Tornado ADV for sale [Archive]

Lima Juliet

19th Jan 2016, 23:14

For the F3, I'd have to delve into my logbook but defo over M2 - seem to remember it was a clean jet (no pylons) and before they wound back the fuel control units. I think it was M2.15 having just filled up from the Texaco, but it's all so very long ago now.

As for IAS, excursions above 750kts were commonplace at low level - the jet was incredibly quick. In the Falklands I've been 870kts low level over the sea with 2 Skyflash and 2 Sidewinders and the jet wanted to go faster (we decided to stop there). Many went faster than that and I even heard that 999 was achieved (or above as the numbers don't get any bigger). The fins of the Skyflash used to buzz around 600kts and then stop above that.

F2s were slower than F3s - less thrust, less fuel and aerodynamically draggier!

By the way, here is a picture of Fg Off Sammy Seal doing 825kts+ (the rear cockpit ASI stopped at 825)...

http://s27.postimg.org/hoz90363n/image.jpg

That's not my knee, I hasten to add!

LJ

Lima Juliet

19th Jan 2016, 23:29

PS. Here is the same ASI reading zero (against the stops the other way!)

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/FmUAAOSwAKxWVbAE/s-l225.jpg

Fishtailed

19th Jan 2016, 23:33

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fishtailed/Scan_Pic0051edit_zpskfqqqigp.jpg (http://s49.photobucket.com/user/fishtailed/media/Scan_Pic0051edit_zpskfqqqigp.jpg.html)

Fastest I've ever been 760kts (no, never got to fly in Concorde:{)

Stitchbitch

20th Jan 2016, 06:11

Might not have been the fastest, but an F.3 in full burner at 100 ft over XXX FC courtesy of JG & PB was always impressive, apart from the having to pick up all the tools that pinged off the tool board each time they practised their routine :) Happy days.

John Eacott

20th Jan 2016, 09:59

On the subject of matters Tonka, this image has recently done the rounds with credits to Adrian Meredith who states:

April 1985 Concorde flies supersonic G-BOAG
This is a dramatic picture of Concorde flying at supersonic speed. This is the only picture ever taken of Concorde flying at Mach 2, 1,350 mph. This unique picture was taken by me from a Tornado fighter jet, which only rendezvoused with Concorde for just 4 minutes over the Irish Sea, Photograph by Adrian Meredith Welcome to Concorde Photos - Concorde Photos and Memorabilia (http://www.concordephotos.com)
The RAF Tornado rapidly running out of fuel, and was struggling to keep up with Concorde, at Mach 2.

Would a Tornado be able to intercept and stay with a M2.0 Concorde for 4 minutes?

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7428-2/M2+Concorde.jpg

Wander00

20th Jan 2016, 11:03

That is just such a beautiful photograph of a stunning aeroplane (I know I am biased, but then I helped build two noses and visors, at Marshalls)

gr4techie

20th Jan 2016, 11:21

The photos of the F2 cockpit look quite bizarre. Looks like it has been stripped out and replaced with Typhoon displays. Was this F2 used Typhoon avionic trials?

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1087984

ORAC

20th Jan 2016, 11:57

The photos of the F2 cockpit look quite bizarre. Looks like it has been stripped out and replaced with Typhoon displays. Was this F2 used Typhoon avionic trials? As the linked ad says....

"Trials aircraft known as TIARA used for radar trials and avionics research / evaluation. Unique cockpit with MFD screens and prototype holographic HUD."

http://barnstormers.com/tmp_images/31/93/.watermarked_b4becbadf1f2183caa189c9594771ec1.jpg

EAP86

20th Jan 2016, 15:09

The TIARA F2 (AT002?) cockpit was a Boscombe Down research project which had no direct relationship to the Typhoon cockpit programme. From the picture you can see the aspect ratios of the MFDs are different. I think the TIARA and Typhoon programmes ran in parallel during the late 90s. Responsible for the Typhoon cockpit design, Warton had gained a fair amount of MFD experience on the EAP ( :ok: ) in the 2nd half of the 80s.

EAP

Thelma Viaduct

21st Jan 2016, 00:15

How did the EAP perform compared to ADV and now Typhoon? Was it all metal construction or did it have composite wings, titanium canards like Typhoon?? Ta

Fonsini

21st Jan 2016, 01:30

I always wondered how Foxhunter (stage 2) stacked up against its American peers. We all know it was an embarrassment at first but worked well after the bugs were worked out.

ORAC

21st Jan 2016, 05:33

FMICW, jknown at the time as F**k Me, It Can't Work. :\

AR1

21st Jan 2016, 11:27

870 is over 1000 Mph - I dont know why I bothered to convert, I cant comprehend what either number must have looked like at LL. :eek:

London Eye

21st Jan 2016, 12:29

870 kts at low level wouldnt be the ideal time for a birdstrike either :ooh:. Especially with one of those rather stout Upland Geese - although they spent more time wandering around the Q shed than committing aviation.

Above The Clouds

21st Jan 2016, 13:10

John Eacott
Would a Tornado be able to intercept and stay with a M2.0 Concorde for 4 minutes?

Concorde used to be able to out run them during practice intercepts trials over the North Sea. ;)

AR1

21st Jan 2016, 13:19

Which is why we have fighter controllers ;)

EAP86

21st Jan 2016, 21:22

TV, EAP had a CFC wing, foreplanes, front fuse, centre fuse and rear fuse. The fin was adapted from a Tornado one to save time and cost after German industry dropped out.

As it happens the CFC foreplane wasn't too successful because to meet its structural reqts, it was close to being solid carbon and therefore over target weight. This is why Typhoon today has a SPFDB Ti foreplane. (SPFDB Ti could have been a feasible option as the EAP's rear fuse keel was made this way) Such programmes are needed to find out about this sort of issue.

EAP

EAP86

21st Jan 2016, 21:28

TV, sorry missed the performance part of your question. EAP's max pitch rate, roll rate and roll acceleration were all better than ADV but still behind Typhoon. Speed and normal acceleration were cut back a bit because of the lack of a structural test airframe and the odd minor testing hiccough.

EAP

Thelma Viaduct

22nd Jan 2016, 14:23

Seeing how the ti foreplane was made back in the day was amazing, same with that gel 3D printing from catia, must be 20+ years ago now. Thanks for the information.

LOMCEVAK

23rd Jan 2016, 10:59

A bit of the history of ZD902:

It was converted to be TIARA in the early '90s as a project at DRA Farnborough. The captain was always the rear seat pilot with the pilot evaluating the systems occupying the front cockpit. To get the experimental displays in the front cockpit quite a few displays and controls were relocated to the rear cockpit including the fuel gauges, hydraulic switches and EPS although the engine start panel and X-drive controls remained in the front. One of the worst aspects in the front was that there were no Aj (nozzle) gauges so you relied on the rear seater to call the nozzles when you selected or cancelled reheat. For the early flying the HUD was not operational so all front seat approaches were flown on the small, non-standard standby instruments on the right instrument panel plus the strip AOA gauge - including practise 67 degree swept wing approaches which were interesting! The HUD was the Smiths 'Z' HUD, an early holographic display that had previously been evaluated at Farnborough in a Jaguar T2 (XX835). The biggest problem with it was that it had a very small headbox so even small head movements away from the reference eye position meant that you could not see the symbology.

Its role was to perform research and development tasks into sensor data fusion. Much of the trials equipment was carried in modified fuel tanks carried on the underfuselage shoulder pylons which resulted in quite a restrictive flight envelope. The radar was a Blue Vixen from the Sea Harrier FA2 although its performance was compromised by having the pitot-static boom mounted on the radome. It was also fitted in the late '90s with an IRST mounted on the nose just in front of one corner of the windscreen.

On 18 October 1994, it was the last military aircraft to be flown from Farnborough when it ceased to be a MoD airfield. It then operated at Boscombe Down until its last flight on 30 November 2011. I cannot recall when or precisely what its last trials project was (an IR sensor I think) but in its final months it was used as a support aircraft, including pilot currency flying, in support of the BVRAAM/Meteor missile trials from Boscombe Down.

It is worth remembering that ZD902 was part of a sizable UK MoD R&D Fleet that operated from one of two dedicated UK MoD R&D airfields (Farnborough and Bedford) but they ceased to fulfill this function just over 21 years ago. The dwindling R&D fleet continued at Boscombe Down until not too many years ago with this being one of its last assets. It was a great privilege to have had the opportunity to work in that world on aircraft such as TIARA.

Onceapilot

23rd Jan 2016, 12:05

John Eacott

The pic and caption of the "Concorde with Tornado at Mach2" is interesting. To be at that Mach number I believe Concorde would need to be at about 58,000' to be within its KCAS limit. Can ex F3 crew confirm? Of course, in the pic the Concorde could be steaming past or, a lot lower and slower? Cheers

OAP

overstress

23rd Jan 2016, 13:57

The Concorde story somehow doesn't quite ring true for me.

On airtest you had to check inlet ramp operation, (1.3? can anyone correct me?) did one in the FI and had to call it a day due gas at M1.77. My best at low level was 750 chasing some GR1 Tornados off Cape Wrath, but I know these are small numbers :(

Can anyone confirm if the 'Goose' bar still exists in the Death Star at MPA? There was a table there made from the wingtip section of an F4....

Onceapilot

23rd Jan 2016, 17:22

AR1

Generally, Supersonic was limited to well out at sea. Exceptions would be some trials and specific exercises.;)

OAP

ORAC

23rd Jan 2016, 18:03

Unlike a certain RN Sub Lt in an F3 who went over Arbroath at M1.6 and had the fire brigade racing around town looking for the explosion.

He was delivering a jet from LM to LU in the work up to GW1 when jets were being swapped/modded and took the opportunity with a clean jet jet to see how fast he could go. Hit M2, but didn't realise how far behind the jet the shock wave drag would be and even more shocked when it didn't immediately slow down when he closed the throttles - then was afraid to climb/turn until it did.

Yes, I was controlling him - and we got away with it as I was at Boulmer, and they asked Buchan if they had anything under control, and they said no as they were doing a SIMEX.

Unlike the time the F3 I was controlling did M1.1 down Amble High St at 250ft chasing an F-111. Quite a lot of broken glass and claims from that one......

Happy days.......

Lima Juliet

23rd Jan 2016, 19:26

Or the F3 doing M1.3 at low level in the Nevada Desert that allegedly blew over a Motorhome on the edge of the low level supersonic area on Red Flag (kills a kill) - apparently! :eek:

Not very popular news for the low-level supersonic over helicopter deniers! :cool:

LJ

Onceapilot

23rd Jan 2016, 22:31

Leon

I think the Vark was the king of Red Flag Supersonic f-ups. Certainly had a few injuries and damage on manned sites.:sad:

OAP

West Coast

24th Jan 2016, 00:48

I do hope the pilot got credit and that somewhere there was a F3 with a motorhome stenciled on the side.

Fonsini

24th Jan 2016, 02:19

An F-8 recon bird was being stalked by a MiG-21 during a run over Cuba during the missile crisis and the pilot went supersonic at tree top height on the egress to escape detection. As he headed for the coast he saw a bare ridge line ahead of him with a lower "saddle" in the middle that he aimed the nose of his jet at. As he approached he noticed something outlined in the middle of the saddle, it was a burro with his rider, and the guy was busy relieving himself. The pilot wasn't sure of the clearance but he went over the guy's head at maybe 50 feet doing M1.

No it most certainly wasn't me but I always wanted an excuse to tell that one.

A "supersonic tales" thread might be interesting.

crackling jet

24th Jan 2016, 07:23

Just for information, why was the F3 so short lived in service ?, was it true that Bae damaged a batch of them during modification work beyond economical repair and did that play a part in it's demise ?

ORAC

24th Jan 2016, 08:50

Air works, not BAe, and no, they repaired them using F2 fuselage sections.

The major reason was the end of the Cold War and subsequent defence reviews which eliminated the Germany and Wattisham based F4s (in the CR role as a dogfighter against Mig 29s) and the Jaguar fleets which the Eurofighter was planned to replace. In order to preserve industrial capability and work share on the Eurofighter programme, and since we were contractually to buy them anyway, the decision was made to use them to replace the UK based long range interceptor F3 fleet instead.

Rhino power

24th Jan 2016, 10:45

Here is a link to, Courtney Mil's excellent blog, detailing the Airwork fiasco, scroll down to the text inbetween the images of the AI.24 and the F.3 front cockpit...
Tornado F3 at RAF Leuchars, the AI24 Foxhunter Radar, Op Deny Flight and all about Medicine. (http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-10.htm)

-RP

crackling jet

24th Jan 2016, 16:36

Thanks ORAC and Rhino Power, interesting read, all this privatising out work does not seem to work to well does it ?, Thanks once again.

Nick H.

26th Feb 2017, 14:49

ZD902 is still for sale. Chris at Jet Art tells me he is looking for a six figure sum. Every day I daydream about winning Euromillions and learning to fly 'my' Tornado. My starting point is just a humble, faded gliding certificate. I wonder how many hundreds of hours of instruction I'd need to go solo? Maybe I'd never be good enough to get a rating for such a fast, complex beast? I'd certainly need a rather exotic syllabus.

Getting the aircraft airworthy and keeping it that way would presumably incur a seven figure bill. And from what LOMCEVAK says you'd want to add lots of new bits to enable single pilot operation from the front seat.

After all that time and money, what would one be permitted to do? I suppose noise rules mean you can't fly from most civil airfields these days. How far out to sea do you have to be for a sonic boom?

I fancy sticking the ferry tanks on and going to New York via Greenland. I wonder what the MoD and Homeland Security would have to say about that.

Rhino power

26th Feb 2017, 15:38

I suppose noise rules mean you can't fly from most civil airfields these days...

You wouldn't be allowed to fly it from ANY civil airfield, the CAA rules and regs would see to that! Before he finally gave up and sold his Lightnings to Mike Beachy Head in South Africa, Barry Pover had tried for years to get permission to fly at least one of his Lightnings on the UK civil register, everytime he met the conditions laid down by the CAA they moved the goal posts again and added further conditions until in the end it was obvious the CAA were never going to allow a privately flown Lightning in the UK, some may argue for very good reasons, and he packed it in...

-RP

Above The Clouds

26th Feb 2017, 15:52

You wouldn't be allowed to fly it from ANY civil airfield, the CAA rules and regs would see to that! Before he finally gave up and sold his Lightnings to Mike Beachy Head in South Africa, Barry Pover had tried for years to get permission to fly at least one of his Lightnings on the UK civil register, everytime he met the conditions laid down by the CAA they moved the goal posts again and added further conditions until in the end it was obvious the CAA were never going to allow a privately flown Lightning in the UK, some may argue for very good reasons, and he packed it in...

-RP
And that is why the CAA appeared at Carlisle airport one quite day and ran a cutter/grinder through the main spar of the lowest houred lightning left after its delivery from Warton.
It was one of the ex Saudi airframes that was flown in fully serviceable, I believe the CAA appeared first thing in the morning after its delivery terrified someone would try to fly it.

Chris Kebab

26th Feb 2017, 16:39

Are you serious Above TC? The CAA is permitted to physically disable aircraft?

That is a new one on me.

phil9560

26th Feb 2017, 16:52

Have a look at this one

Rare tornado jet lands at multi-million pound training centre in Bury (From Bury Times) (http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/15090892.PICTURES__VIDEO__Rare_tornado_jet_lands_at_training _centre_to_create_plane_crash_scenario/?ref=rl&lp=4)

Above The Clouds

26th Feb 2017, 17:00

Are you serious Above TC? The CAA is permitted to physically disable aircraft?

That is a new one on me.
Oh yes very serious and no they were not permitted, but they did it anyway. I believe the owners of the airframe tried to take them to court for the damage not sure of the outcome, but if you look up in to the wheel wells there is a cut through both mainspars.

As I said earlier it was the lowest houred lightning airframe and probably the easiest of them all to keep airworthy but the CAA were terrified someone could get in and fly it, as it had just landed airworthy from Warton.

The one that flew to Bruntingthorpe I believe did not get the same treatment, maybe 'Nutloose' can confirm this.
.
.

Nick H.

26th Feb 2017, 17:05

Above The Clouds

26th Feb 2017, 17:12

Regarding Lightnings on the civil register, I've read in more than one place that the CAA policy was because the Lightning no longer had support from the manufacturer and it had suffered a very high accident rate even when it did have support and was in service. The same can't be said of the Tornado.

And why would the CAA allow civilian Hunters to operate, but not the Tornado?
Its all about flying control system redundancy, the lightning was all hydraulic, the hunter was hydraulic and cable, the vulcan also only hydraulic but it had four systems.

Harley Quinn

26th Feb 2017, 17:14

And why would the CAA allow civilian Hunters to operate, but not the Tornado?

My understanding is that Tornado (and Lightning, Buccaneer etc) is a 'complex' aircraft, whereas the Hunter isn't.

Nick H.

26th Feb 2017, 17:22

So no 'complex' aircraft on the civilian register, even if they are maintained with manufacturer support?

I suppose I'll have to move to the US and buy a Mig29.

Nick H.

26th Feb 2017, 17:48

I've been looking at some CAA rules in "Operation of ‘Permit-to-Fly’ ex-military
aircraft on the UK register" http://bit.ly/2lK5zmK. It looks like complex aircraft are not ruled out. From page 16:

Many ex-military aircraft have specialised technical equipment or systems particular either to the role of the aircraft or the conditions under which it was designed to operate, or both. From design considerations for intermediate and complex types, the CAA will grant a Permit-to-Fly on the basis of a reasonable military service accident record (discounting military
action and high-risk training). To maintain or better this record under civil control, it is expected that the aircraft will be operated as far as possible to the standards used in military service

So theoretically, if you threw enough money at an outfit such as hunterteam.com to set up a maintenance facility, it still seems doable.

EAP86

27th Feb 2017, 14:22

ISTR that for complex types, Design Organisation support is mandatory. From industry's perspective the PR benefits of ex-military flying are slight, the costs are high and the potential civil liabilities are huge. In my opinion support would only be forthcoming if the DO owned the aircraft themselves and even then it would be unlikely. I was told that a famous engine company wrote their legacy aircraft support policy to prevent their MD making a positive support decision.

EAP

Nick H.

27th Feb 2017, 16:15

Design Organisation support is mandatory

I've been looking for that policy in various CAA documents but not found it. Can you remember where you read it?

EAP86

27th Feb 2017, 21:20

Nick H. It was in one of the CAA's documents but I can't remember which; it wasn't a recent publication. From memory for 'simple' types it wasn't necessary, for 'intermediate' it was recommended and for 'complex' it was pretty much mandatory (although the wording wasn't quite so clear cut but the CAA confirmed their expectations). I'm sure if you called the CAA SRG (if they still exist) they would confirm or otherwise.

To be honest I've been out of the loop for a while and the rules may have changed. The Australian CASA (CAA equivalent) came under some criticism (in respect of the absence of DO involvement) from an inquest following a fatal Strikemaster/JP accident in the outback a few years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if the rules had tightened somewhat.

EAP

jonw66

28th Feb 2017, 01:07

I recommend this link discussing the same topic.
I think an F3 project would make the Vulcan look quite simple.
Good luck.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?141649-Does-the-airworthy-preservation-of-historic-aircraft-end-with-the-60-s

Fonsini

28th Feb 2017, 17:59

Can any Tornado rear-seaters verify the truth of the allegation that Foxhunter was so susceptible to ECM that simply switching on an F-16 radar in its vicinity would render the display unreadable ?

That seems like a problem, albeit one we no longer need to worry about.

Lima Juliet

28th Feb 2017, 19:02

Fonsini

1st Mar 2017, 00:16

Fonsini - absolute hoop I'm glad to say. There were problems with spectrally impure RADARs in the early days but the addition of YIG filters solved a lot of those issues. By the time we were on Stage 2 RADARs any issues were well ironed out. The early issue wasn't with F16 RADARs by the way, but with more 'agricultural' spectrally impure RADARs.

The EW/ECCM features on Foxhunter were pretty good when looking at other types flying on TLP. That said we never really knew what we all had 'hidden up our sleeves' for when the real shooting war started!

LJ :ok:
Many thanks LJ, you certainly seem to know what you're talking about. My curiosity resulted from the following comment:

"I well remember the 'exceptional ECM capabilities' of the F3. Without doubt it was quite the worst fighter radar I ever saw in a jamming environment. In fact, in the early days, a co-channel radar or most F-16 radars would remove all the plots on the screen without setting a jamming spoke."

Lima Juliet

1st Mar 2017, 18:57

Fons

The key words are "in the early days" - I would agree mostly with that. There aren't that many that saw W-list to the Stage 2H FSP RADAR - chalk and cheese spring to mind! :ok:

In the early days we needed the Hawk to carry a RADAR reflector to be able tp see it beyond 25 miles! We also had all sorts of issues with the Track While Scan that those with an F4 background were using the RADAR in a reversionary mode as it performed better in that mode. It was Op GRANBY that really saw rapid improvement and the company avionics rep could be seen making tweaks to the RADARs on the line with I believe a Psion Organiser to make some significant improvements (during SCUD attacks!). I believe he got an MBE for his efforts...:D:D

LJ

Fonsini

1st Mar 2017, 20:12

Interesting stuff - it's amazing how quickly improvements can be made when combat beckons.

I always wondered how Foxhunter benchmarked against Blue Vixen, which always seems to be discussed in a "best radar in the world" type way.

A fascinating subject, if only because I work in IT these days which exposes me to some interesting characters who were former military techs and hackers.

Lima Juliet

1st Mar 2017, 21:08

The Blue Vixen was a cracking little RADAR with only 1 issue - no proper High PRF. This meant that it had inferior detection range to the Foxhunter. But Blue Vixen had Medium PRF so its performance against targets against main beam clutter was far better than Foxhunter. That trade off was OK for the subsonic SHAR as it didn't need the long range detection that a supersonic jet needs for long range missiles like AMRAAM. We looked at Blue Vixen for F3 but on grounds of cost, redesign of the computer architecture and shorter detection ranges it was rejected - the AOP and FSP for Foxhunter was the answer for AMRAAM carriage on F3.

Blue Vixen was improved again after SHAR and formed the basis of ECR-90 CAPTOR with the full compliment of PRFs. So this cracking little RADAR went on to form the basis of CAPTOR with a few lessons from Foxhunter thrown in. Much to the annoyance of Hughes that was trying to sell an improved version of APG-65 for Eurofighter, allegedly! :ok: