Is it wrong to love the Panavia Tornado?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

MadRat And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag 1/19/2006 11:19:10 PM

And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) Some redesign is necessary as the EJ200's are somewhat wider in diameter (35.5" versus 29.6") and longer (130" versus 157") than the RB.99 dimensions. (Note: The ADV's RB.99 is 142" in length.) This will cause a slight rearward shift in the plane's center of gravity, which alone requires quite alot of modelling to pull off. The RB.99 is 2,260 pounds in weight versus the 2,286 pounds, so it won't change much for the overall weight. Quite frankly, both of these Eurocentric engines blow away the American counterparts in size and weights. Funny statistic when you think about the RB.99, even the Goshawk F405 engine is an inch wider! :)

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:F35 Name 1/19/2006 11:22:03 PM

I'm quite partial to F-35A Mud Muppet myself.

Quote Reply

MadRat RE:F35 Name - IMO it should be Python (nt) 1/19/2006 11:22:45 PM

No text of value here. Nothing to read, hence the NT = No Text.

Quote Reply

Weasel RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag 1/19/2006 11:26:29 PM

"... Some redesign is necessary as the EJ200's are somewhat wider in diameter (35.5" versus 29.6") and longer (130" versus 157") than the RB.99 dimensions. (Note: The ADV's RB.99 is 142" in length.) This will cause a slight rearward shift in the plane's center of gravity, which alone requires quite alot of modelling to pull off. The RB.99 is 2,260 pounds in weight versus the 2,286 pounds, so it won't change much for the overall weight. Quite frankly, both of these Eurocentric engines blow away the American counterparts in size and weights. .." So stretch it the other way and even it out..... Besides, you are going to have to re-do the whole air intake assembly and configuration to suit a new supercruise class GT anyway, right? cheers W

Quote Reply

MadRat RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag 1/19/2006 11:29:58 PM

By then you may as well just redesign the tail for a single F119 or F135.

Quote Reply

skrip00 RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag 1/20/2006 12:27:43 AM

Or F-136... Keep that program alive!

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag 1/20/2006 12:34:35 AM

(heh heh...it's always the smallest of typos that throws the world into disarray...) The RB.199 was a very compact little powerhouse, even featuring unique thrust reversers on the Tornado, not something very many combat aircraft have (I believe the Viggen has one also, venting through those slits under the tailfin...?), and is very useful for reducing landing rolls. As per the Hawk airframe, back in the days when the Hawk 200 was ready for production (a dedicated light fighter/attack platform), there were a handful of suggestions that a slightly de-rated RB.199 would've fit the airframe nicely (although the thrust reverser would most likely not be installed, due to the Hawk's tailplane and fin lay out), and offered considerable performance from such a lightweight. For that matter, I'm surprised the USN didn't go for a de-rated, non-afterburning F404 for its T-45 Goshawks. Digging around further, I've found similar data which offers that the Tornado F.3 uses 7900kg thrust (just over 17,400pounds) RB.199 34R Mk104 engines. Eurojet EJ200 goes to around 20,000pounds (although has a tad more room for growth, but could still be out-done by the F414 of Super Hornets). Sweden's Gripen uses a license-built copy of the F404, as the RM12, pushing at 18,100pounds thrust. I would think that, minimally, the RB.199 would be able to at least reach the 18,000pounds mark (although those Euros and their metric dependancy would say 8200kg). But seeing as the Tornado would be the only platform for it because of the integrated thrust reverser (everyone else opting for F404s, rebuilt J79s, or other similar engines), there's really no sense to develop the engine further...unless Germany gets others to agree to the Typhoon delays, requiring Tornados to soldier on longer.

Quote Reply

MadRat RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag 1/20/2006 1:03:07 AM

My mistake on the TU being an RB.199. I copied it out of the database wrong. :) From what I see the derated F404 is still 87" in length while the F405 is 76.6" and another 3.9" thinner in diameter. That would of required quite alot of tweaking by the looks of it. They would of stuck with the TA-4S if they wanted that much power. And to think the TA-4S was truly hardened for carrier use, too... One thing to point out on the F414. The EJ200 is 200 pounds less in weight and revs out to its limiter a few seconds faster than the F414. It might now sound like much, but it definitely makes for the better thrill ride. And one other drawback about the F414, it needs alot of airflow to get its 30-odd percent of boost over the F404. It probably would take another 10% bigger throat over the EJ200, which means you wouldn't probably want to outguess which one to choose for the expansion. I'm surprised the RB.199 didn't rev out quicker than either one, but that engine all around seems to have been built pretty conservative in nature even though its one real hot running engine.

Quote Reply

DropBear Marineflieger 1/20/2006 2:33:19 AM

Unless a Typhoon or F-35 can lug around two Kormoran anti-ship missiles, then the Tornado IDS will soldier on for many more years.

Quote Reply

Iano_returns RE: Tornado replacement 1/20/2006 5:57:36 AM

Look I myself like the Tornado very much (at least the GR) and think its served us very well. It'll be a sad day when it goes... But it can't soldier on forever! I think we can agree for the UK (and probably most other nations) there are going to be different types of fast jet we need: Fighter-interceptor (RAF) for air to air - We've already picked Eurofighter Fighter-bomber (RAF) for ground attack & maritimestrike - ??? Attack fighter (RAF) for CAS & coastal combat - we've picked F35 STOVL for this Naval fighter (RN) multirole - we've picked F35 but CV version wouldve been much better than STOVL for this role. So what we are on about really is what will be the fighter bomber. Agreed Tornado as it is doing well in that role and other options arent available at the mo. But realistically in the future we are looking at either F35 A version (the USAF version) or Eurofighter (probably modified with 2 seats and hopefully swingwing for low level). My money goes on Eurofighter GR1 I gotta say, sad though it'll be to see the fin go!

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT