Tornado GR.1 auto-land question...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado GR.1 auto-land question...
I seem to recall reading or hearing somewhere in the dim distant past that the Tornado GR.1, indeed the Italian and German IDS as well, had an auto-land feature. Did I imagine it, or did this feature actually exist? Did RAF GR.1s and current GR.4s have it, or ever use it?
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All aircraft have it, mostly we know it by the acronym.........
GRAVITY
On a serious note, are you sure you've not got our wires crossed over stuff like Kreugar (sp) flaps or the intake ramps..
I don't recall auto land on either GR1/4 or F3
GRAVITY
On a serious note, are you sure you've not got our wires crossed over stuff like Kreugar (sp) flaps or the intake ramps..
I don't recall auto land on either GR1/4 or F3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
The F3 did have Auto ILS, however, it was not cleared for use in the Release to Service. Some TP at BD had some reservation about its operation and so it was never cleared for use. A "friend told me" that it was very good if used correctly. Apparently, it was better at 67 wing approaches than most pilots.
I believe that you would have to go back to the Lightning to find a RAF fast jet that was capable of auto land. Oh how we have progressed in the last 50 years!
I believe that you would have to go back to the Lightning to find a RAF fast jet that was capable of auto land. Oh how we have progressed in the last 50 years!
D2 has it correct for the GR1 also.
You could couple the autopilot into the ILS and it would fly a pretty decent approach, but it wasn't Released to Service and there was no "flare" or landing auto-capability at all.
Don't recall if it remained when the ac was updated to GR4.
You could couple the autopilot into the ILS and it would fly a pretty decent approach, but it wasn't Released to Service and there was no "flare" or landing auto-capability at all.
Don't recall if it remained when the ac was updated to GR4.
F3 would do it, but, as D2 said, not cleared - same as auto wing sweep (lack of clearance cost two lives). The snag was that the system used the rad alt in the final stages of the approach and there was a concern that it would be interfered with by the nosewheel. Having tried it, it worked really well. Auto ILS, auto-throttles and and reasonable plant on the runway.
Makes you wonder why we paid for so many features and then decided not to pay for the clearances. But I guess they had to replace the Blue Circle, which cost a few kids. Just being a bit playful there, you understand.
Makes you wonder why we paid for so many features and then decided not to pay for the clearances. But I guess they had to replace the Blue Circle, which cost a few kids. Just being a bit playful there, you understand.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Courtney, The failing was in the system at the time of how to achieve MAR. The rules stated that the authority should seek "best advice". Historically this had been from Boscombe Down. On many occasions their advice has been proven to not have been the best available. One would not what something that is dangerous to be introduced into service, however, the TPs and their advisers do seem to have been at the forefront of the risk adverse Air Force that is present today.
Yes, Mate. That chimes with my recollection of the events. Am I right in recalling that the system (like auto wing sweep) was never found to be lacking, just never proved to work safely. Saudi got on pretty well with AWS.
We don't even have the luxury of in-house advice any more. Now we just pay through the nose for QinetiQ to make a half-arsed study that recommends a barely-useful minimum level of clearance and concludes that a more useful release would need further study, at a cost of £excessive. Yes, a lot of new kit can be complex. But one would imagine that, occasionally, with the simple stuff, they would be able to recommend a full release at the first time of asking. Never seen it myself; it's beyond a joke.
If a competitor could assemble a team with expertise in a particular area, and undercut QinetiQ in both cost and time, there would be muchos money to be made... providing they could persuade DE&S to contract them. Seems to me that DE&S has become accustomed to the "reassuringly expensive" advice they get from QinetiQ; anything cheaper must be coming from a cowboy outfit. It needs shaking up, big time.
If a competitor could assemble a team with expertise in a particular area, and undercut QinetiQ in both cost and time, there would be muchos money to be made... providing they could persuade DE&S to contract them. Seems to me that DE&S has become accustomed to the "reassuringly expensive" advice they get from QinetiQ; anything cheaper must be coming from a cowboy outfit. It needs shaking up, big time.
