Panavia Tornado, MRCA, 100, and 300

[MCS]

The sketch that I have from Aviation & Marine, IIRC, dates back to '85 -'86 and it illustrated what appeared to be a GR.1 but with an extended nose along the lines of the F.3, but definitely a different shape.

It's a given that it would've been outftted with the AGM-88A Harm, but I'm wondering if it would've carried the AGM-78B.

[david sMiGielski]

Not sure if you've seen this: http://www.gallery02.kitparade.com/tornadowwss_1.htm

[ysi_maniac]

In the thread devoted to his last wonderful project, Thorvic wrote this:

The Panavia 100 was the lighter single seat Tornado (originally to be named Panther). The single seater was what the Germans and the Italians preferred but the RAF insisted on a larger two seater to meet its longer ranged strike requirement. I did find some artwork on a German site for the Single seat version
which should be found in one of my older threads.

The Panavia 300 was a passing reference i noted in an old Air Pictorial from the period where it appeared they were considering doing a slighter larger version to meet the RAF's requirements for the Canberra/Vulcan replacement. Its possible the 300 had a bigger fuselage to carry a greater load of fuel and bombs (might have included an enclosed bomb bay) coupled with larger wings for the greater range and weapon capacity the RAF desired since loosing TSR2.

However the lack of comonality with the smaller version quickly killed off the 300 concept and the others agreed to do with the 200 to save on costs.

Panavia at the time was also propossing a possible smaller trainer derived from the Tornado projects (possibly BAC P45/AA107 inspired) but i think the gov't were more interested in getting the Tornado built first before expanding the line up !!!.

Since then I have been reading something and I think that Panavia 100 would be, in fact, derived from german NKF and I got a 3 view drawing.

My question is, how could look Panavia 300? does anyone have an artist's impresion or 3 view?

:dum: I can think in an arithmetical approach:
Panavia 200, 2 engines and 2 seats. So Panavia 300, 3 engines and 3 seats (I think 2 seats would be enough anyway) 50% more gross weight, and so on.

I would appreciate any input.

Thanks,
Carlos.

[gunfighter]

You may take a F-111, add tornado tail, SU-32 undercarriage, tornado nose and scratchbuild the third canopy with a small window, like an Arrow or a Foxhound. Just a Tornado on steroyds?  

[B777LR]

You may take a F-111, add tornado tail, SU-32 undercarriage, tornado nose and scratchbuild the third canopy with a small window, like an Arrow or a Foxhound. Just a Tornado on steroyds?

How about the Su-24 instead of F-111? This project would be a nice subject for wyrmshadow to do, before making it plastic    :ar:

The 300 could also have been a naval version  Or a fighter-bomber with a proper radar, a non-extended fuselage  

[Archibald]

In the thread devoted to his last wonderful project, Thorvic wrote this:

The Panavia 100 was the lighter single seat Tornado (originally to be named Panther). The single seater was what the Germans and the Italians preferred but the RAF insisted on a larger two seater to meet its longer ranged strike requirement. I did find some artwork on a German site for the Single seat version
which should be found in one of my older threads.

The Panavia 300 was a passing reference i noted in an old Air Pictorial from the period where it appeared they were considering doing a slighter larger version to meet the RAF's requirements for the Canberra/Vulcan replacement. Its possible the 300 had a bigger fuselage to carry a greater load of fuel and bombs (might have included an enclosed bomb bay) coupled with larger wings for the greater range and weapon capacity the RAF desired since loosing TSR2.

However the lack of comonality with the smaller version quickly killed off the 300 concept and the others agreed to do with the 200 to save on costs.

Panavia at the time was also propossing a possible smaller trainer derived from the Tornado projects (possibly BAC P45/AA107 inspired) but i think the gov't were more interested in getting the Tornado built first before expanding the line up !!!.

Since then I have been reading something and I think that Panavia 100 would be, in fact, derived from german NKF and I got a 3 view drawing.

My question is, how could look Panavia 300? does anyone have an artist's impresion or 3 view?

:dum: I can think in an arithmetical approach:
Panavia 200, 2 engines and 2 seats. So Panavia 300, 3 engines and 3 seats (I think 2 seats would be enough anyway) 50% more gross weight, and so on.

I would appreciate any input.

Thanks,
Carlos.

I remember talking of the subject with Thorvic some months ago on MSN.
He explained me that the AFVG was less compromised than the MRCA.
I mean, needs of AdA and RAF were closer... both needed a very long range strike aircraft, in fact a light-medium bomber (to replace their TSR-2 and Mirage IV in the nucelar strike role).
On the other hand neither Germany nor Italy needed such aircraft... Germany pressed hard to have an aircraft with lesser range, an interdictor rather than a medium bomber.
It seems that there is (was?) some restrictions on the German side towards bombers.
I think that had the AFVG survived (or had the MRCA not been a compromised design) it would have been a much bigger aircraft, roughly the size of an F-111...

[Mossie]

I talked to Geoff (Thorvic) about the various Panavia projects at the recent SIG meeting.  As Archie mentioned, Tornado was a compromise.  Germany & Italy wanted a small aircraft to replace the Gina, Britain wanted a larger one to replace the Canberra.  The needs didn't quite meet & the only soloution was a compromise, which meant all three countries got an aircraft that was not  quite what they required, albiet they all managed to get one at a proce they could afford.

The Panavia 100 was a single seat version of Tornado, with shorter range which filled the needs of Germany & Italy.  The Panavia 200 was Tornado, a slightly larger two seat aircraft but with the shorter range of the 100, over spec for Germany & Italy, but under spec for Britain.  Panavia 300 was a larger aircraft with long range & heavy loads, more suited for the needs of the RAF.  Apparently there are very few details on it.  I asked Geoff if it was a Tornado IDS but based on the ADV airframe & he seemed to think it was quite a different beast.

Sorry to take on a question that was largely aimed at you Geoff, but I just wanted to check I had the details right?!?!? :dum:

[Archibald]

Why not a Scale-o-rama with a 1/48 Tornado ? It would be 1/3 larger than a 1/72 Tornado (sounds logical!)

Now I have to check dimensions of a 1/3 scaled-up Tornado...    

[Thorvic]

Don't forget the idea was for a sligjhtly larger aircraft but using many of the same components in a similar fashion to the difference between the 100 & 200.

The 300 as i said was only mentioned breifly and appeared not to be taken too seriously. I found a few editorials making comments about the concept but little evidence in books on the Tornado.

I suspect a lengthened Tornado ADV might do the trick with yet another plug behind the cockpit for another fuel tank and one aft of the wing box to reset the centre of gravity.

Wings and tail surfaces might be extended in a similar manor to the F-111C, The larger internal volume for fuel may also allow more interanl space additional avionics so the podded stuff that takes up the outer pylons could be incorporated interally and allow those pylons to again act as weapon stations.

G

[Mossie]

Thanks for the update Geoff!

  Why not a Scale-o-rama with a 1/48 Tornado ? It would be 1/3 larger than a 1/72 Tornado (sounds logical!)

Now I have to check dimensions of a 1/3 scaled-up Tornado...

Archie, I've got kits of the IDS & ADV in 1/72 & a dead 1/48 IDS in 1/48, so I took a pic of the fuselages to give you an idea:


Archie, as you can see the 1/48 fuselage is huge compared to the 1/72 versions.  You'd need to use the 1/72 forward fuse with the main fuse of the 1/48 kit & it'd probably be much easier to put plugs in the 1/72 ADV fuselage as Thorvic mentioned.  Plus everything would be completley out of scae if you went the scalorama way.

Hope it helps!  

[ysi_maniac]

Nice post. I did not know that they added a plug between wingbox and cockpit in ADV Tornado.

I like the idea of three RB-199. Odd number of engines is always cool IMHO. I do remember, long time ago someone in this forum posted a 3 engine Typhoon.

So:
widened aft fuselage to allow 3 engines
plugs in front and behind wingbox
longer wings
bigger tyres or double mounts
unchanged tail surfaces

Sound nice bttb, imho

Carlos.

[Hobbes]

I've been playing around with the Panavia 300 idea. I tried enlarging it enough to fit a bomb bay that can hold 4x 1000 lb Paveway.  I used a 6 m extension behind the cockpit, but that means you'd have to move the wing by several meters (and enlarge it considerably) to get an acceptable CG. Even then, with the bombs all the way forward you'd get a massive shift in CG when you drop them.
To solve this, you need the bomb bay to be closer to the CG, but that's only feasible if you create a deeper fuselage, so the bombs can sit underneath the intakes and engines. That means airframe commonality with the 100 and 200 versions drops to around 0.
If you forego the internal bomb bay things get more sensible.

[Thorvic]

I've been playing around with the Panavia 300 idea. I tried enlarging it enough to fit a bomb bay that can hold 4x 1000 lb Paveway.  I used a 6 m extension behind the cockpit, but that means you'd have to move the wing by several meters (and enlarge it considerably) to get an acceptable CG. Even then, with the bombs all the way forward you'd get a massive shift in CG when you drop them.
To solve this, you need the bomb bay to be closer to the CG, but that's only feasible if you create a deeper fuselage, so the bombs can sit underneath the intakes and engines. That means airframe commonality with the 100 and 200 versions drops to around 0.
If you forego the internal bomb bay things get more sensible.

Harro

Try looking at two tandem WE177 for the bombay between the engines as per TSR2, thats what they would have been considering. To go with four LGB's it would need to be a WE177 length but full width of the Fuselage and shallow.
The other option being to semi recess the the bombs as per the Hawker 1152 or how the ADV varaint carries its missiles.

To be honest i expect the 300 would probably have closely resembled a modified UKVG than its Tornado brothers in the end.

G  

[ysi_maniac]

In my alternative, 3 engines, a wider fuselage is needed; so there can be a not so narrow bomb bay between the legs.

[Archibald]

Here I go for the silliest question of the day...you'll need a third intake for the third RB-199... where will it be located ? on the back ?    Or just enlarged side intakes ?