Tornado wing

[eng1170]

Am a civvie eng and was discussing with a mate the other day as to whether or not there is any structural difference between the wing on the GR4 and the F.3, i.e size/shape/strength, would i be correct in saying that there IS differences in the method of sweep control between the two types? Any info would help,

Regards, Eng

P.S Thanks to the 2 jockeys who did the flyby at GLA at about 2000 hours on the 15/08 in the F.3 - I was standing on the nose of one of our 737's in the hangar staring at a beautiful sunset when the boys did what they do best - next time use the 'burners it looks much sweeter!!!!

[Poison Arrow]

In my limited knowledge as just an operator, I believe they're the same. Both too small!
And the circuit breaker for the auto-wing sweep has been tripped on both types, therefore requiring manual adjustment via the 'capacity lever'.:p
Auto works fine on the export version apparently.

How come the wing stores always point forward? Perhaps the wind blast blows them straight? ;)

[moggie]

They are indeed one and the same - they even have all the same hard points (although some are blanked off F3 outers!).

Now, with that extra fuel tank in the fuselage and a longer, more aerodynamic body plus it's bigger engines, wouldn't the F3 make a great bomber????!!!!!

[Ali Barber]

As Moggie said, same but with hardpoints blanked off on F3. F3s were delivered with working auto-wingsweep and auto slats/flaps. RAF then disabled them on arrival. Don't know why, they were bloody good, except when trying to do a flypast in box-4 formation in Saudi at just the speed where they sweep. One F3 was in 25 wing, one in 45 and the other 2 were sweeping in opposite directions. Nice story, don't know if it's true. Other story was AOC plus staff officer in boot collecting last F3 from the factory. Heard them asking on the radio how to turn the auto wingsweep, slats, flaps etc on. Guess they hadn't read the aircrew manual. How did I hear them on the radio? I was in the spare "last F3" and we departed a few hours after the press had gone home!

[alandhall]

I read somewhere that some F3's had their outer hardpoints 'unblanked' to allow them to carry ECM pods and that kinda thing on GR4-style outer pylons.

Was I dreaming again? (It can get kinda desperate here in Wales for an Englishman!)

Al

[TURD]

Alandhall,
Many F3's do have 4 working hardpoints, as you say. The only difference as far as I am aware is that the Gr has the ability to have Kruger flaps in the wing nib (which I beleive is wire locked off) where as the F3 has other stuff in the nib preventing it

[Foreplane]

The wings are essentially identical, the F3's were delivered without the outter pylon fittings and turning link that attaches the inners to the outters on a GR. I recall wings being swopped between varients (with bits added or subtracted to make compatible) in the past. Also the first ADV prototypes had the outter pylon mechanism left in as it cost to remove them from what were production GR wings. Having the extra mass in the outter of the wing also helps with wing bending and FI consumption.
Regarding the auto w/s & slats or AWSMDS (have a guess) as it was called, recall an FI issue here as well (although memory could be fading). The FI meter monitors w/s position, some positions are worse than others when pulling the wings off so they would rather you fly in a known position as you ..er 'exercise the system' instead of the wings cycling about with speed and AOA during a manouvre.

[eng1170]

thanks for info guy's - all good stuff

Cheers, Eng

[Neeko]

Just a quick Q on this subject:

For a complete ignoramus (that is myself) am I correct in understanding that the F3 & GR4 variants have the Auto Sweep feature built in but is purposely disabled to prevent its use on the RAF machines?

I am not a techie of any sort but would like to settle a rather intense debate regarding the Auto Sweep capability of this aircraft.

Many thanks.

[insty66]

Neeko

I've worked on GRs on and off since 1985 and I don't recall autowingsweep on them.
It wasn't taught on the Q course either!

I may be wrong of course

Hope this helps

:ok:

[Grimweasel]

The F3 is now muted to be a more capable platform than the Typhoon that is supposed to replace it!

After all who needs a close in dogfighter these days when a BVR missile can be launched from afar and achieve the same result??

Tranche 3 needs to be canx with MR4a launching Storm Shadow etc not cold war relics protecting UK jobs!!!

[Maple 01]

It's a bit early for April Fools day GW

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

You must forgive him...................he's in the Army you know:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Grimweasel]

ABIW.. he he not any more me old. In your Mob now!
As I said most people other than FJ boys no longer see the need for the relics. Money could be better spent on C17 / A400m / ISTAR / UCAVs etc. The man in the seat is now the weak link....

[ARINC]

How come the wing stores always point forward? Perhaps the wind blast blows them straight?

The wing internal rigging uses the principle of a Pantograph to keep the stores pylons facing forward.

AWSMD to my knowledge was enabled on F3 and GR's... Ahh the good old Kreuger flap !

[Onan the Clumsy]

The wings are essentially identical No they're not. They're mirror images of each other. :8



Oh. GR4 vs F3...sorry :}

[BombayDuck]

Why was Auto-sweep disabled? Does disabling it make the aircraft difficult to fly?

An ex-MiG-23 pilot from the IAF once told me that the lack of auto sweep makes the flogger very tough to handle, which is why my question.

[Echo 5]

" ABIW.. he he not any more me old. In your Mob now! "

Working for the SWO are we GW:)

[DEL Mode]

AWSMD was fitted to all Tornado aircraft.

Sauds use systems as designed because they expect them to work (no point paying for something ad then Lim;ing the aircraft).

On ADV it is known that AWS affects fuel consumption due to drag reduction.

AWSMD was removed early doors because RAF crews did not like the wings moving automatically.

AWSMD reduces crew workload - fact.

ADV and IDS AWS is different, ADV is more complex.

AWSMD is cleared for use by Panavia, boxes are probably in Stafford somewhere (or maye they were sold to the Sauds?)

[insty66]

AWSMD was fitted to all Tornado aircraft.

Well you learn something everyday!

So what does AWSMD actually mean? or is there another abbreviation out there?

Come to think of it, when I was in Saudi on secondment I don't recall autowingsweep on their IDS either but all F2/3 were supposed to have it. So I suppose I have to ask DEL mode where his info is from. BTW I'm not having a go I just want to know.

Cheers

[raytofclimb]

AWSMDS = Automatic Wing Sweep (and) Manoevre (flap) Demand System

Or something very similar. Jets still have the Auto/manual switch, just aft of the throttles, but not the system. I think the space was used for some other avionics like the JTIDS box.

I now need to move the switch next time I'm up, maybe it'll make the jet turn like a dingbat.

Maybe not.

Ray.

p.s outboard pylons are for TRD and Phimat chaff pods, but not often used

[Washington_Irving]

I read somewhere that some F3's had their outer hardpoints 'unblanked' to allow them to carry ECM pods and that kinda thing on GR4-style outer pylons.

Was I dreaming again? (It can get kinda desperate here in Wales for an Englishman!)

Al

If you're desperate for an Englishman, I suggest you go to England.:ok:

[ARINC]

AWSMD was touted as care free handling on F3 versions...not sure if this was actually correct in the strict sense of the term ? Alpha floor wasn't invented then.... Anyone actually know ?

[soddim]

If I recall correctly, AWMDS was not accepted into Service in the F3 by the RAF because it was not optimised in certain corners of the flight envelope. The Company was not about to modify it without more money and, in the intervening years of the argument, the engineers economised by not procuring the test equipment. When the RAF realised that a busy pilot would not perform manual wingsweep even to the same effectiveness as the disputed auto envelope, it was too late.

The GRs never had AWMDS.

One poster commented that a Saudi formation performed in auto wingsweep and showed discrepancies in wingsweep angles. Close formation was one of the areas where auto wingsweep was not permitted.

Lack of auto wingsweep has caused at least one accident in RAF service and more in Saudi GRs.

Manual wingsweep has added considerably to the real fatigue in RAF aircraft.

[DEL Mode]

I stand corrected, because I was wrong.

ADV have AWSMD

IDS have auto wing sweep (at least that is what I was taught - dont have the books at hand to confirm it).

As for the GR's I understood that they were design for AWS but I might (again) be wrong.

ADV and IDS wings are not very different but are not the same.

[Grimweasel]

Echo 5

Had to laugh!! NO not working for the SWO but I know a man who is he he..... no been away for a few months in Lincs and now blue! So beware ! LOL

[Echo 5]

Grim,

I'm so bloated after all the festivities that I cannot be arrsed thinking up some smart response.

However, being a (fairly) honourable sort of chap I do wish you well in your new career as long as you don't aspire to being a Loadie.;)

[L Peacock]

AWMDS: Auto wing-sweep and manouevre device system.
UK GRs have neither AMDS (Auto Manoeuvre Device System {flaps & slats}) or AWS (Auto Wingsweep).
UK F3s had AWMDS but disabled.
Export IDS have AMDS
Export F3s have AWMDS operable.

[LOMCEVAK]

AWSMDS was never fitted to RAF GR1s (or GR4s) nor, to the best of my knowledge, GAF, ItAF or Kriegsmarine aircraft. The Saudi IDS aircraft had auto manoeuvre devices but I don't recall any trials on AWS on an IDS. The F3/ADV moding was such that the manoeuvres operated as a function of AoA with an extra clever feature; in 25 wing above 350 KCAS only the slats extended. This eased the flutter problem that resulted in the reduced g limit in 25 MVR wing thus giving the same g limit for all wing sweep angles (as a function of AUW and Mach). The wings scheduled with Mach and CAS between 25, 45, 58 and 67 degree positions(63 with 2250l tanks). Operation of the normal manoeuvre flap/slat or wing sweep controls disengaged the auto systems, and they could be re-engaged by pressing one button for each channel. Very simple, worked well, reduced workload and wing overspeeds.

Why did the F3 not keep this capability? I could be cynical but perhaps someone who was on the F3 OEU in the late '80s might like to comment!

One other point relating to the original question. The wing root "gloves" are a different shape on the F3 and GR1/4, possibly due to the Krueger flaps never being fitted to the F3.

[psy clops]

Export IDS have AMDS100% correct LP. No auto wingsweep on the IDS (or at least there wasn't yesterday).

AMDS fitted, and it often fails at about 170kts on the runway with an associated red (why??) CWP caption, lyre bird and raised pulse rate.

[BEagle]

Lomcevak, I'm pretty sure that the Kriegsmarine never received any Tornados as it was disbanded in August 1946 by the Allied Control Commission.

The Bundesmarine was formed in 1956; after the reunificationof Germany in 1990 it is known as the Deutsche Marine of the Bundeswehr.

[threepointonefour]

If I recall correctly, AWMDS was not accepted into Service in the F3 by the RAF because it was not optimised in certain corners of the flight envelope.

When the RAF realised that a busy pilot would not perform manual wingsweep even to the same effectiveness as the disputed auto envelope, it was too late.

Imagine fitting a fully auto gearbox to a Ferrari ... (very weak analogy, I know). ACM with AWS would give inexperienced pilots as many problems as they already experience without it (having to move the capacity lever AND maintain tally/visual is surprisingly difficult).


Close formation was one of the areas where auto wingsweep was not permitted.

Sounds eminently sensible to me.


Lack of auto wingsweep has caused at least one accident in RAF service and more in Saudi GRs.

I'm not sure (correction, I don't ...) I believe that not having AWS was actually the cause of the accident. The pre-landing checks, when done, have a reference to putting the wings in the correct position. When turning away from the circuit, there are plenty of clues as to incorrect wing position .... drastically washing off of speed for one! When going too fast with the wings too far forward, the vibrating airframe gives the game away.

[L Peacock]

Psy Clops

Not an expert on the system and my Tornado days are behind me but...
Assuming it resets in flight, could it be an ADD probe disparity if one probe becomes live before the other? Perhaps a sticky probe?
Don't know how the system self monitors but I'm assuming it's similar to SPILS.

[psy clops]

L Peacockcould it be an ADD probe disparity if one probe becomes live before the other? Perhaps a sticky probe?Spot on LP, impressive system knowledge! Guess what causes sticky probes in the 'land of sand'...:rolleyes:

[LOMCEVAK]

BEagle,

Many thanks for the correction - I often have lived too much in the past!

threepointonefour,

ACM with AWS would give inexperienced pilots as many problems as they already experience without it

I have to disagree with you. Having flown the trials on the AWSMDS, there would have been a significant reduction in workload for inexperienced pilots if this system was incorporated. My memory agrees with soddim as to the reasons why it never went into service. One of the main sticking points was the CAS/M at which the wings swept from 25 to 45 (450/0.73 IIRC). This was due to two specification requirements. Firstly, that the wings must sweep aft at a CAS/M such that the limits would not be exceeded during a max reheat (or perhaps combat) accel. Secondly, that the wing sweep should be at the best position for max reheat sustained turn performance at a given speed. The "experienced operators" considered that there were times when you would want to sweep aft earlier and times when you would want to stay in 25 wing out to the NO speed limit then pitch back in. For me, in these circumstances it was very easy to revert to manual wing sweep operation and then, when workload permitted, reselect AWS by a single button press. However, offers were made by those involved in the Boscombe Down trials to try to make a suitable recommendation to re-schedule the AWS logic, but the "experienced operators" were not really interested as "they could do better than the automatics". And they were probably correct, but the average first tourist could not and would have benefitted greatly from the system.

[soddim]

Whilst the 'experienced' operators might have thought they could do better than AWS, I have plenty of experience that proves them wrong. Not sure what experience level 3.14 represents but his quote reveals much:

When turning away from the circuit, there are plenty of clues as to incorrect wing position .... drastically washing off of speed for one! When going too fast with the wings too far forward, the vibrating airframe gives the game away.

If one waits for speed wash off it is too late - the example I was thinking of where AWS would almost certainly have allowed the crew to avoid a fatal accident was an unload to separate from the bad guy at low altitude, sweeping the wings fully aft in anticipation of acceleration and then pulling hard in 67 wing to avoid the sea. The Saudi IDS cases were not disimilar - 45 wing dives in GA, manoevring onto the target, a late slow recovery attempt in the wrong wingsweep. The desert is even harder than the North Sea.

As for using the vibrating airframe as a warning to sweep the wings aft - that is often the reminder a busy operator uses but significant unnecessary fatigue has already been caused.

The inexperienced pilot benefits the most from AWS as his workload often exceeds his abilities, especially in ACM.