglia?

-RP

[Lima Juliet]

Sorry Coff, missed my call! (Been busy)

As others have said, a clean GR4 is supersonic capable. The big tanks are 600kts/M1.2 capable (and more if you ignore the RTS!!) and the little ones are subsonic only (again, I know they will go supersonic!). The problem with the GRs is that they start to hit a brick wall around 1.2M without the ramps being enabled - they are fitted for but not with (that said, from the F3 'reduce to produce' there would be plenty of spares).

The good old Tonka will make it up above 40k but doesn't like it when you turn as the wing loading is too high and the RB199 was optimised for low level.

LJ

[tonker]

If anyone wants to give this a lash over my house , the kids will be thrilled.

NE45 5BP

[CoffmanStarter]

Cheers Leon old chap ... Don't work too hard mate :ok:

[WH904]

Certainly wasn't difficult in an F3. Picture below was taken a few minutes after we'd done a supersonic photo rendezvous, all done with remarkable ease and no fuss. Guys on 25 Squadron were taking a girl from Air Traffic on a joyride so we tagged along and went vertical to kill off the speed (and grab a few photos). Didn't seem to be much of an effort for the Tornado F3, but then slamming the burners in and running for safety was always one of the F3's best defensive tactics.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y146/Shefftim/img141.jpg

[CoffmanStarter]

Nice pic 904 :ok:

[AtomKraft]

WH904

You're quite good with that camera. :ok:

[gr4techie]

I remember learning the tonka airbrakes are scheduled... the angle they deploy at depends on the airspeed. You don't need as much of a surface area when the airflow is 700mph, like sticking your hand out the car window at 70mph. As the airbrakes are fully out in the photo, the Tornado air display variant in the photo must have slowed right down..

[WH904]

Thanks for the comments. You're quite right GR4, the above shot was en-route back to Leeming, preparing for flaps and undercarriage extension, so speed would have been fairly low :)

[thing]

Hate that, airbrake extension. Bad energy management. Not being critical of their use in combat, anything goes.

Mind you, I pay for my fuel.

[hanoijane]

I've always wondered why that aeroplane needed so much tail. Yunno, the sticky-out bits at the back.

If it's not a state secret, care to explain?

[Lima Juliet]

Why big single fin?

Because we couldn't afford 2 smaller ones! And the Govt told us we had to buy to support the British aircraft industry.

LJ

[WH904]

Thought you guys might like this shot. As far as I can determine, it was the only occasion when the wing sweep was illustrated in this way. The USAF folks used to do it in the F-111 quite often. Took a bit of setting up but...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y146/Shefftim/trio.jpg

[MSOCS]

Why big single fin?

Because we couldn't afford 2 smaller ones! And the Govt told us we had to buy to support the British aircraft industry.

Best answer by far!

:D:D:D:D

[hanoijane]

LJ,

I was including in my query the seemingly over-sized bits which stick out the sides, and there are already two of those.

It's very 'back end heavy'. Suggestive of all sorts of potential stability issues mitigated at the design stage by 'let's make these bits bigger, that'll solve things'.

Of course I could be completely wrong and someone simply thought they looked cute...

[Just This Once...]

Pretty much true.

The F3 fin design is inherited from the original IDS variant. The original Tornado owes its shape to the multinational 'box-size target' (allegedly to fit into Italian HAS sites but I am unsure on this) whilst meeting the stability requirements for its intended role. In very simple terms if you make the fuselage unusually short then the fin needs to be bigger.

In even simpler terms the F3 fuselage was about the length the aero guys wanted for the mud-moving variant whilst comfortably achieving the original range requirement...

[Lima Juliet]

Hanoi

If I recall correctly, the large antennae on the fin are for VOR Nav-aids. And the box like ones are for the RADAR Homing and Warning Reciever.

LJ

[Just This Once...]

ILS antenna.

[EAP86]

Fitting the airframe into the nation's size target meant that it was quite short coupled (limited lever arm about the cg), hence the size. The fin also had a beneficial effect on differential tailplane effect but that was probably an unexpected benefit. It also carried fuel but the benefit on range was pretty limited – there was a story that the extra fuel carried was just enough to get it to the end of the runway – I suspect it was a different story after AAR.

[hanoijane]

Thanks. I assumed this was the case, but assumptions can be a dangerous thing.

I wish I lived in an air force with AAR :-(

[Just This Once...]

EAP86 - yep the fin fuel is about what you use for start-up, taxi and take-off. In effect this gave you full internal fuel available for use (plus whatever external fuel) having achieved about 350kts+.

As for AAR the fin tank takes an age to fill and without a fuel gauge it can be a frustrating wait to achieve Fin Full. Not all users went for a wet fin either; the Germans and Italians did not include it on their IDS aircraft.

The use of fin fuel on UK aircraft has been on and off for various reasons.

[WH904]

Hard to say precisely how the design evolved but it was very much a Warton design despite the international input. It grew out of the AFVG project and when that was abandoned, Warton continued with it in various guises with various nations coming on board... and jumping off again... until we ended-up with what was essentially TSR2 Lite... but a decade later :)

[Rhino power]

And Germany wanted a single engined configuration using the dreadful TF-30!

-RP

[Lima Juliet]

Carrying on from the AFVG piece, you can trace Tornado back furher...

Late 1950s-early 1960s the Vickers Type 581 *
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/vickers-type581.jpg

Early to mid 1960s the Hawker-Siddley Type 583*
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/bac-type583.gif

In 1966/67 the Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG)*
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/afvg.jpg

Have a look at this mock up of the AFVG and the fin!
http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/BAC-Dassault-AFVG1.jpg

All bear a striking resemblance to Tornado. Don't forget that Barnes Wallis (of bouncing bomb Dambusters fame) came up with the variable geometry idea and was also Chief Designer at Vickers (see the Type 581 above), then we can probably thank Barnes Wallis for Tornado's massive fin!

LJ :ok:

[WH904]

You're probably bordering on heresy by suggesting that Barnes Wallis or Vickers had any link to Tornado! I think there can't be much doubt that there was a spill-over between company projects in terms of influence, but back in the good (bad?) old days, Warton and Weybridge were hardly the best of friends. Vickers drifted away from exotic notions of swing wings, especially with Supermarine imposing their influence. It was their design expertise that produced the Type 571 (TSR2) but when TSR2 finally emerged it was very much an English Electric aircraft (in effect the P.17), even if most of the stuff in it was from Vickers. Despite this, Vickers stubbornly designated TSR2 as the Type 571 throughout its short and sad existence. Thing is, the Supermarine aircraft was really all about carrier warfare, which was partly why Vickers were so keen to embrace the bizarre notion of giving TSR2 short field capability (as if a nuclear bomber was ever going to operate from a field). The wider picture was of Supermarine developing a new carrier plane, even though that never seemed realistic either.

With TSR2 gone, it was Warton that pursued AFVG and the designs associated with it, while Weybridge pursued its airliners, albeit not for very long. It's very difficult to know just how much (if any) Vickers influence there was on AFVG but based on how the two companies operated (even within BAC), I guess it's unlikely that Warton had much time for anything from "down south"... and rightly too in my view, given their capabilities in the face of the absurd way in which Vickers handled TSR2.

There's no doubt that Wallis came-up with the variable geometry idea though, but then it has to be said that Wallis had his own ways and attitudes, some of which were hardly helpful - look at the Miles M.52 saga for example.

Ultimately, no matter how we got there, there's no doubt that Tornado was very much a British design, even if it was the result of multi-national thinking. It was clearly a direct development of AFVG (and therefore TSR2) but far better suited to the needs of its customer. TSR2 was obsolete before it had even been built, having been designed primarily for East of Suez, whereas Tornado was very much a European Theatre machine.

While Tornado F3 was a bit of a folly (designed as BVR interceptor just in time for the RAF to need a fighter), Tornado IDS was undoubtedly the right aircraft at the right time... and that doesn't happen very often in British aviation history!

[Alber Ratman]

It might have been AFVG, it might have been UKVG, it might have come from Vickers when it was dragged into BAC.. It might have been the Warton designed P45 that was a study to fulfil AST362.. What became the mock up behind the screen, that had some commonsense in the design. Well it did because Warton didn't come up with the base line design for it. Tonka was the worst bits of P45..

Tornados look at themselves and break down. Bob Longmore (may he rest in peace) said the the Tornado was a great piece of kit that had no money spent on it to get rid of the bugs. A lot of bugs build in to it by BAE.

[WH904]

Really? I've never heard any claim that Tornado is any less reliable than any other comparable machine?

Besides, I don't see how reliability has much to do with the actual design. That's more of a systems issue, surely? In terms of the aircraft's capabilities and performance, Tornado was (for once) an ideal aircraft for the role for which it was designed.

[Onceapilot]

Tornado GR, a great tactical bomber but, so much compromise.

OAP

[Courtney Mil]

Tornados look at themselves and break down.

No, that doesn't reflect my experience either.

[Dr Jekyll]

Isn't some of the Vickers VG work rumoured to have found it's way into the
F111?

[CoffmanStarter]

904 ... You'll have to excuse Leon as he obviously had an "artistic" moment whilst doing his last pre flight walk round before climbing into the front office :ok:

[just another jocky]

Tornados look at themselves and break down. Bob Longmore (may he rest in peace) said the the Tornado was a great piece of kit that had no money spent on it to get rid of the bugs. A lot of bugs build in to it by BAE.

That may have been true in the early days Alber, but it's certainly not true for the GR4.

In the late 80'sthe GR1 Force did have some major serviceability issues, but then it was still a fairly young airframe and what new jet doesn't have early serviceability issues whilst the engineering & ops setups get to understand their toys better. It also didn't help that when the Saudis bought the GR1, they also bought most of our spares.

But when the GR4 came into service there was a noticeable improvement. 100% sortie rates both on ex & ops is not unusual anymore.

[Easy Street]

Tornado suffered a couple of fleet-wide crumps over the past decade, largely due to changes in the third-line (sorry, depth) maintenance arrangements while St Athan was dying a death and BAES was taking its time getting the line at Marham up to speed - which caused significant reductions in aircraft availability at certain points. Those were 'management' rather than 'aircraft' issues, and funnily enough, when the maintenance contract starting paying gainshare back to BAES, aircraft availability increased markedly!

The first-line serviceability of the old girl has steadily improved ever since GR4 came in. In recent years it's been driven onwards by some really good targeted analysis of the "standard" faults like outboard pylon snags, ECS failures and FOD-related engine rejections. There also used to be a bit of a culture of changing the easiest component in a failed system, inevitably followed after the subsequent crew-out by the next easiest, and so on.... that has all but disappeared now, with a big fault analysis project having shown what the culprit components usually are. The surprising thing is that the engineers are still learning stuff about it... you'd think after 30 years it would all be sorted! Perhaps we'll have it nailed for the retirement flypast so we can walk 16 for a 16-ship?!

[Lima Juliet]

Easy, has the jet suddenly got a solo clearance? Or should that be walk 32 for the 16 ship? :}

LJ

[Easy Street]

has the jet suddenly got a solo clearance?
Since the WSO training pipeline has closed, that may need to be pursued!

However, a canny member of the Nav union evidently got to the cockpit designers because the IFF panel is in the boot of all UK Tornadoes; the Italian variety has the IFF in the front and therefore (I believe) has a solo clearance!

[just another jocky]

However, a canny member of the Nav union evidently got to the cockpit designers because the IFF panel is in the boot of all UK Tornadoes; the Italian variety has the IFF in the front and therefore (I believe) has a solo clearance!

The GR1 came into service with all 3 nations with the IFF control panel in the front seat. This was so the Germans/Italians could transit/deliver the a/c single-seat.

It was rightly moved to the rear in the GR4 update for the UK. I don't know the current position in the Italian/German fleets.

[Flap62]

rightly moved to the rear in the GR4 update for the UK.

Frankly, if you can't control things like that from either seat via a modern interface it's a design which is showing it's age.

[ORAC]

Frankly, if you can't control things like that from either seat via a modern interface it's a design which is showing it's age. Depends who wrote the spec.

I can remember a GR1 nav telling me he had an ex-Jag man as his pilot; he used to confiscate any strip maps he had in his pockets before they walked to the aircraft.....

[Easy Street]

Frankly, if you can't control things like that from either seat via a modern interface it's a design which is showing it's age.Undoubtedly the case; the radios and navaids were not given any software implementation. The ILS and TACAN units are the clunky old type with thumbwheel digits! The most recent update to the radios has just given them a software-driven interface in both cockpits but it's too late for the IFF now.

The design concept was very much that the 2 cockpits had distinct roles so there was practically no duplication - in that sense it followed its predecessors rather than breaking any moulds. While it was a very finely-tuned cockpit for its designed role, the pitfalls of designing a human-machine interface around the particular requirements of one role and the SOPs and CRM principles of the day remain evident by comparison to something like the F15E - the Americans had moved on and made almost everything controllable from both cockpits. No matter how well any designer can calculate cockpit workloads and place controls, you can pretty much guarantee that over 30 years the requirements will change! With the way the aircraft is used today, there are plenty of occasions where the pilot has the lower workload and could easily help out the WSO by doing things like changing squawk - the point being that it's best to have the choice!

I can remember a GR1 nav telling me he had an ex-Jag man as his pilot; he used to confiscate any strip maps he had in his pockets before they walked to the aircraft..... I never understood the old-school Tornado Force approach to CRM, which seemed to expect a lower standard of pilot capacity and performance than the chaps had already demonstrated at Valley, Brawdy or Chiv (or indeed in the Jag force!!). Single-seat recommend or no, graduating from TTU demonstrated a certain minimum standard of competence in getting around in a fast jet and not crashing. It would have made more sense to me if Tornado piloting had been treated as more of a progression from that course. Yes, learn to operate with a crewmate, but do it to increase the overall productive capacity of the aircraft, not to monitor each other's jobs to the stifling extent that we did. Some navs always assumed that pilots were out to kill them and monitored accordingly - sensible, you might say, but it defeated the point of a 2-man cockpit, IMHO. Airliners have 2-man cockpits for increased safety; in combat aircraft they should be used to increase operational capability.