SchorschThe British GR1 and GR4 have 5100kg internal fuel because they feature an additional fin tank. German and Italian IDS Tornados have only 4660kg.
I dont think the RAF has ever used the IDS designation.
Thanks for clarification. I guess the point is through now: The GR.1/IDS has pretty small internal capacity, especially for a bomber. I gave the fuel fraction as 0.26, but this is for basically an unloaden aircraft. A warload of 2000 kg (the same warload of the F-16 relative to the EW) would push the TOW to 14.1 + 5.1 + 2 to 0.24, only 0.225 for the IDS.
For comparison: an F-15C with 12x 227kg bombs (=2.7 tons) has a fuel fraction of 0.28. And basically the same TOW.
SchorschI wouldn’t say the Tornado is utterly useless today Schorsch:rolleyes:
No :rolleyes: necessary. I said the field performance is not necessary today. Field performance is the reason it carries heavy swing wings, thrust reverser and double-slatted flaps.
I also fail to understand why the heck it has adjustable inlet ramps and can fly Mach 2. A 21st century Tornado would look like the TSR.2: 5 meters longer, (small) internal weapons bay and ECM, large fuel capacity, delta wing with high wing loading and conventional tail. Pitot intakes and TF afterburners.
Schorschif you look at the bit i quoted from Schorsch, he says the ADV has 5100kg’s of internal fuel, with the IDS having even less….. so he was wrong.
the trust reverse you mention is the main method of braking when landing,(the wheel brakes only provide 25% of the braking), so if it fails, they have to drop the arrester hook to stop safely.
No, I wasn’t wrong. I did not talk abot the ADV but the GR.1 and the IDS.
SchorschIs that plus the under belly weapons stations? I’ve seen it carry 3 2000lb LGB and 3 kormoran missiles under there which is more than an F-16 or F-18 usually carries.
Range at this configuration: Down the runway and back. For any useful mission the Tornado needs external tanks. The two fuselage stations remain available, theoretically they can be loaded with 8 conventional bombs.
F-18 and F-16 need external tank and one station available. Both carry 2IR-AAM and 2 MRAAM and have still one (wet) station left for fuel or ECM pod. And when they drop it all, they are a full fighter.
Small? I would say the Tornado is quite a big fighter or bomber or whatever. Whats interesting though is how they managed to design a 14 ton airframe that carries only 5.5 (?) tons of fuel and no ecm, chaff or flares but engines that would better suit a 10 ton class fighter.
Using this reference:
http://www.sirviper.com/index.php?page=fighters/tornado/tornado_ids
I learn that the Tornado has about 5100kg internal fuel, 14.1 ton operating empty weight. The IDS even has less internal fuel. I think one reason is the focus on low level and short take-off, all increasing the weight. The swing wing is also a considerable weight-contributor.
A standard take-off weight comparable to fighters (so, 4AAM 100kg each and full internal fuel) would sum to 19.6 tons (14.1 + 5.1 + 0.4), which translates into a fuel fraction of 0.26, similar to an F-16.
The Tornado was really designed for the tactical nuclear mission going lo-lo(-lo). No coming back anyway, so third lo in brackets. Two ext tanks, one/two tacticals. No need for a large airframe. All that conventional stuff was just added later.
And the Tornado is result of tri-national undertaking, not really the garantue for unmatched performance. The Tornado is so much optimised for the “go east, strike hard” role, that it hardly fits anything else. It is able of short take-off/landing, great thing in an east/west conflict. Utterly useless today.
SchorschPersonally I think trying to design an aircraft able to carry a JP233 internally would have been very expensive! 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮
But at least they could have put the fuel inside, er?
Have you ever seen a Tornado without external fuel tank?
For the German IDS/ECR Tornados (pretty similar for the British), the wing pylons are basically lost to ECM and fuel, something other attack aircraft carry inside. The outer wing pylons are not really useful for anything else maybe, but a Tornado ends up with 2 useful pylons and (the same as the F-16). Not very much for a “bomber”. The F-16 carries external loads for other reasons (to keep maximum performance when clean in air-to-air combat), the Tornado carries everything external, because _____________(please insert reason here)______.
SchorschCouple of feet IIRC. One thing the extra length allows is the recessed carriage of four MRAAMs (Skyflash) under the fuselage. It also adds internal volume compared to the IDS.
Daniel
And reduces cruise drag a bit. As I said, the Tornado is a very small aircraft and was designed (don’t knoe why) to carry everythink external.
SchorschThe Brits thought about using the F-14 for a while, but it was too expensive. The Tornado has some inherent disadvantages, first of all that is is too small. But the general approach – making a fighter out of bomber – seems feasible when you look at the mission. An advantage of the ADV was its improved and optimised engine for high level cruise, and it was also able of prolonged afterburner flight.
SchorschDo you have the -1 or the -1-1?
I got:
A1-F18AC-NFM-000 : Flight Manual
A1-F18AC-NFM-200 : Performance Data
A1-F18AC-NFM-700 : Checklists
SchorschIf a C-130 can take off and land on the deck of an Aircraft carrier, then im sure that pretty much any fighter aircraft can too
Wrong.
SchorschThanks for your input. Very much appreciated. 🙂
Yes, the graph on page 76 (3.9) is only for 11km, but with the following graph (3.10) one can make an altitude correction. That necessitates the assumption that thrust change with altitude is similar for al Mach numbers, which is in my eyes a quite reasonable assumption. Prime driver is air density. I have to correlate the given data with a crude density correction and check the resulting error. I think all data is “installed thrust”, right?
Works rather well, however, error is between 0 and 8%, with the values above 14000 being pretty crappy. But I don’t think that 14000m at dry thrust is a very common situation in a MiG-23.
[ATTACH]150257[/ATTACH]
The blue line is taken from the manual, the red line is the sea level thrust corrected with density (rho/rho0).
SchorschPAGE 76: Unfortunately only for 11km altitude.
Thanks for your input. Very much appreciated. 🙂
Yes, the graph on page 76 (3.9) is only for 11km, but with the following graph (3.10) one can make an altitude correction. That necessitates the assumption that thrust change with altitude is similar for al Mach numbers, which is in my eyes a quite reasonable assumption. Prime driver is air density. I have to correlate the given data with a crude density correction and check the resulting error. I think all data is “installed thrust”, right?
This just came to my mind. What happens when a MACH 2.5 class A2A missile hits an aircraft flying at speed MACH 0.6? What percentage chance exists that the missile will be left intact (at least the front seeker-electronic section) after a direct hit? To be able to make a bolt-for-bolt copy of the Soviet sidewinder. Is this story reliable at all?
I think this story is true and the commonality between early Sidewinders and Atoll is supposed to be quite high. But I don’t have any first hand evidence, possibly this story is slightly tuned.
SchorschBack to the original topic,
I agree, no 21st Century FBW system and landing aids to help out like on the Rafale.
In regards to the topic, what do you make out of this?
“The canard doesn’t contribute much lift in itself during normal flight, it acts more as a gigantic vortex generator for the main wing. During low speed flight, its rear edge flap can be lowered to increase lift and permit a high nose angle.”
(http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/37viggen.htm)
I have taken a look at your linked file. First, nice that you linked it. It is definitely result of some serious research. However, the author uses some methods which are doubtful in reliability for prediction of low speed characteristics for a quite non-linear airframe. Still, the guy assumingly knew that and tuned his inputs by orienting on the stated performance results. I have to take a deeper look at the file and will later come back.
SchorschAnd just where I have somebody able to read Russian, another graph.
[ATTACH]150230[/ATTACH]
My guess: MiG-23ML (that is obvious), dry thrust installed, over altitude at Mach 0.8. The very left (P) is the thrust in daN, the very right (CyA) is SFC. Don’t know what GB and PyA means, but units look strange.
SchorschHey buddy, what are you talking about? The practical aerodynamic manuals include detailed information about installed thrust, separate altitude/thrust and speed/thrust characteristics, SFC graphs as well,….etc
The thrust diagram of the TF-30P-412A you provided doesn`t look much like a russian one or anything else I`ve seen so far. Russians gives thrust mostly in Newtons as well as they do not write the “MACH NUMBER”!!. What exact altitudes the blue, green, orange lines are representing? Could you please give more specific information who wrote that soviet document(the source) if possible? thanks
The graph I have attached is my copy into Excel. The original looks more black and white, and doesn’t use use English notations.
I just took a look at the MiG-23 manual and I guess you mean this one?
[ATTACH]150229[/ATTACH]
I can’t read a single letter of Russian, so I am guessing using my general assumption of how it should look. The graph looks like full afterburner thrust over Mach number, parameter is altitude. Below is the specific fuel consumption. Unit is kg or daN. Haven’t found that for dry thrust, maybe you can give me an indication which page.
SchorschI’m not sure how to interpret the landing speeds in relation to what we know of planes like the Rafale. Which of the three speeds given here coincides with the the 115kt commonly given as Rafale approach speed? I’ve also seen 250km/h (134kt) given for Etendard IVM approach.
That the first speed is only given in km/h while the rest are in kt, km/h form… seems to suggest that the 220km/h (119kt) number is taken from a different source than the two others, with the implications that fact brings.
I think the approach speed is in line with other carrier aircraft, only the pitch attitude is a problem. That might be the biggest problem of the Viggen, as its delta doesn’t really produce much useful lift at low angles of attack (while the canards do help).
Sign In
