GR4 Supersonic ?
Carrying on from the AFVG piece, you can trace Tornado back furher...
Late 1950s-early 1960s the Vickers Type 581 *
Early to mid 1960s the Hawker-Siddley Type 583*
In 1966/67 the Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG)*
Have a look at this mock up of the AFVG and the fin!
All bear a striking resemblance to Tornado. Don't forget that Barnes Wallis (of bouncing bomb Dambusters fame) came up with the variable geometry idea and was also Chief Designer at Vickers (see the Type 581 above), then we can probably thank Barnes Wallis for Tornado's massive fin!
LJ
Late 1950s-early 1960s the Vickers Type 581 *
Early to mid 1960s the Hawker-Siddley Type 583*
In 1966/67 the Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG)*
Have a look at this mock up of the AFVG and the fin!
All bear a striking resemblance to Tornado. Don't forget that Barnes Wallis (of bouncing bomb Dambusters fame) came up with the variable geometry idea and was also Chief Designer at Vickers (see the Type 581 above), then we can probably thank Barnes Wallis for Tornado's massive fin!
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 1st Sep 2013 at 17:28.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're probably bordering on heresy by suggesting that Barnes Wallis or Vickers had any link to Tornado! I think there can't be much doubt that there was a spill-over between company projects in terms of influence, but back in the good (bad?) old days, Warton and Weybridge were hardly the best of friends. Vickers drifted away from exotic notions of swing wings, especially with Supermarine imposing their influence. It was their design expertise that produced the Type 571 (TSR2) but when TSR2 finally emerged it was very much an English Electric aircraft (in effect the P.17), even if most of the stuff in it was from Vickers. Despite this, Vickers stubbornly designated TSR2 as the Type 571 throughout its short and sad existence. Thing is, the Supermarine aircraft was really all about carrier warfare, which was partly why Vickers were so keen to embrace the bizarre notion of giving TSR2 short field capability (as if a nuclear bomber was ever going to operate from a field). The wider picture was of Supermarine developing a new carrier plane, even though that never seemed realistic either.
With TSR2 gone, it was Warton that pursued AFVG and the designs associated with it, while Weybridge pursued its airliners, albeit not for very long. It's very difficult to know just how much (if any) Vickers influence there was on AFVG but based on how the two companies operated (even within BAC), I guess it's unlikely that Warton had much time for anything from "down south"... and rightly too in my view, given their capabilities in the face of the absurd way in which Vickers handled TSR2.
There's no doubt that Wallis came-up with the variable geometry idea though, but then it has to be said that Wallis had his own ways and attitudes, some of which were hardly helpful - look at the Miles M.52 saga for example.
Ultimately, no matter how we got there, there's no doubt that Tornado was very much a British design, even if it was the result of multi-national thinking. It was clearly a direct development of AFVG (and therefore TSR2) but far better suited to the needs of its customer. TSR2 was obsolete before it had even been built, having been designed primarily for East of Suez, whereas Tornado was very much a European Theatre machine.
While Tornado F3 was a bit of a folly (designed as BVR interceptor just in time for the RAF to need a fighter), Tornado IDS was undoubtedly the right aircraft at the right time... and that doesn't happen very often in British aviation history!
With TSR2 gone, it was Warton that pursued AFVG and the designs associated with it, while Weybridge pursued its airliners, albeit not for very long. It's very difficult to know just how much (if any) Vickers influence there was on AFVG but based on how the two companies operated (even within BAC), I guess it's unlikely that Warton had much time for anything from "down south"... and rightly too in my view, given their capabilities in the face of the absurd way in which Vickers handled TSR2.
There's no doubt that Wallis came-up with the variable geometry idea though, but then it has to be said that Wallis had his own ways and attitudes, some of which were hardly helpful - look at the Miles M.52 saga for example.
Ultimately, no matter how we got there, there's no doubt that Tornado was very much a British design, even if it was the result of multi-national thinking. It was clearly a direct development of AFVG (and therefore TSR2) but far better suited to the needs of its customer. TSR2 was obsolete before it had even been built, having been designed primarily for East of Suez, whereas Tornado was very much a European Theatre machine.
While Tornado F3 was a bit of a folly (designed as BVR interceptor just in time for the RAF to need a fighter), Tornado IDS was undoubtedly the right aircraft at the right time... and that doesn't happen very often in British aviation history!
Last edited by WH904; 1st Sep 2013 at 17:56.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People who don't know where Tonkas came from..
It might have been AFVG, it might have been UKVG, it might have come from Vickers when it was dragged into BAC.. It might have been the Warton designed P45 that was a study to fulfil AST362.. What became the mock up behind the screen, that had some commonsense in the design. Well it did because Warton didn't come up with the base line design for it. Tonka was the worst bits of P45..
Tornados look at themselves and break down. Bob Longmore (may he rest in peace) said the the Tornado was a great piece of kit that had no money spent on it to get rid of the bugs. A lot of bugs build in to it by BAE.
Tornados look at themselves and break down. Bob Longmore (may he rest in peace) said the the Tornado was a great piece of kit that had no money spent on it to get rid of the bugs. A lot of bugs build in to it by BAE.
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 2nd Sep 2013 at 01:16.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? I've never heard any claim that Tornado is any less reliable than any other comparable machine?
Besides, I don't see how reliability has much to do with the actual design. That's more of a systems issue, surely? In terms of the aircraft's capabilities and performance, Tornado was (for once) an ideal aircraft for the role for which it was designed.
Besides, I don't see how reliability has much to do with the actual design. That's more of a systems issue, surely? In terms of the aircraft's capabilities and performance, Tornado was (for once) an ideal aircraft for the role for which it was designed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
904 ... You'll have to excuse Leon as he obviously had an "artistic" moment whilst doing his last pre flight walk round before climbing into the front office
Originally Posted by Alber Ratman
Tornados look at themselves and break down. Bob Longmore (may he rest in peace) said the the Tornado was a great piece of kit that had no money spent on it to get rid of the bugs. A lot of bugs build in to it by BAE.
In the late 80'sthe GR1 Force did have some major serviceability issues, but then it was still a fairly young airframe and what new jet doesn't have early serviceability issues whilst the engineering & ops setups get to understand their toys better. It also didn't help that when the Saudis bought the GR1, they also bought most of our spares.
But when the GR4 came into service there was a noticeable improvement. 100% sortie rates both on ex & ops is not unusual anymore.
Tornado suffered a couple of fleet-wide crumps over the past decade, largely due to changes in the third-line (sorry, depth) maintenance arrangements while St Athan was dying a death and BAES was taking its time getting the line at Marham up to speed - which caused significant reductions in aircraft availability at certain points. Those were 'management' rather than 'aircraft' issues, and funnily enough, when the maintenance contract starting paying gainshare back to BAES, aircraft availability increased markedly!
The first-line serviceability of the old girl has steadily improved ever since GR4 came in. In recent years it's been driven onwards by some really good targeted analysis of the "standard" faults like outboard pylon snags, ECS failures and FOD-related engine rejections. There also used to be a bit of a culture of changing the easiest component in a failed system, inevitably followed after the subsequent crew-out by the next easiest, and so on.... that has all but disappeared now, with a big fault analysis project having shown what the culprit components usually are. The surprising thing is that the engineers are still learning stuff about it... you'd think after 30 years it would all be sorted! Perhaps we'll have it nailed for the retirement flypast so we can walk 16 for a 16-ship?!
The first-line serviceability of the old girl has steadily improved ever since GR4 came in. In recent years it's been driven onwards by some really good targeted analysis of the "standard" faults like outboard pylon snags, ECS failures and FOD-related engine rejections. There also used to be a bit of a culture of changing the easiest component in a failed system, inevitably followed after the subsequent crew-out by the next easiest, and so on.... that has all but disappeared now, with a big fault analysis project having shown what the culprit components usually are. The surprising thing is that the engineers are still learning stuff about it... you'd think after 30 years it would all be sorted! Perhaps we'll have it nailed for the retirement flypast so we can walk 16 for a 16-ship?!
has the jet suddenly got a solo clearance?
However, a canny member of the Nav union evidently got to the cockpit designers because the IFF panel is in the boot of all UK Tornadoes; the Italian variety has the IFF in the front and therefore (I believe) has a solo clearance!
Originally Posted by Easy Street
However, a canny member of the Nav union evidently got to the cockpit designers because the IFF panel is in the boot of all UK Tornadoes; the Italian variety has the IFF in the front and therefore (I believe) has a solo clearance!
It was rightly moved to the rear in the GR4 update for the UK. I don't know the current position in the Italian/German fleets.
rightly moved to the rear in the GR4 update for the UK.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Frankly, if you can't control things like that from either seat via a modern interface it's a design which is showing it's age.
I can remember a GR1 nav telling me he had an ex-Jag man as his pilot; he used to confiscate any strip maps he had in his pockets before they walked to the aircraft.....
Frankly, if you can't control things like that from either seat via a modern interface it's a design which is showing it's age.
The design concept was very much that the 2 cockpits had distinct roles so there was practically no duplication - in that sense it followed its predecessors rather than breaking any moulds. While it was a very finely-tuned cockpit for its designed role, the pitfalls of designing a human-machine interface around the particular requirements of one role and the SOPs and CRM principles of the day remain evident by comparison to something like the F15E - the Americans had moved on and made almost everything controllable from both cockpits. No matter how well any designer can calculate cockpit workloads and place controls, you can pretty much guarantee that over 30 years the requirements will change! With the way the aircraft is used today, there are plenty of occasions where the pilot has the lower workload and could easily help out the WSO by doing things like changing squawk - the point being that it's best to have the choice!
I can remember a GR1 nav telling me he had an ex-Jag man as his pilot; he used to confiscate any strip maps he had in his pockets before they walked to the aircraft.....
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd Sep 2013 at 20:59.
