Tornado GR1 question?
 

Hi All

Just out of curiosity after reading 'Team Tornado' and 'Tornado Down' I have a few questions about the GR1.

First, what is its range on internal fuel? As in with no EFTs? With four it can do 2,417, but what about if it was flying 'without bags?'

The second is, how fast could it really go? I have searched around and heard it can do 920 at sea level, but what about 'clean' at altitude? Some sources have stated 1700+ mph, is this true?!

And finally, is it equipped with just a Terrain Following Radar, or can the radar also detect enemy aircraft?

Regards,
Jack

Careful with this. Capability of a current type.

Jack

The GR1 never had its ramp intakes connected so M1.15 was about its top-end - unlike F3 which did have the ramps connected and could make M2.0 (M2.15 was my personal best in a jet straight off the tanker with no LAUs fitted). So 1,700mph+ is plain wrong. At low level 920mph would be possible in a GR1 with the smaller engines and I've been at 870kts at low level in a F3 with 2 winders and 2 skyflash and only the crew becoming the limiting factor (chicken!) - again the F3 was quicker than the GR1 at low level, but it should give you an idea.

As for range, the internal fuel of a GR1 is about 5100kgs and an average fuel burn of about 50-60kgs per minute at medium level at around 360-400kts TAS - so that would give you about 100 minutes at around 6-7nm per minute or a range of about 600-700nm. Again the F3 had an O-tank fitted behind the nav's head that gave about another 10-15 minutes of internal fuel - or enough for burner take off and climb to 10-15kft before cracking into the normal fuel tanks that both types shared.

Now the GR4 has different engines, 1 gun less and a different drag profile underneath so it would be different in performance to the GR1 - plus as M2 says this is a current type so it's off limits for discussion.

I hope this helps?

LJ

Could you enlighten me please as my belief was that the early Tonka GR1s had Mk 101 RB199s. Later GR1s had Mk 103s and these were exactly the same donks used in the GR4s. Only the F3 had Mk 104s.

Luftwaffe ECRs are/were fitted with RB199 Mk.105 engines, some of which we borrowed during GW1.

A few points to clear up:

@Leon - the GR1 did have the intake ramps connected, but was limited to M1.3 AFAICR. They were wire-locked shut sometime early 90's I think, same with the Kreuger flaps. 920kts is a bit optimistic. I did a tour at TTTE at Cottesmore flying clean GR1's (no pylons either). It was a real sportscar but 900kts - no chance (unless I was an even bigger wimp :sad:). Supercruise? - yes, occasionally. But with double the thrust in reheat, why sit in dry power? :ok: Yr fuel burn figures are slightly pessimistic for the TTTE jets; they were quite slick. Never flew a truly clean GR4, only managed clean but with pylons on test flights so more drag.

@SRENNAPS - the GR1 was fitted with Mk103's for the frontline sqns (TTTE never got 103's) and that is the current engine on GR4's. There have been some modifications but they're basically the same.

HTH.

edit: The GR1 & 4 have 2 radars in the nose: a TFR as you state and a GMR and yes, the GR1 GMR could detect fighters. ;)

just another jockey,

Just to clarify further and I am not trying to be a smart @rse honest.

Yes you are correct when you say TTTE only had Mk 101s as did TWCU when it first formed.

However 9 Sqn at Honington (before they moved to Bruggen) and the earlier Sqns at RAF Laarbruch also had Mk 101s. The first Mk 103s were first introduced to 20 Sqn (newly established at Laarbruch following disbandment of the Jags at Bruggen) and the formation of 31 Sqn at Bruggen ( I was posted onto the Sqn, after I left TTTE, to help form it back in 84 and it was a whole new ball game with respect to MECU and reheat curve setups etc.)

Finally, please do not tell a Rolls Royce person that that the Mk 101and the Mk 103 are basically the same engine or they won’t buy you any beers:):)

SRENNAPS - my bad, what I meant was that the 103 originally fitted and the current 103, whilst they do have some differences/improvements, are basically the same engine. Not the 101 & the 103.

I was clearly a latecomer to the force as I only joined my first sqn in '87.

GR 1 Ramps
 

When I did the airtests at Bruggen 1985,86 the ramps were tested by accelerating to M1.4 then turning hard to reduce to M1.1 . Never went faster than that, but low level M1.3 was not difficult to achieve.

just another jocky

Ah, sorry.

But in time to see the start of some very interesting times....good, bad and sad :ok::}:(

Tornado GR1 questions?
 

Thanks for replying guys, and bringing a lot to light, but it has sprouted more questions, I have several. I'm really into the Cold War era Tornado and would like to know more about it :8

I did mean 920mph not 920kts if this clears anything up, the Press (Shouldnt trust them I know) has stated in some sources the F3 can hit 1700 so this is obviously wrong; I assume it is around 1500, in mph, as you guys have also said in knots and Mach Number.

And I am aware the fuel consumption increases fivefold or tenfold when you go supersonic, so thats 60kg per minute at normal power but six hundred at supersonic speeds - You'd be dry pretty fast wouldn't you?! The GR1 crews must have hated getting bounced!

So the GR1 could do 920 miles per hour at low level. Being a bit old-fashioned and stubborn, I work in miles as opposed to knots, Mach number etc. Would the speed change at altitude? As in at twenty thousand? Assuming the aircraft was 'clean' without tanks?

I see it's all about fuel. The only time you have too much is when you're on fire. When you tank, can you 'refill' the external tanks from the tanker? As in controlling the fuel flow to the wing tanks as opposed to internal? And would the pilot or nav do this?

Some of these questions may sound obvious. I apologize for my ignorance but I am not as 'switched on' and I'm just a spotter not a pilot :O

I'm even more of a latecomer (1990s!!) and have seen a couple of mods to the Mk 103 over that time, notably a reprofiled compressor a few years back. Something to do with squeezing a bit more medium-level performance out of the old girl. There has often been talk of fitting the ex-F3 Mk 104s for the same reason, but I must confess to being ignorant of the technical issues involved.

The most notable thing for me over the 20-odd years I've been associated with the jet is the ingenuity with which the original systems architecture (focussed on low-level TFR strike ops) has been modified and tweaked to the point that the aircraft remains at the forefront of modern conflicts. I don't consider the GR1-GR4 upgrade as much of a step change as was Jag GR1-GR3; in fact the OEM software on early GR4s was, in some ways, a backwards step from the final iteration of GR1. Once the in-service software team got properly stuck into the GR4 we have not looked back; much of the GR4's increased capability has been added piecemeal over the years through small hardware and software mods since the mid-life update was completed. Overall quite a good bit of work.

Not sure if this is of use to you but IIRC from my time on TTTE eons ago the German and Itallian Tonkas had an extra internal tank in the fin. No idea of it's capacity tho. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

AGS man, yes sorry your information is incorrect. It was our (British) Tornados that had the Fin Tank and it held 440Kg of fuel……made all the difference. Had a few problems with them over the years, but to my knowledge they are all back in service now.

A new term was introduced with the Tornado when you had too much to drink, it was called “Fin F”:O:O

Thanks SRENNAPS, as I said it was a long time ago and I think the local brew must be rotting the old grey matter! The German Tonkas were the ones with the ejecting Flight Recorders, recall a few being left in deepest Wales!

AGS

The lack of fin tank/fuel enabled the Germans (and presumably the Italians as well) to park with wing sweep at 45 (CofG consideration), thus saving a little bit of space in the HAS.

Jack

Depending on mission profile, you would fill every available cavity (well, fuel tanks anyway) with fuel, including external tanks (worth mentioning that fitting larger wing tanks limited the rearward wing sweep). All the fuel controls were in the front cockpit - the nav had only a total reading on a TV Tab - so the nav's contribution to AR was to make soothing noises to the pilot as he jousted manfully with probe to drogue.

Mister B

Tornados
 

Thanks for clearing that up everyone.

Unfortunately it has sprouted more questions :O

So how fast could the mighty fin go at altitude? with or without pylons, 'clean' ?
The press say 1700 mph but obviously this is not right, not that I trust them, they had a caption for a picture of a GR4 and labelled the wing tanks as anti-runway weapons!

And is the ferry range of 2,420 miles correct then..?

isn't this pushing the boundaries of what is a legitimate question?
see post 2

Ignore my ignorance, what do you mean?

see post 2