• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: another plane crash ...

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.

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?

Antworten