another plane crash ...
Des Kinvig
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8130528.stm
Brian Morrison
> that is not made in France is it ? ......
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8130528.stm
What puzzles me is why an interceptor, to whit a Tornado F3, usually
seen at high altitude enforcing UK airspace boundaries, is doing poling
around at low level in hilly terrain in the first place?
--
Brian
nn...@benison.co.uk
wrote:
Since the Gulf War the F3 has had a "Wild Weasel" role.
Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) in UK terms
David
Yeti
I thought their only jobs these days were to be noisy and leak fuel.
nn...@benison.co.uk
>I thought their only jobs these days were to be noisy and leak fuel.
Close but I think they also serve as sports car substitutes. I have
experienced them leaving a wake on one or two lochs up here.
David
Brian Morrison
Right, but even that requires them to be at a reasonable altitude
doesn't it? You can't hit a radar you can't see, and terrain masking
works both ways.
--
Brian
nn...@benison.co.uk
wrote:
>You can't hit a radar you can't see, and terrain masking
>works both ways.
The idea is to fix the target at altitude and then come in fast and low.
Then climb, firing your anti radar missile and dive back down for cover and
fly out at low level.
Dave
Brian Morrison
I thought the advantage of ALARM was that you can fire it and then
leaving it hanging on its parachute until something excites it enough to
detach and rocket down on its target.
--
Brian
nn...@benison.co.uk
wrote:
>I thought the advantage of ALARM was that you can fire it and then
>leaving it hanging on its parachute until something excites it enough to
>detach and rocket down on its target.
But where is the excitement in that for a fighter jockey ;-)
If everyone new how easy it was with "fire and forget" weapons they would take
their toys off them and they would have to work for a living.
Seriously though. High speed low level flight has long been the RAF's
specialty. Remember how the Yanks were "stuffed" by a couple of aging
Buccaneers flying lower than their precious AA systems could fire at Red Flag.
David
Steve Terry
"Brian Morrison" <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:h2kcto$rkh$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>
>
Sky News called it a F4 Tornado
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
<nn...@benison.co.uk> wrote in message
news:flir45185dot733fp...@4ax.com...
0.9 mach at under 500 feet
Steve Terry
Brian Morrison
> Seriously though. High speed low level flight has long been the RAF's
> specialty.
Which has been known to work against them, even in a Tornado GR1.
> Remember how the Yanks were "stuffed" by a couple of aging
> Buccaneers flying lower than their precious AA systems could fire at Red Flag.
Remember how one of those Buccs came back after hitting a power line
from below and the next day sported a new radome and a power line kill
marking. Apparently the F15 drivers were expecting a turkey shoot
against the Bucc, but in fact found them a very difficult opponent.
Just read the Phoenix Squadron book about the Buccs off Ark Royal who
went to discourage the Guatemalans from invading British Honduras in
1972, fascinating read!
--
Brian
nn...@benison.co.uk
wrote:
>Which has been known to work against them, even in a Tornado GR1.
Or should that be especially in a GR1. Never played with the GR4 though!
Dave
Steve Terry
>
>
Belize as it now is, has just had a military coup, funny as i thought they
were now a US protectorate?
The ex president couldn't have been a socialist, could he?
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:h32s45pit7kl3r5tn...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:21:44 +0100, "Steve Terry" <gFOU...@tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Sky News called it a F4 Tornado
>>Steve Terry
>
> Jackson?
>
> Whenever I've turned Sky News on in the last week, it's usually been
> to find that dozy ginger-top Kay bleedin' Burley, stood outside his
> former home - 'Kiddie-land' - touting for trade.
> Nick.
>
Sky News managed to squeeze it in on the ticker tape bar along the bottom
Talking about squeezing things along the bottom,
inadvertently brings us back to M Jackson again.
Steve Terry
Des Kinvig
Steve Terry
"Des Kinvig" <kinvig...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jYp3m.50940$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> This NG should now be named..."I know more about 'planes than you"!
Steve Terry
Des Kinvig
"Steve Terry" <gFOU...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:h2lac9$sht$1...@news.albasani.net...
Steve Terry
IMHO i feel Airbuses are just as safe as Boeings, the 777 frightens me,
if you knew just how much weight they took out of it during development
Steve Terry
Yeti
From Jimbo's Radio Shack ...
"Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
news:h2ln7c$hp0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I feel safer in a Boeing with all that wartime history behind it ...American
quality ....... what do the French know about 'planes? .......
Dave
GR4's were limmited to subsonic speeds after MLU.
Dave
Dave
Dave
Steve Terry
"Dave" <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:nJOdnZ42IcWP6NPX...@bt.com...
unless you removed their nice new AIM-120 AMRAAM's
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tornadof3.cfm
"In the months before the 2003 Gulf War, a small number of Tornado F3s
underwent a modification programme to allow them to operate in the
Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) role.
The modifications permitted the carriage of a pair of ALARM missiles
in place of the Skyflash or AMRAAM missiles, but the modified aircraft
were not in the event deployed during the conflict"
So there are some F3's with ALARM, and with the Typhoon F2 increasingly
taking it's place, you would expect more F3's to be re-equipped with ALARM
Steve Terry
Dave
Agreed. Though the F3 centre fuse and wings look much like the GR1 /
GR4's, they are quite different internally. And like you, I could not
imagine where they would put the ALARM black boxes.
Dave
Dave
At least that site is fairly accurate. The last one I looked at said
that tornado had 2 guns on board. The GR4's had the right hand gun
removed and that was replaced with a FLIR camera at MLU. The F3' were
never built with 2 guns from day one.
> "In the months before the 2003 Gulf War, a small number of Tornado F3s
> underwent a modification programme to allow them to operate in the
> Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) role.
> The modifications permitted the carriage of a pair of ALARM missiles
> in place of the Skyflash or AMRAAM missiles, but the modified aircraft
> were not in the event deployed during the conflict"
Ah! That would explain the flurry of activity from BAe's site at that
time. I could hear the engine ground runs from where I live and I knew
something was going on. The runs must have been EMC runs so that the RAF
could modify other aircraft after clearance by BAe.
BAe owns the design rights for development and if the RAF want to fit a
system, they have to get the modification fully approved and certified,
by BAe, before they can do the job themselves.
This happened before the Falklands war. The RAF had found out that the
F3 had no Chaff and Flair defence, fitted as standar kit on the Saudi
A/C. An aircraft was flown in on Friday morning and was flown out on
Monday morning with the modification, done, written up and fully
approved. A group of us worked that aircraft day and night over the
weekend. The RAF modified their aircraft and flew them out there, when
they were ready.
Another problem was with the Jaguar. The Jaguar International had over
wing pylons for missiles, but the RAF ones didn't. They had to be
manufactured to be fitted and flown down there. In the end, I don't
think the aircraft made it out there.
> So there are some F3's with ALARM, and with the Typhoon F2 increasingly
> taking it's place, you would expect more F3's to be re-equipped with ALARM
Without going into any detail, the origins of the Typhoon were taken out
of the hands of an historical development team.
Knowing the F3 as I do, I would expect not. The GR4 is capable of flying
with up to 12 ALARM missiles. The development A/C did. The problem with
the F3 is that it doesn't have the wiring or stub pylons to carry more
than 4. Admittedly, it could fly with the 4 in the skyflash tunnels.
Dave
Dave
>
The reason that a Tornado could reach Mach 2 was down to the variable
geometry ramps at the front of the intakes. At speed, the ramps would
come down from the top of the intake to prevent (I can't remember the
terminology).
I have remembered now, it is the shock wave of the air from going too
far down the intake.
Basically it was to prevent too much air punching down towards the
engines and blowing out the flame. There used to be an AICS (air intake
control system) that controlled the angle of the ramp according to the
A/C air speed. There is a vent about 2 or 3 foot behing the front of the
intake on top. This was there to balance the pito static system that the
computers used.
At the sides of the intake were spring loaded inlet vents that allowed
extra air to go into the intakes.
The above is a very scant description of how it worked
Before MLU the RAF decided that they didn't need supersonic flight from
the GR1's and it was decided to take out all of the AICS systems. This
left space for other things to go into the avionic bays for GR4 enhancement.
The ramps were controled by a hydraulic actuator and they were removed
and replaced by an adjustable strut that was set once only.
F3's were not affected.
HTH
Dave
Dave
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:11:50 +0100
> Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Though the F3 centre fuse and wings look much like the GR1 /
>> GR4's, they are quite different internally. And like you, I could not
>> imagine where they would put the ALARM black boxes.
>
> time that if you could get your hand into an internal compartment,
> something had been left out....
LOL a bit like a Lightening then
Dave
Yeti
So, in fact, from what you're saying, the GR4s aren't actually capable
of supersonic flight, because without the variable ramps (as found on
Concorde, and the Tu144), the engines wouldn't stay running once the air
entering the intake became supersonic.
Dave
> OK, useful explanation, a case of balancing conflicting requirements.
>
> I presume that a GR4 (or even a GR1) with external tanks etc would
> struggle mightily to accelerate to much above M1.3 at any time without
> running out of fuel after 100 miles or so....
No, not really. The GR1 could do mach 2, but the GR4 could not do Mach 1
unless it went into a dive.
They both had very good acceleration though. I have to admit that this
area was not my speciality.
The length of time in the air is not something I ever bothered about.
All I was concerned about was that it came back with no snags. Pride
restored if it did :-)
You mention external tanks. This something that a lot of people do not
know about, or understand.
There are 2 sizes of external tanks. The smallest one was 1500 Ltrs,
known as a ferry tank and supersonic and the larger 2250 Ltrs which was
sub sonic. The GR1, GR4, F2 and F3 could all carry 4 external tanks
above the internal fuel load. 2 under the centre fuse and one each on
the inboard wing pylon. On an F3 efectively doubling the fuel load from
6 tons to 12 tons.
All Tornados had another hard point at the centre of the centre fuse
that could carry a buddy buddy pod to re-fuel another aircraft, but it
was probably never used.
Indeed, BAe sent an F2, no, sorry it was the very first F3, to Arizona
for hot weather trials with 4 tanks on board. Later, they sent a GR1
over for similar trials. This latter aircarft became the first
development GR4 to fly.
HTH
Dave
Wait a minute, who is that knocking on my door?
Dave
I don't know the technicalites, but I would assume so. But that could
only happen if the aircraft went into a steep dive. In level flight, I
should imagine that the speed would be self leveling.
I can only assume that the shock wave would be at the wrong part of the
intake and blow out the candles. Once again, this is not my specialist
area. Rolls Royce and MBB controled this area.
Dave
Dave
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:14:07 +0100, Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> LOL a bit like a Lightening then
>
I take it that should read as 'Lightning'?
Sorry, it has been a long and hot week.
Dave
Yeti
I still regard SNECMA as the authority on Variable Intake Ramps... but I
always was a huge fan on Concorde, and even it's Russian 'sibling'.
Dave
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:43:56 +0100
> Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>>
>>
>>> OK, useful explanation, a case of balancing conflicting requirements.
>>>
>>> I presume that a GR4 (or even a GR1) with external tanks etc would
>>> struggle mightily to accelerate to much above M1.3 at any time without
>>> running out of fuel after 100 miles or so....
>> No, not really. The GR1 could do mach 2, but the GR4 could not do Mach 1
>> unless it went into a dive.
>>
>> They both had very good acceleration though. I have to admit that this
>> area was not my speciality.
>
> ordnance, I suspect the top speed would be very limited. The Tornado is
> not overpowered by any means.
Sorry for the long delay in answering.
As far as under powered goes, I never heard any complaints. I did once
ask flight test to let me know about the performance of the AC but all I
got back was a vague comment about it depended on what was slung under
it. At that time I was trying to establish if the pilot could tell if it
flew as well as I expected it to. There had been conditions in the past
where the RAF had not done some servicing correctly and it had to be
corrected before it flew again.
>> The length of time in the air is not something I ever bothered about.
>> All I was concerned about was that it came back with no snags. Pride
>> restored if it did :-)
>>
>> You mention external tanks. This something that a lot of people do not
>> know about, or understand.
>>
>> There are 2 sizes of external tanks. The smallest one was 1500 Ltrs,
>> known as a ferry tank and supersonic and the larger 2250 Ltrs which was
>> sub sonic. The GR1, GR4, F2 and F3 could all carry 4 external tanks
>> above the internal fuel load. 2 under the centre fuse and one each on
>> the inboard wing pylon. On an F3 efectively doubling the fuel load from
>> 6 tons to 12 tons.
>
> And with the biggest tanks, the drag would probably be higher even if
> the tank itself has a higher fineness ratio. So top speed may be even
> further compromised.
>
> I know that a Phantom, with a top speed of about 1300kts, could make
> about 750kts with external ordnance and 3 tanks. It adds a lot of drag.
This is about aerodynamics here. The only thing I know about that was
when our MD gave an aerodanamics man a right royal bollocking.
My job was to get the modifications on the aircraft, test the systems
and certify them for flight.
Dave