Typhoon ground refeulling trial photos 1998
 

The British prototype lined up behind a Tristar KC1 to check refuelling boom compatability. It was covered in test equipment, including the camera seen in the canopy.

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/o.../zh588side.jpg

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/o.../zh588back.jpg

And, whilst we are talking of Timmys, if I remember correctly, they were ferrying a spare engine out for another one which was broken downroute- it was too big to fit through the cargo door, so they bolted it onto the wing...

I do love my new scanner!

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/o.../zd953eng1.jpg

SB

I would have thought that a fairing of some sort would be put over the spare donk intake - the drag must have some influence on performance? Or is it allowed to windmill, letting the air flow through?

:ok:Nice pics. It's sometimes hard to remember how long the Typhoon has been around!

Of course, the spare engine capability has been done before:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...01/1426738.jpg

Can't wait to see a pod for the A400 engine! :ok:

Tristar spare engine carrying was built in from the start (and also on other aircraft - somewhere I'm sure I've seen a photo of a 5 engined 747)

Tristar spare engine has LP fan blades removed, and core blanked to prevent windmilling. It is mounted inboard of the number 3 engine if my memory serves me correctly. Not much need for the kit these days, C-17 has a sufficiently large cargo door:D

Prototype Typhoon
 

Looks like DA2 (before it was painted black)

Certainly is DA2. It has the Spin Recovery System fitted and still has the RB199 engines. I would have said it was 1997 but I could be wrong. Nice photos btw.

Thank you 99:ok:

Can RAF VC-10's carry a spare engine pod?

Well wasn't there a Victor with an underfuselage Pegasus ?! For test, not delivery purposes - must have been tempting for the pilot to try some new moves though !

er... no! (you're thinking of the Valiant).

Incidentally, what was the outcome of these refuelling trials? Was either aircraft found guilty?

:)

Yes, the Typhoon was found guilty of taking on fuel like a complete big-girl's-blouse! Flow rate is pathetic. AAR pipework added as an afterthought, and consequently worse than that in a cheap central heating system.:rolleyes:

Pegasus bomber
 

Alright Tim,

Keep your hair on, I was right it was some sort of V-bomber ( tis' a long time since I had the photo's ).

When the Harrier GR5 appeared, it had the feature of 'hot refuelling', ie filling up on the ground without shutting down the engine.

A test pilot got a bit carried away one day when in a Sea Harrier, and requested hot refuelling - snag being on the Harrier 1 series the refuelling point is aft of the forward nozzle !

To his credit ( ? ) the groundcrew chap did try, before backing off hastily.

We used to do it "all the time" with our 1st-gen Harrier. As long as the nozzles were deflected down a bit it was pretty snagless.

Sorry about the thread drift.

Typhoon ground refeulling trial photos 1998
 

Back another 12 years from there. Yes, 22 years ago:eek: (Maybe this belongs in AH&N)

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...scan0001-7.jpg

A few photos of the beast in action:ok:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...scan0004-6.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...scan0005-5.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...scan0006-4.jpg

Typhoon tanker trials.
 

As no one else has risen to Mr. B's bait, I cant let that go, as it's all shhh*te. AAR designed in from the outset, (OK, EAP didn't have it).
The retractable probe is a wonderful piece of engineering and works as designed on the production aircraft.:D

**THREAD CREEP ALERT**

22 years since EAP? Time flies and all that.

However: when I asked a BAe bloke who'd worked on said EAP, he said that it was millions of miles away from being a production combat a/c, and that the fuselage structure was actually based on a Tonka.

Anyone out there able to shed more light?

Many thanks,

S41

I do seem to remember a certain guest TP getting over zealous during AAR trials with a VC 10 - the frangible link definitely works as advertised!:O

It was a proof of concept vehicle, so--yes:ugh:

Only the arse end was.:)

Fishtailed

Many thanks - I was just curious, because a member of the local pub experten was recently telling anyone who'd listen that we could've had EAP in Sqn service by 1990, and that the decision to "bin it" and go for Typhoon was a total waste (and worse, pro-European! :rolleyes:).

I'd not dispute that the management of the Typhoon programme could er, be "improved", but it did sound like little-Englandism to try and cast EAP as another TSR-2 might-have-been.

Out of interest, what happened to the EAP airframes?

S41

EAP Airframes
 

I think one of them is at Loughborough Uni