Tornado External Fuel tanks
 

After years of lurking, my first post on Pprune.

Is it possible to fully sweep (67 Degrees if I recall correctly) the wings on the F3 or Gr4 with the 2250 litre "hindenburger" tanks fitted or is there some configuration/ c of g issue that prevents this.


Question was from a scale modeller who would like to know.

thanks in advance.

With the big fuel tanks (L fit) the max sweep is 63, iirc (on the F3 anyway).

Backwards is correct. The max sweep is 63 degrees as the tailerons would hit the back end of the tank. The limit is achieved by a detent that can be placed on the wing sweep lever stopping the lever from moving all the way back. Unfortunately, this all that stops the wings from moving and it is possible to put them all the way to 67 degrees, even with the tanks fitted.

Thanks for the responses, 63 degrees it is then.

That could be entertaining - another military design classic.... :eek:

So the F3 was never fitted with the planned Automatic Wing Sweep system then?:)

Slight aside, but with regards to the detent sytem to limit movement, if I recall correctly when Cottesmore was the TTTE back in the late 80's the tensions of the detent on one tornado were set incorrectly (I think not enough shim in place) and someone managed to sweep the wings while the flaps were down :eek:

Excuse the lack of possible correct terminology, I was on work experience there and was only 14! (It might have also been a tall tale told by a liney)

On the GR4
 

Things are slightly more robust on the GR4, there is a covered switch in the front cockpit (which is set by the engineers when they load the fuel tanks). With 2250l tanks fitted, the switch is set to 63 degrees and it becomes impossible for the pilot to sweep the wings past this, no matter how strong he is, without uncovering and then changing the switch to 67 degrees.

F3
 

With Lima's (2250's) fitted to F3, it recognises they are present and limits wing sweep. If the wing sweep is incorrectly set to 67 before power is applied, the lever will move forward to 63 position and 67 sweep selection will no longer be available until the Lima's are removed.

Used to be a post Lima fit check for the Plumbers........

FTP

Agree with formertonkaplum.

IIRC, there is also a small indicator immediately to the rear of the throttles, similar to the RCOV INT/ENG indicators, which display 63 (Orange) and 67 (Green) respective to tank fit.


Flipflopman

FTP is correct - still is a check c/o by A I'm an Arm.....for Big Jugs (still gets a giggle) and still pisses off the Rects Cont...

To respond to XV277, yes, F3s were fitted with auto wing sweep but it was disabled on RAF delivery. The RSAF have it on all their F3s and it includes auto manoeuvres (slat & flap). It is a huge improvement and the RAF were very remiss to disable it. One could attribute at least one accident to lack of auto wing sweep.

I think that's being a little too lenient - cognitive failures tend to account for this type of accident, not the presence of the 'technology' (I use the term loosely here) in question.
It's like saying that a recent Harrier crash was exacerbated by the presence of the nozzle lever.

People used to make too much of the WS on the Tornado (I'm sure they still do). It's just like a gear stick. One position to go fast and straight (63/67), one to go slow and be 'vaguely' manoeuverable (25) and one in the middle (45).

(And a hidden 4th one that reputedly gives better mpg!)

The reason the RAF got rid of the system was because crews would regularly beat the system. If you were hitting a merge with the wings back, as the speed started to decay you would move the wings forward so that they arrived in the right configuration as the speed was reached. Same with maneuvre devices. If you knew you were going to turn you would put the slats out in anticipation. The automatic system had to react and so it was felt you had perhaps lost a bit of 'edge'. The OEU did the trial to quantify the performance.

The promised improvement, WASPMD - 'The wingsweep and slat pilot's mindreader device' never came to fuition.

Ghost

The auto wing sweep was not the improvement you might have thought. Once you hit the speed at which a move was scheduled the wings would start to move and the whole transition from, say, 25 to 45 WS would be completed regardless of what the speed did in the interim. So, if you were turning with someone, did a quick unload to gain a little energy and hit the magic number, the wings would sweep to 45, regardless of the subsequent pull and re-commit you had performed. The trial referred to (can't remember the name) showed a loss of turning performance and a huge increase in wear in the flap motors and so on.

A nice idea, but the implementation was not great.

Where would be the fun with auto-wing sweep, for instance, you wouldn't be able to laugh at your oppo trying to tank in 45 wing because they forgot to sweep them forward on the pre-join checks. Or what about the opportunity to select 67 wing and pull to the limiting alpha in an attempt to use aerodynamic braking to slow down when you've overcooked it on a tanker join....

The 4th wing position has also been alluded to, certainly gives you something to do while transiting the NAGA..

And the mystical 4th position is / does what .....?!
(just curious!)

4th position?
 

From my GR1 days, IIRC, it was about 33 deg and about 6 alpha to give best fuel economy at height (obviously a bit of fettling required by the GIF to get it right).;)

3P

To respond to the various critics of my earlier post, yes, a pilot concentrating on wing sweep versus speed/mach could beat the automatics but a pilot concentrating on the fight and tactical situation as first priority frequently screws up the wingsweep setting and loses performance - even overstresses the wings. I know, I've flown both and I've watched pilots get it badly wrong.

The statement 'at least one accident' was quite correct - it was an unload at lowish altitude accompanied by an early selection of wings to 67 then a 'oh my God' pull to avoid the sea with the wings at 67 and the speed commensurate with 45/25 wing. The fact that the aircraft impacted the sea at a shallow angle low enough for the Nav to survive is a fair indication of the likelihood of recovery had the wings been at the best sweep angle. There are others I could quote from the bombers in Saudi where incorrect sweep angle was the cause of failure to recover from the dive once the error had been perceived.

For those aircrew who remain convinced of their ability to do better than automatic wing sweep - all they have to do to override it is to move the wing sweep lever. However, since the RAF did not accept it they do not have that option.

> laugh at your oppo trying to tank in 45 wing

Why is that a problem?

Phil