Originally Posted by drustsonoferp
(Post 10362586)
A 16-ship, or 4 x 4-ships? Point of order though. When did aircrew start creasing their flying coveralls. |
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10370163)
That retro paint job looks superb!
I remember in 1979 or 1980 when the first 'wraparound' painted Vulcan arrived at Scampton for six-seventeen squadron - it too looked very smart. In 1982 there was actually a study to investigate whether the Tornado could be used in the South Atlantic War. Although Tornado documentation was rather secret squirrel, when an ODM was finally made available the planners dissolved into fits of giggles when they started some calculations.... Not a strategic asset, but excellent work in GW1. They got 2 Buccs down there in 1983, so surely the Tornado could have made it? |
Originally Posted by Dan Gerous
(Post 10370383)
They got 2 Buccs down there in 1983, so surely the Tornado could have made it?
|
They got 2 Buccs down there in 1983, so surely the Tornado could have made it? |
Bit of a difference between a one way ferry trip covered in external fuel tanks and a two way war mission carrying weapons. |
I'm sure they would have been capable of tanking there and back from Ascension but based on my GW1 experience, I'm certain they would have run out of engine oil.
|
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10370477)
I'm sure they would have been capable of tanking there and back from Ascension but based on my GW1 experience, I'm certain they would have run out of engine oil.
The early Mk101 engines had a pretty inefficient Breather system that allowed a fair amount of oil to be discharged overboard from the external gearbox. This resulted in relatively high oil consumption (HOC). The spec was 0,5l/hr which most engines achieved but the trend increased with age. High speed low level also increased oil consumption. The usable oil was about 8.5l and hence engines using more than the limit could have been oil limited. This was resolved by improving the engine internal oil system and gearbox breather system as well as increasing the usable oil content. |
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10369799)
I quite like the centre badge. Squadron Prints don't seem to have them on their website yet.
Whatever they didn't sell at the Marham Enthusiast's Day today should be listed later, I would have thought. I bought the set. |
One of the first images from Wednesday's shoot.
The photoship was ZA449/020. https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....46c54b4bf5.jpg |
Originally Posted by weemonkey
(Post 10370313)
At least they did it in style not badges.
|
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10370558)
That was the biggest risk at that time.
The early Mk101 engines had a pretty inefficient Breather system that allowed a fair amount of oil to be discharged overboard from the external gearbox. This resulted in relatively high oil consumption (HOC). The spec was 0,5l/hr which most engines achieved but the trend increased with age. High speed low level also increased oil consumption. The usable oil was about 8.5l and hence engines using more than the limit could have been oil limited. This was resolved by improving the engine internal oil system and gearbox breather system as well as increasing the usable oil content. |
A thought regarding TTTE.
The Cottesmore S Met O, Pat Stevens, was a very innovative and proactive scientist and pioneered very early use of computer displays to disseminate Met. around the base. This was in spite of official [Met Office] lack of enthusiasm. TTTE were well served by his office. Thank you Pat! |
As an Air Cadet , I saw the Vailant ta Marham (and sat in it). There was a Tornado in one of the Hangars as well. It was 1981. As others have said, it was in service with the RAF then.
|
The F3 had bigger oil tanks than the GR - I’ve done more than 10 hrs in a Tonka without running out of oil in accordance with the RTS. |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 10371050)
The F3 had bigger oil tanks than the GR - I’ve done more than 10 hrs in a Tonka without running out of oil in accordance with the RTS. The Mk103 engine was initially fitted to the Germany based squadrons. I don't know when the Mk101 was finally retired but we were certainly still using them at Honington in 1989. I would imagine that TTTE were the last unit to use them. |
Looks like there will be a flypast tour
From the BBC website. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-47013735
"The jet's capabilities will be transferred to the Typhoon and there is set to be a "finale flypast" around the UK to commemorate places that have contributed to the Tornado over the years, according to Station Commander Group Captain Ian Townsend." It also mentions a flypast at Marham on 14th March for the disbandment parades. |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 10371050)
The F3 had bigger oil tanks than the GR - I’ve done more than 10 hrs in a Tonka without running out of oil in accordance with the RTS. The only difference was the longer 104 Exhaust System and the DECU. The capability for significantly longer flights was the result of improvements to the oil system that reduced oil consumption. |
^^^^I need to sack the ground school instructor then!! :ok: |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 10371705)
^^^^I need to sack the ground school instructor then!! :ok: |
Vaguely remember two RAF Coningsby, 229 OCU F2 aircraft, doing an oil usage trial by flying non-stop to Cyprus, cleaning the cockpit out on return took a little while longer than usual, and there was something on the outbound trip about the rumoured use of HF and a possible UFCM, but age and memory maybe has affected my recollections. I believe oil consumption was not considered an issue after this. Maybe someone remembers some more detail and can confirm, or refute, those recollections.
Also from my perspective from working on virtually all marks of Tornado, I will miss the sight and sounds of them flying around, hope I see some of the flypasts around my way. |
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10371731)
Not really. He probably meant that the F3 had a larger oil capacity than the GR1 with its original Mk 101 engines and he would have been correct in that respect.
I cannot remember the exact oil tank capacities but they were quite similar. The 101 engine had an oil tank that conformed to the LP Compressor Casing. But it was not 'all attitude'. So the 103 oil tank was circular in section to allow all attitude operation. As a result I don't think there was much difference between the two capacities. As I mentioned it was primarily down to oil system improvements that allowed significantly longer flight times. |
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10371287)
The Mk103 engine was initially fitted to the Germany based squadrons. I don't know when the Mk101 was finally retired but we were certainly still using them at Honington in 1989. I would imagine that TTTE were the last unit to use them.
About the only thing I ever noticed was that the TTTE jets always felt quick in the dry range and that a fully-rated 103 in a new batch 7 jet, with just pylons fitted, accelerated through M1.0+ quicker than we both realised (sorry Blackpool). I seem to remember that these jets were delivered without the ramp actuator system in place, rather than just deactivated. It would have been nice to see just how quick they could have gone - the faster you were the faster you got faster! As an aside the cut-and-shut GR1A (cannot remember the tail number) refused to go above M1.0 in standard Deci ACMI fit. It also yawed a fraction with an unnerving canopy howl when you tried to push it. It was also on the 'just say no' list of aircraft for display flying. |
JTO On the GTI version of the jet (the all grey versions before the GR4 copied the scheme) the ramps were still enabled and usable - M2.0 was achievable with a little kick in the back when the ramps came in at M1.3(ish). :ok: |
I did get a couple of F3 back-seat trips with a mate down on 1435 and I think the most impressive bit was the acceleration from around 450kts+. The non-turning, more burning and slippy version was exceedingly quick at low level. Even easier to breach the exact same speed limits we had on the GR1, if you remembered to toggle the HUD speed display....
The first abridged trip was enlightening both for the much-improved view from the boot and the confidence displayed slamming into full burner at low-speed and high-ish AoA - something we treated with more caution on the GR1... only to be treated to a lot of banging and thumps through the aircraft with the stagnation of one and the loss of the other (both recovered ok but one of them had to be changed afterwards). Somethings were different, others just the same! |
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 10372377)
I did get a couple of F3 back-seat trips with a mate down on 1435 and I think the most impressive bit was the acceleration from around 450kts+. The non-turning, more burning and slippy version was exceedingly quick at low level. Even easier to breach the exact same speed limits we had on the GR1, if you remembered to toggle the HUD speed display....
The first abridged trip was enlightening both for the much-improved view from the boot and the confidence displayed slamming into full burner at low-speed and high-ish AoA - something we treated with more caution on the GR1... only to be treated to a lot of banging and thumps through the aircraft with the stagnation of one and the loss of the other (both recovered ok but one of them had to be changed afterwards). Somethings were different, others just the same! By the way. If anybody would like to see pictures of the latest paint schemes and operations at Marham, you can look at 'fighter control' website at latest military photos. I am not plugging this website; merely pointing it out. |
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10372478)
Wow. You lucky thing. Best I had was a number of ground runs.
By the way. If anybody would like to see pictures of the latest paint schemes and operations at Marham, you can look at 'fighter control' website at latest military photos. I am not plugging this website; merely pointing it out. |
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10372511)
I'm guessing from your posts that you were a RR rep on Tornado?
How about you my friend. |
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10372547)
Almost. I worked in service engineering within RR but did work very closely with our reps.
How about you my friend. |
Originally Posted by Harley Quinn
(Post 10370792)
Rather more difficult to put on air displays when the force is still successfully achieving ongoing ops,
|
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10372579)
I was just groundcrew. I did a couple of squadron tours on the GR1 at Laarbruch and Marham as well as a couple of engine bay tours doing deep strip on the Mk101 (Honington) and the Mk103 (Marham). After that I did 12 years in civilian aviation before returning to Marham as a civvy on the GR4 for a while.
Were you at Marham just before the engine repair transferred to RR as part of ROCET. Marham was always extremely busy as you will know. Did you meet any of the reps there. Initially we had 3 reps there as with the early TTTE. Honington had 2 initially but we went to one rep per station later on. |
Vendee, nobody is just groundcrew; without the professionalism and commitment from our techies, we would never have got off the ground, let alone survived our various scrapes. Hand salute.
|
Originally Posted by 57mm
(Post 10373450)
Vendee, nobody is just groundcrew; without the professionalism and commitment from our techies, we would never have got off the ground, let alone survived our various scrapes. Hand salute.
Hand salute from me as well. But. Seeing it and feeling it accelerate down the runway makes that all worthwhile. |
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10373389)
Nothing wrong with just being groundcrew. I visited the engine bays at both Honington and Marham on a number of occasions.
Were you at Marham just before the engine repair transferred to RR as part of ROCET. Marham was always extremely busy as you will know. Did you meet any of the reps there. Initially we had 3 reps there as with the early TTTE. Honington had 2 initially but we went to one rep per station later on. |
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10373735)
I ended my RAF career in the engine bay at Marham in 1994. I returned to Marham as a civvy in 2008 but on Tornado not the engine bay. Oddly enough a couple of years later I was asked if I was interested in a temp job at Bristol, apparently teaching the Bristol staff all about RB199 deep strip and repair. By this time I was working on the Apache full time so I declined. As for RR reps, I obviously knew a few but the only ones I remember are Seamus O'Conner and Brian Weech (spelling?). Also John Brand at Marham but we worked together at Honington some 20 years earlier.
The transfer of RB199 repair from Marham to Bristol went well with some help from the RAF. It is interesting that Bristol built engines eventually turned out to be more reliable. A number of reasons which I ought not go into in this forum. Anyway, this will all pass into history in a couple of months for the UK while German, Italy and Saudi Arabia fly on for a number of years. |
Anybody who ever met him would remember Seamus!
|
Originally Posted by Mr Bollo
(Post 10374221)
Anybody who ever met him would remember Seamus!
|
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10373756)
Excellent. I know Seams and Brian well but not John.
The transfer of RB199 repair from Marham to Bristol went well with some help from the RAF. It is interesting that Bristol built engines eventually turned out to be more reliable. A number of reasons which I ought not go into in this forum. Anyway, this will all pass into history in a couple of months for the UK while German, Italy and Saudi Arabia fly on for a number of years. A lot of people hated working in the engine bay because of the repetitive nature but I enjoyed the challenge of getting my engine pass off with the required thrust. It was easy if you were supplied brand new modules to build your engine but that never happened. If you were given a HP comp with 300 hours on it, you knew it would be a struggle because although it was life'd at 1200 hours, after 300hrs, the internal seals were worn and it was losing thrust. The trick was to try and manage the other rotating seal clearances throughout the engine. When the manual gave a min and max clearance, you had to aim for the minimum to give you a chance. I don't recall us having any problems with badly built engines. (edit... just remembered one which self destructed on the test bed) When I last popped into Marham engine bay in 2009, they were operating a pulse line system where the teams didn't get to build the entire engine, just part of it. It must have been soul destroying and I know that morale was at rock bottom. |
Originally Posted by Vendee
(Post 10374362)
In my days, engines were pulled initially due to mechanical failure i.e. M08 blades failing and combustion chamber unzipping. Other than that, they were pulled when the thrust was below the minimums during the pyro clean/cal.
A lot of people hated working in the engine bay because of the repetitive nature but I enjoyed the challenge of getting my engine pass off with the required thrust. It was easy if you were supplied brand new modules to build your engine but that never happened. If you were given a HP comp with 300 hours on it, you knew it would be a struggle because although it was life'd at 1200 hours, after 300hrs, the internal seals were worn and it was losing thrust. The trick was to try and manage the other rotating seal clearances throughout the engine. When the manual gave a min and max clearance, you had to aim for the minimum to give you a chance. I don't recall us having any problems with badly built engines. (edit... just remembered one which self destructed on the test bed) When I last popped into Marham engine bay in 2009, they were operating a pulse line system where the teams didn't get to build the entire engine, just part of it. It must have been soul destroying and I know that morale was at rock bottom. Firstly please don't think that I or anyone else for that matter were accusing the RAF Engine Bays of building bad engines. That is certainly not the case. Moreover, optimising the seal clearances especially S14 at the rear of the HPC was the most important thing to do. When the single crystal HPT and IPT blades were introduced, the prime cause of engine removal widened out with no single dominant cause. I had retired before the transfer from Marham to Bristol but I kept in contact with the guys working on RB199 and they were very proud of the reduction in test bed rejects as well as the reduction in the engine removal rate. I am aware of some of the reasons but it would not be right for me to post them on an open forum. Anyway as I said; it will soon pass into history which I am sure for your (because I can tell you were passionate about it) and for me is a real shame. NB. I would be happy to communicate with you but not via pprune. |
Vendee.
Just occurred to me. Did you do the Engine strip and build course at Cottesmore in D Hanger and was the course conducted by RR. Reason I ask is that I carried out the course with a colleague from early 1980 until the RAF took the course over. |
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10374692)
Vendee.
Just occurred to me. Did you do the Engine strip and build course at Cottesmore in D Hanger and was the course conducted by RR. Reason I ask is that I carried out the course with a colleague from early 1980 until the RAF took the course over. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.