Tornado F3 wing sweep

[Aerodynamik]

Hi all

Being a bit of an aviation artist I want to paint a Tornado F3 (or maybe a pair). Obviously the setting has to be right and may plan is to have it/them climbing at a very steep angle maybe at something like 20k feet as if launched on QRA.
Could anyone advice was the wing sweep would be in this sort of scenario?

TIA, Steve

[MSOCS]

Is the painting going to be called, "Going Ballistic!" ?

[taxydual]

F3?
QRA?
L44+8?
Climbing at a very steep angle?
20K feet?

Is it going to be a work of fiction? :)

[Dominator2]

58 Wing at M0.9 in Full A/B would still give a reasonable angle of climb. Most people tried to climb the ac at too low a speed/Mach No. Certainly, above 25k the performance dropped off but I did get one up to 45k in QRA Config.

[ORAC]

Stretching my memory here, but IIRC, after we effectively lost TANSOR because of OOA, QRA fit was reduced to L42+6 and then even further to L40+4 to reduce the drag and increase range/endurance by removing the rails as well?

.....Thinking about it, and looking at the photos, the drag was from the missiles, not the rails which had effectively no drag; so it was L40+4, but with the pylons left on the wing.

[Lima Juliet]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Tornado_F3_RAF_armed.jpg
This is a clean KILO fit QRA jet (although it might be an F2!)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/A_Tornado_F3_from_43_Squadron_based_at_RAF_Leuchars%2C_pictu red_here_flying_above_the_clouds._MOD_45132159.jpg/613px-A_Tornado_F3_from_43_Squadron_based_at_RAF_Leuchars%2C_pictu red_here_flying_above_the_clouds._MOD_45132159.jpg
This is a LIMA fit QRA jet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1180000/images/_1180297_tornado300_pa.jpg
This is a LIMA fit jet in 58 wing with AMRAAM (don't think it is 63 wing)

If committing against a high level target with MIKE fit 1500l tanks then these would be ditched as they are not cleared supersonic (officially! :eek:) and you need to be supersonic above 40k ft to have any chance of turning at that altitude. If using the LIMA fit 2250l tanks then they were cleared supersonic and so you could hang onto these in a supersonic climb - I agree that 58 wing would be best, not forgetting that 67 wing was not available with LIMA tanks as the tailerons could foul the tank fins (so 63 wing was the maximum).

Please post your final painting here so we can have a look. :ok:

LJ

[Background Noise]

One of those shots seems to be back to front.

[Lima Juliet]

Lots of pictures of F3s in LIMA fit QRA armed on this video in varying wing sweep...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGwrtuiWlDg

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed. One reversed, two correct.

[Wycombe]

Can't think why all the best F3 action seemed to eminate from 1435 ;-)

[Pontius Navigator]

LJ, yr Kilo fit seems to be YA..., does that help?

[Lima Juliet]

Dunno, not my pictures - just pointing to them from the bulletin board...

[gr4techie]

One of those shots seems to be back to front.

The first pic of YA in the near vertical climb. seems to be mirrored....

No gun
Can see "That hand warmer" I used on a see-off in winter. The ECS exhaust (that should be) in front of the lefthand undercarriage doors.
Can't see the panel underneath the engine intake for the ground crew headset.
No APU exhaust.

[Rhino power]

The first pic of YA in the near vertical climb. seems to be mirrored....

Indeed, 'YA' is in fact 'AY', and, Leon, it's an F.3, the squadron markings on the nose give it away... :ok:

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

No, easier than that. The fuselage MRAAM stations are staggered - further forward on the starboard side. Stations 3 and 5 are slightly aft of stations 4 and 6 to avoid mx wing overlap. Also gun on the starboard side.

[Rhino power]

They were 'staggered' on the F.2 as well though...

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah. Same fuselage, same MRAAMS.

[Rhino power]

I think we may be at cross purposes, CM. I thought your initial comment re: the 'staggered' MRAAM stations, was meant as a way to identify the F.2 from the F.3. My comment re: the squadron markings on the nose identifying the F.2 from the F.3 in LJ's photo of 'YA/AY', was in response to his comment of, This is a clean KILO fit QRA jet (although it might be an F2!) which was posted under the pic.
I hope that makes sense, although I doubt it! :O

-RP

[Lima Juliet]

I thought it might be a F2 as I could only see 2 sideinders and their rails, also 65(R) definately had F2s as I've flown one!

However, the biggest giveaway would be the base of the fin as to whether its a F2. Sorry about the back to front shot, it's not mine and is one already posted on the internet - I only pointed to it via [img]

LJ

[Just This Once...]

The bigger engines, protruding beyond the tailerons, help to identify the first image as an F3.

:ok:

[ORAC]

Of interest, is there any way to tell the F2/3 hybrids? The ones made using the F2 fuselages after the (Airworks?) bodged maintenance?

[Courtney Mil]

Rhino, you're right. I was still on the reversal, sorry. As for F2 from that angle, it would be the Mk103 engines and AIM9 rails.

[Rhino power]

I thought it might be a F2 as I could only see 2 sideinders and their rails, also 65(R) definately had F2s as I've flown one!

Very true, 65(R) did fly the F.2 but, only the F.3's had the 65 sqn badge on the fuselage below the cockpit, the F.2 had the red and yellow arrow thingy... Agreed, the fin fillet is the easiest identifier when visible, or JTO and CM's suggestion of the longer jet pipes, but I'm rambling, sorry for the spotteresque tangent!:oh:

-RP

[Aerodynamik]

Thanks for all your replies guys...sounds like I might have to reduce the angle of climb slightly.
I'd forgotten that there was an F2 and wasn't aware of the wing settings, tank limitations and kilo, lima fits etc so all very useful stuff.
This is why I enjoy doing the research as much as the painting!
cheers, Steve

[Lima Juliet]

RP

I'd forgotten about the 229OCU 'rubharb and custard' markings pre-65(R) Sqn bars - the latter were also "arrow thingys" to start off with then went to the blocky ones on the F3.

By the way, the backwards shot of the jet is courtesy of Wikipedia.

LJ

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3106/3159955901_415e6896bf.jpg

[Rhino power]

Interesting pic, LJ, talk about running the gamut, 65(R) arrow thingy, rhubarb and custard arrow thingy and a 29 Sqn tailcode to top it off!

-RP

[Lima Juliet]

Maybe Bravo Sierra stands for B@stardised Squadron? :p

[Courtney Mil]

It may be ZE205, which moved between the two units at Coningsby. Perhaps the picture was during its transition, awaiting it change of markings. She was certainly BS. I have a feeling she was up at Leuchars on 43 as Mike. Just a vague memory and I could be wrong.

[glad rag]

ZE206 was the SUMS jet IIRC Courts.....

[EAP86]

ORAC, it was Airworks who allegedly used cold chisels to remove fasteners from the centre fuse skins in prep for fatigue upgrade mods. I think there were around 16 jets affected (maybe wrong, it was a long time ago). The F2 CFs had some special mods to make them equivalent to F3 CFs but I think the effects were all internal so no way to spot those affected.

One didn't make it back to the Service (AT29) as it ended up buried in Blackpool beach due to FOD in a taileron actuator.

EAP

[RAFEngO74to09]

Hansard extract below from here:

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 11 Mar 1997 (pt 18) (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970311/text/70311w18.htm)

" Airwork Ltd.

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's claim for compensation for damage caused to Tornado F3 aircraft by Airwork Ltd. [20069]

Mr. Arbuthnot: A negotiated settlement has been reached in respect of my Department's claim for structural damage to Tornado F3 aircraft while being modified by Airwork Ltd. during 1992-93. I am pleased to report that, of the 16 aircraft involved, 11 have been repaired and delivered back to the RAF and the remainder will be delivered progressively over the next few weeks, with the last due for delivery in May this year. One aircraft was lost in the crash off Blackpool in September 1996, the cause of which was not related to the modification programme on which Airwork had been engaged. The F3 aircraft were repaired by replacing the damaged centre fuselages with those from surplus F2 aircraft which had been earmarked for disposal. This was to ensure that the aircraft were returned to operational service as soon as possible.

In choosing to replace the centre fuselage, the aircraft have been given valuable additional fatigue life. The overall cost of this work has been around £20 million. Taking this improvement into account, together with the costs which might have been incurred had arbitration been pursued, we have agreed that the Bricom Group, which owned Airwork at the time of the damage, will pay £5 million to the Ministry of Defence in settlement of our claim. "

Airwork also damaged 11 x Hercules but these were repaired by Shorts (the new owners of Airwork) at their own expense !

[gr4techie]

No, easier than that. The fuselage MRAAM stations are staggered - further forward on the starboard side. Stations 3 and 5 are slightly aft of stations 4 and 6 to avoid mx wing overlap.

Ahhh I remember now... Being taught to fit the nose undercarriage pin only in one direction from left to right.

This was because if you were to fit the pin the other way on a see-in and the armorers then loaded Skyflash , on the next see-off you wouldn't be able to pull the nose leg pin out, past the front missile.

[Courtney Mil]

Gr4techie, one of the F3's many little tricks, eh?

Remember how to dump the HUM?

[gr4techie]

Remember how to dump the HUM?

Are you talking about health monitoring ?

I was only on the line at the time at it was many many years ago, so I can't remember coming across it. The only health monitoring I did was standing in the LH undercarriage bay and pressing a button 48 times as I read a red LED readout of the fatigues, then writing down the APU hours and starts. Bizarley the APU ""hours"" were counted in some strange metric unit, rather than having 60 minutes to an hour it had 100 ! And needed converting. Then there was the bowser that delivered the fuel in litres and the paperwork was in Kg.

[Vendee]

Then there was the bowser that delivered the fuel in litres and the paperwork was in Kg. That's fairly standard because the weight varies with the specific gravity of the fuel. The aircrew like to know how heavy their fuel load is rather than the precise volume.

[Treble one]

Was the AAR probe on the F3 on the port side (appears to be on the vid?)


I ask as I saw a GR1 today and its AAR probe was on the starboard side?


Any reason for this if so?


Thanks
TO

[Kitbag]

The GR1/4 AAR probe is a bolt on piece of role equipment, because not every partner country wanted or needed the complexity of an AAR probe. The F3 probe was designed as an integral piece of equipment for the long standing patrols that were envisaged over the North Sea in the event the balloon went up. Also the fwd fuselage was very different in terms of internals compared to the bomber.

[Treble one]

Many thanks Kitbag-appreciate the reply and the explanation.


The GR1 I saw at Duxford today did look like an integrated system (the probe was out but looked like it could be internalised by the flick of a switch) unlike the probe on the Buccaneer for example.


I didn't realise it wasn't an integrated bit of kit on the GR1/4-you learn something new every day.

[Rhino power]

The GR1 I saw at Duxford today did look like an integrated system (the probe was out but looked like it could be internalised by the flick of a switch) unlike the probe on the Buccaneer for example.

Treble one, the probe on the GR1/4/IDS/ECR is retractable (at the flick of a switch) but, the probe itself and the intermediate plumbing are still external to the airframe, as can be seen on this GAF Tornado IDS.
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin3/tornado_ids_45+01/images/tornado_ids_45+01_06_of_29.jpg

On the F.3 though, once retracted, the whole of the probe is completely internal, none of the probe or plumbing remain external to the airframe, you can see how much neater the installation is in this image of an Italian F.3 (ADV), the probe door is visible just below the windscreen quarter panel.
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/cenciotti/36%20Stormo/21-220904_080.jpg

One compromise with the installation on the F.3 though, was that one of the 27mm cannon had to be sacrificed to make room for relocated equipment and the probe and it's associated plumbing...

-RP

[flipflopman RB199]

And in the interest of completeness, here is the aforementioned probe in action somewhere above West Falkland :ok:

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m12/FlipflopmanRB199/image.jpg1_zpsufrvmgre.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/FlipflopmanRB199/media/image.jpg1_zpsufrvmgre.jpg.html)


Flipflopman

[Treble one]

Thanks RP and FFM-the difference is all so much clearer now.


Regards
TO

[Aerodynamik]

Sorry guys one further question...

I'm going for a 58 wing with the aircraft climbing at about 45 degrees in a slight turn. The image I am using is of an aircraft at low level in the valleys. On this image the front slats are extended. Could anyone advice if the slats would be extended in the above image that I am portraying.

I only ask as I know from experience that if I get it wrong it WILL be spotted by someone and only flying Cessnas slats are an unknown science to me!

Thanks again. Steve

[Dominator2]

As I recall, the slats were locked in at all wing sweep angles greater than 45deg.