GR4 Supersonic ?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by WH904; 31st Aug 2013 at 15:03.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Last edited by gr4techie; 31st Aug 2013 at 15:51.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate that, airbrake extension. Bad energy management. Not being critical of their use in combat, anything goes.
Mind you, I pay for my fuel.
Mind you, I pay for my fuel.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Last edited by WH904; 1st Sep 2013 at 08:52.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Because we couldn't afford 2 smaller ones! And the Govt told us we had to buy to support the British aircraft industry.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 61
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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...
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...
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
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
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 1st Sep 2013 at 11:48.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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