Some questions regarding Panavia Tornado parts including CSAS control unit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CSAS was very good for 60s technology but was far too complex and had too high a parts count to be truly reliable. A modern FBW system would have addressed these issues but it would have been almost impossible to justify the cost versus the limited benefits. The Luftwaffe were considering a proper upgrade as part of their efforts to achieve their 2030 OSD. I've no idea whether this is still the case.
EAP
EAP
The CSAS was very good for 60s technology but was far too complex and had too high a parts count to be truly reliable. A modern FBW system would have addressed these issues but it would have been almost impossible to justify the cost versus the limited benefits. The Luftwaffe were considering a proper upgrade as part of their efforts to achieve their 2030 OSD. I've no idea whether this is still the case.
EAP
EAP
As for conversion, the cost would surely have been the major stopper.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't disagree by that measure of reliability but how many sorties were lost due to BITE failures and how much time was spent diagnosing and fixing component failures?
EAP
EAP
Wherever we could, CSAS BIT was carried out post sortie, so the loss rate would probably be lower than you'd think. I always thought it was overtested but getting the intervals stretched out was never considered
OAP
The souvenir I most wanted from the Tornado was the mechanical 'mixer' unit that converted the left/right and up/down demand from the stick into mechanical rod inputs to the 2 tailerons (so both deflect in the same direction for pitch and deflect in opposite directions for roll). The unit was about 12 inches long in each direction and was a wonderfully ingenious mechanical device. Anyone got a pic?
threeputt: I thought that as well. Never saw one that complicated!
RedLineEntry: Ah yes! It was a superb piece of mechanics. Best not mention the crushable struts though!
It all brings back horrible memories of the hell-hole that was Zone 19!
RedLineEntry: Ah yes! It was a superb piece of mechanics. Best not mention the crushable struts though!
It all brings back horrible memories of the hell-hole that was Zone 19!
Nope. Dry range to reheat range is a simple push-through restriction (probably ball bearing?) and reheat to combat is the same. There's no lifting, rocking, retarding slightly or anything, just push the throttles forwards.
Just for information, the difference between max reheat and combat is that when combat is selected, the TBT (actually SOT) limit is raised by 30k. This is sometimes confused with the war and peace switch which is different. The pilot can select combat as well as selecting the TBTRSS switch which is normally set to low and has a thin tell tale wire to show that the switch has been moved. The switch when selected further increases the SOT (stator outlet temperature). These temperature limits are set in the MECU as the engines are (normally) temperature controlled with TBT read by the optical pyrometer. Yes, the detents are ball bearings.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, 30K! (as in Kelvin). I had no idea Kelvin was used in any aircraft. Learn something new every day.
It is 30K as in Kelvin. In jet engines it is normal for those rated by temperature to be defined in Kelvin. The prime reason being that the SOT (temperature) is a calculated value rather than a measured value. This is not to be confused with the measured downstream turbine blade (TBT) temperature which is expressed in Celsius.
Never had a NHC with that many buttons on a real Tornado so it must be from an F3!
GR4s have a hand controller like that now.
Looks like a German IDS
