Panavia Tornado, MRCA, 100, and 300

[Howard of Effingham]

i'm building up a very nice if a little frustrating in places RoG   and have hit on the idea of an RAF buddy refueling tanker using the AAR pod in the kit that RoG marks as out of use.

should i go for the large hindenburger tanks under the wings or the smaller drop tanks? and is there clearance enough to fit one of the hindenburger's under the fuselage with the AAR pod on the other under fuselage pylon.

it will get 50 sqn markings,  

trevor  

[P1127]

Big tanks won't fit under the fuselage, but a smaller one would.

I've never been able to find pictures of the actual trial (which was during the 1991 Gulf war) to see if they carried big tanks on the wings, but I would guess that they would have.

[ysi_maniac]

Thinking again on Panavia 300.

I have changed my mind, no more 3 engines.
What about mating cockpit and nose from an ADV Tornado and the rest from a F-111? Fuselage cockpit sections have similar size.
Any British engine similar, preferably better, to TF-30?

Thanks for your help.

[Archibald]

Thinking again on Panavia 300.

I have changed my mind, no more 3 engines.
What about mating cockpit and nose from an ADV Tornado and the rest from a F-111? Fuselage cockpit sections have similar size.
Any British engine similar, preferably better, to TF-30?

Thanks for your help.

Spey 300 similar to the F-4K would be perfect

[ysi_maniac]

Thinking again on Panavia 300.

I have changed my mind, no more 3 engines.
What about mating cockpit and nose from an ADV Tornado and the rest from a F-111? Fuselage cockpit sections have similar size.
Any British engine similar, preferably better, to TF-30?

Thanks for your help.

Spey 300 similar to the F-4K would be perfect

Was this powerful enough?  

[elmayerle]

Since the Spey 200 was in the F-4K/M, I'm assuming the Spey 300 would be equivalent to the afterburning TF41 that Allison/RR tested in 1967 at 26,000 lbt. in afterburner.  Will that be adequate?  The dry thrust would be the same as, or a little  higher than (variable nozzles help) that of the dry TF41.

[ysi_maniac]

I have been making measurements on Neue KampfFluzeuge. I think it is possible to build it from a IDS Tornado. Severe kitbashing needed : narrowing fuselage to single engine, simplifying intakes, blanking rear cockpit, ...

IMHO this would be Panavia 100.

thinking    

[ysi_maniac]

BTW: If someone wants a 3view of Neue KampfFlugzeug, just PM me.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Hi everybody!

On F-16.net, I read this:

Third, the RB199 was designed for a specific mission profile, long range cruise with low fuel consumption and then high power for a fast deep strike at low level. The Tornado airframe was designed and stressed for carrier operations, this requirement ruled out the F-15, the F-14 was not available for sale and did not have the flight characteristics to meet the mission profile.

Hi found that on the fourth post here:here

Do you ever heard something about that? Because I don't.
Did the Royal Navy get involved in the initial design of the Tornado?

[Thorvic]

Hi everybody!

On F-16.net, I read this:

Third, the RB199 was designed for a specific mission profile, long range cruise with low fuel consumption and then high power for a fast deep strike at low level. The Tornado airframe was designed and stressed for carrier operations, this requirement ruled out the F-15, the F-14 was not available for sale and did not have the flight characteristics to meet the mission profile.

Hi found that on the fourth post here:here

Do you ever heard something about that? Because I don't.
Did the Royal Navy get involved in the initial design of the Tornado?

PDS

Not as far as i know as the carriers were earmarked for destruction before the Tornado program was agreed.

However much of the Tornado design can traced back via the UKVG, AFVG to the BAC583 where the latter two were intended for carrier ops so the parameter may have been a legacy from the earlier concepts. It is possible some hope was given to the Carriers getting reprive as they did soldier on till the late 1970's.

The other aspect is that at the time the Tornado was being designed the RAF was getting the Buccaneer S2 which was built to Naval standards, its possible that they appreciated the stronger build elements of the Naval Design for the low level flying so maybe they requested Naval strength for the Tornado ?

G

[Steel Penguin]

simaler to my request on the TSR2 section ive an airfix GR1B in 1:48th, itll be for display ( but not too close inspection) and wargaming.
any suggestion on weapon sellers/ loadouts,   ive a slight lean towards the belly mounted jp system with bombs and sidewinders on the wings, but am open to suggestions, guideance.
any help gratefuly anticipated.
( i could make it a LGB carryer as ive a jag that can make the laser pointer if need be, though id need suggestion of where to get the laseing pod from)

[Weaver]

simaler to my request on the TSR2 section ive an airfix GR1B in 1:48th, itll be for display ( but not too close inspection) and wargaming.
any suggestion on weapon sellers/ loadouts,   ive a slight lean towards the belly mounted jp system with bombs and sidewinders on the wings, but am open to suggestions, guideance.
any help gratefuly anticipated.
( i could make it a LGB carryer as ive a jag that can make the laser pointer if need be, though id need suggestion of where to get the laseing pod from)

If it's a GR.1B, then it's the sub-type specifically wired for Sea Eagles.....

A typical loadout with JP.233 would be two pods on the belly pylons, tanks and Sidewinders on the inners and Sky Shadow & BOZ pods on the outers. The drop tanks and ECM/Chaff pods are pretty much fixtures whatever else the Tornado is carrying.

[Mossie]

I think that you should have the TIALD laser designator in the kit, I've not seen the GR.1B, but it's there in the GR.1/1A incarnation of the kit.  It generally goes on the centreline with the usual tanks, 'winders, Boz & Skyshadow on the wings.  Generally TIALD kitted Tonka's didn't carry other ordnance becuse they buddy lased for the others in the formation.

The GR.1B was externally identical to the GR.1 IIRC, the only way to distinguish them when they materialised was that they were the first Tornadoes to be painted grey, or if they were carrying Sea Eagle.

Have you settled on an operator & scheme?  That might help determine what load out you want, for instance it might look good with some ordanance that the Tornado doesn't normally carry, i.e. US or French weapons.  If you went Indian, you might even be able to pop some Russian stuff on it!

[Steel Penguin]

ittl be RAF ( boringly im afraid) ( or the UNIT/ RAF option from the TSR2 thread) as itll be supporting my 80s brits,  but im happy to throw things round as if all else fails by a few days after the ballon going up  id throw whatever i could at the  Russians, Cybermen, Darleks, Tau, Tyranids, kryomec, Volgans etc.

but jp.223s on the belly are one of the "iconic" shots for me of the Tonka so its realy a must. possibly  a case for using the split drop pods on the wings then, or did they ever fever dream top mounted conformal fuel tanks for them.   or maybe go for over wing rails like on the jsq, i can just drop a single pin for em to pivit on through the wing?

[ysi_maniac]

Ideas about Panavia-300