Possibly.
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.

I am sure there was a plan on Mk103 roll-out but it seemed to be pulled in all directions. The first idea seemed to be to equip the UK operational squadrons with the 103, as they would operate heavier and longer sorties (back then even AAR probes were a rare sight on the Germany-based squadrons). Then the plan shifted with idea that the UK would keep a common standard across the UK op and training fleets. This plan was upset further by the (UK based) batch 7 jets being equipped with 103s at build (sometimes being swapped to 101s) post delivery; then the mixed bag of engines on the converted GR1As; then the big stir of jets and engines for Granby and finally the GR1 draw-down, relocation plan and op/diamond mini-fleet-within-fleet. The net effect even in the mid-90s the engine type was something you noted at the F700 stage, especially with the de-rating of the 103 and the latest wire-locking-of-the-month with the TBT datum switch.

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.

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!

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.

I'm guessing from your posts that you were a RR rep on Tornado?

Almost. I worked in service engineering within RR but did work very closely with our reps.

How about you my friend.

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.

Very nicely done Mr Quinn.

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.

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.

Same for me. Tornado was not the simplest aircraft to keep serviceable. It requires a lot of skills and knowledge and experience to do that.
Hand salute from me as well.

But. Seeing it and feeling it accelerate down the runway makes that all worthwhile.

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.

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.

Anybody who ever met him would remember Seamus!

Seamus was very knowledgeable and had a great sense of humour. Brian Weech didn't quite get the service sense of humour (at least in his early days at Honington) and I have to admit that I was responsible for him going into the officers mess for lunch wearing a set of dayglo cowboy spurs on his heels. He wasn't a happy bunny :=

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.

Vendee my friend.
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.

My memory is a bit hazy there. I did six weeks at Cottesmore in 1988 on my Tornado course followed by two weeks at Bristol for the RB199 part. I've got a vague recollection of going back to Cottesmore for 3 days on what was described as a "deep strip course" but it was all classroom stuff of very little practical value. I learned the practical side "on the job" at Honington. Going back to your previous post, please feel free to PM me regarding anything you don't want to discuss in open forum.