Is the Tornado GR4 still supersonic?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feel i have to reply on this one. UK MIL, I can't believe that you have anything to do with GR4 as surely you should know that the GR4 can still go super and still does especially in Cyprus on ACT dets. The fairings etc have all made a difference undoubtably but the FIn still can go supersonic without to much of a drama. The fits that can go super (RtoS cleared) are 0 Fit i.e. clean with or without pylons and missiles or 10 Fit, i.e. addition of outboard stores.
The amount of rubbish I have read about this matter on this thread is amazing especially from people who profess to be knowledgable. Incidentally the jet can go super with tanks on but is not cleared!
Max speed is however limited to M1.3 (RtoS)
The amount of rubbish I have read about this matter on this thread is amazing especially from people who profess to be knowledgable. Incidentally the jet can go super with tanks on but is not cleared!
Max speed is however limited to M1.3 (RtoS)
Explains why the RAF was (so they say) pretty interested in the subsonic A-12 Avenger II, alias the Flying Dorito, before the current Veep took it to see Dr Winchester.
I talked to an F-15E pilot once who said that the highest M he'd ever seen on the type was 1.2.
I talked to an F-15E pilot once who said that the highest M he'd ever seen on the type was 1.2.
The F-15E's original LANTIRN target pod is limited to .9 MACH before aerodynamic heating gets the better of it; that's the real limfac. Other than that, with the more powerful PW-229 motors the jets at Lakenheath have, the F-15E will quite happily supercruise.
GR4s are taken to 1.25M on post maintenance flight tests (I cannot remember what the F3 is taken to). The 2250l tanks are cleared supersonic on the F3 but not the GR4, although structurally there is no reason why the clearance could not have been obtained for the GR1/4; it just was not needed.
There is a somewhat excessive use of the adjective "easily" on this thread when applied to the speeds which the Tornado can achieve. Yes, an F3 can reach 800 KCAS and 2.0M, but with stub pylons and missiles I would add a slightly more conservative tone!
The last remaining GR1, ZA326, achieve 709 KCAS/1.06M at low level on its penultimate sortie (7 pylons), but this required a shallow dive. Unfortunately, a R THROT caption precluded squeezing any more out of it!
There is a somewhat excessive use of the adjective "easily" on this thread when applied to the speeds which the Tornado can achieve. Yes, an F3 can reach 800 KCAS and 2.0M, but with stub pylons and missiles I would add a slightly more conservative tone!
The last remaining GR1, ZA326, achieve 709 KCAS/1.06M at low level on its penultimate sortie (7 pylons), but this required a shallow dive. Unfortunately, a R THROT caption precluded squeezing any more out of it!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that to be genuinely supersonic all the airflow over the airframe had to be greater than the local speed of sound. This does not occur until an aircraft speed of around M1.4 and therefore the band M0.8 to M1.3 is regarded as transonic. This is a dim recollection from undergraduate aerodynamics and I am open to correction.
I recently looked up some old Farnborough airshow clips on britishpathe. Aircraft top speed really did seem to be a huge selling point in those days. For example the Buccaneer is referred to as a "slowcoach" compared to the Phantom. Whilst this is correct in a game of Top Trumps the operational difference is not so clear-cut. It makes you wonder if some of the poor procurement decisions were made on the basis of headline performance figures that are all but irrelevant to the real world. Did their Airships regard M2.0 performance as a holy grail at the expense of range/payload in practical conditions?
I recently looked up some old Farnborough airshow clips on britishpathe. Aircraft top speed really did seem to be a huge selling point in those days. For example the Buccaneer is referred to as a "slowcoach" compared to the Phantom. Whilst this is correct in a game of Top Trumps the operational difference is not so clear-cut. It makes you wonder if some of the poor procurement decisions were made on the basis of headline performance figures that are all but irrelevant to the real world. Did their Airships regard M2.0 performance as a holy grail at the expense of range/payload in practical conditions?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR4 Intake ramps
Just to clear up:
GR4's DO NOT have intake ramps fitted.
Various MOD's have been carried out on frame x=8000 to carry the steel Jury struts in place, and stop them cracking the support structure.
At least the GR1 intake ramp actuators removed made a nice spares stock for the F3's!!!
GR4's DO NOT have intake ramps fitted.
Various MOD's have been carried out on frame x=8000 to carry the steel Jury struts in place, and stop them cracking the support structure.
At least the GR1 intake ramp actuators removed made a nice spares stock for the F3's!!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that when you meant to put everyone straight, in such an authoritative manner, you actually meant
GR4's DO NOT have Functional intake ramps fitted.
As you can be assured that the ramps are still very much there on every GR4 that I have ever seen.
GR4's DO NOT have Functional intake ramps fitted.
As you can be assured that the ramps are still very much there on every GR4 that I have ever seen.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apologies
I meant to say "GR4's do not have intake ramp ACTUATORS fitted"
they do however, as correctly stated have intake ramps, as we are constanlty modifying the support bracket for the jury strut.
Once again I apologise for my outburst, Ill proof read all posts before submitting in future, thanks for putting me straight in an authoritative manner.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problems whatsoever old chap. 
Welcome to the Pprune school of Pedantry
Slightly intrigued by your comments about the modification of the support brackets for the strut however. I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the brackets although subject to frequent NDT testing, are actually fairly sound, and that this is more a process of monitoring than actually modifying.
However, I am more than happy to be corrected on this issue, as I in no way profess to be an expert on the matter.
Welcome to the Pprune school of Pedantry
Slightly intrigued by your comments about the modification of the support brackets for the strut however. I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the brackets although subject to frequent NDT testing, are actually fairly sound, and that this is more a process of monitoring than actually modifying.
However, I am more than happy to be corrected on this issue, as I in no way profess to be an expert on the matter.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
modified support brackets
No problems whatsoever old chap.
Welcome to the Pprune school of Pedantry
Slightly intrigued by your comments about the modification of the support brackets for the strut however. I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the brackets although subject to frequent NDT testing, are actually fairly sound, and that this is more a process of monitoring than actually modifying.
However, I am more than happy to be corrected on this issue, as I in no way profess to be an expert on the matter.
Welcome to the Pprune school of Pedantry
Slightly intrigued by your comments about the modification of the support brackets for the strut however. I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the brackets although subject to frequent NDT testing, are actually fairly sound, and that this is more a process of monitoring than actually modifying.
However, I am more than happy to be corrected on this issue, as I in no way profess to be an expert on the matter.
Yes, the brackets and frame x-8000 are subject to NDT mainly at primary star maintenance, however many of the GR4 updated airframes (even after subsequent major) have a GR1 mounting bracket and locking mechanisms fitted (Hi-LOK fasteners and a redundant, actuator support bracket.) the MOD is relatively simple (or it might even be an RTI now):
'Remove old support bracket, remove HI-LOKs and recover aircraft'.
However the HI-LOKS are sometimes a complete nightmare to remove without damaging surrounding structure (they either shear off at the base or are stuck fast so you need to "pursuade" them out). So not a nice job especially as every GR4 i've come across, this MOD/RTI still needs doing!
hopefully this is an insight (not a preach or lecture!) as to mechanics of the GR4 ramps.
oh, dont get me started on Kruegar flaps!
