Panavia Tornado, MRCA, 100, and 300

[alertken]

pds/#53 and thorvic/54: apology for belated input. NKF75, early-1968 upon demise of AVS was intended as a NATO-wide F-104G replacement, including for Marineflieger...from Baltic land bases. On 17/7/68 6 Nations/7 prospective Users initiated MRCA Definition Phase. Neither Aeritalia, nor BAC, nor Canadair, nor Fokker, nor MBB, nor SABCA imposed anything: this was a genuine menage a 6, which on 22/7/70 became the Development Phase of the common 2 seat (Tornado IDS) for 3 Nations/4 Users. Unlikely that any VS/Dassault/AFVG carrier-stress heritage was of interest to the schemers of fuselage (MBB) and wing (AIT) structure (BAC almost from 18/7/68 attended to the cockpit/avionics bay). Weight/cost control were the key to getting 6xGovernments to persevere with what became the largest trans-Euro industrial programme. US Govt. and industry tried very, very hard to kill MRCA, with co-production, even for BAC co-development Offers on F-15, F-20, F-anything you like. They succeeded with F-16 Sale of the Century (RBAF/RNethAF) and with CF-18.

This forum should purge recollection of the US poster on the linked forum.

[Spey_Phantom]

just a quick question, im plannin to navalise 3 Tonka's for carrier ops (2 GR.1's and 1 F.3). i was thinking, if the MRCA was proposed to replace the F-4K/M on CVA-01, how would Panavia navalise it, im guessing a nose-wheel in the same style as the F/A-18?.

any help and/or design tips would be appreciated.

PS: would the Tornado 2000 be more capable/powerfull fitted with EJ200 engines

[PR19_Kit]

just a quick question, im plannin to navalise 3 Tonka's for carrier ops (2 GR.1's and 1 F.3). i was thinking, if the MRCA was proposed to replace the F-4K/M on CVA-01, how would Panavia navalise it, im guessing a nose-wheel in the same style as the F/A-18?.

any help and/or design tips would be appreciated.

PS: would the Tornado 2000 be more capable/powerfull fitted with EJ200 engines

I think they'd dispense with the reverse thrust option as they'd have to have a big hook to stop it anyway. How about an extendible nose leg, like the F-4Ks, as well as a cat arm on the front of it? Folding nose radome on the F3?

The numbers comparing the EJ200 and the RB199, as quoted on Wikipedia, don't add up. According to them the RB199 weighs 50 lbs less and produces less thrust but it's power to weight ratio is far higher.....

Someone needs a better calculator perhaps, but the telling point is that the standard EJ200 doesn't have a reverser, so that should ease any installation issues.

[Hobbes]

The most visible changes would be the wheels and arrestor hook. Maybe go to dual wheels on the main gear legs, certainly heavier gear legs.

Kit: Wikipedia quotes a 7.6:1 thrust:weight ratio for the RB199, and 9.175:1 for the EJ200, ie a higher ratio for the EJ200, which is what you'd expect.

fitting the EJ200 should improve performance quite a bit. The question is will they fit? The diameter is very close, perhaps close enough. You'll need new intakes, but the Tornado 2000 has those anyway. Nils: are you going to build a Tornado 2000?

[Spey_Phantom]

Nils: are you going to build a Tornado 2000?

no, just thinking of upgrading a spare GR.1/4/F.3 with some Tonka 2000 features 

[PR19_Kit]

Kit: Wikipedia quotes a 7.6:1 thrust:weight ratio for the RB199, and 9.175:1 for the EJ200, ie a higher ratio for the EJ200, which is what you'd expect.

Not when the thrust of the RB199 is quoted as 16400 lbs, and weight at 2151 lbs, (thrust/weight ratio calculates at 7.6:1) and that for the EJ200 is quoted at 13500 lbs thrust (LESS than the RB199) and 2180 lbs weight (MORE than the RB199) (thrust/weight ratio calculates at 6.19:1, not the 9.175:1 that they quote).............

[Hobbes]

The T:W ratio for 9.175:1 is correct for the quoted thrust using afterburner. The RB199 figure doesn't mention this, but it's also the thrust with afterburner. Dry thrust for that engine is 41 kN, that's 9217 lb.

[PR19_Kit]

Like I said, the numbers don't add up.............

[Hobbes]

Amended the Wikipedia articles 

[Mossie]

Found this snippet:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Panavia-Tornado.html

Plans have been outlined for at least some GR.Mk 1 Bs to be modified to carry the Flight Refueling Mk 20B HDU pods that were previously used by the Victor fleet.

Buddy refuelling for RAF tonkas would be a subtle whiff, HDU pods robbed from the Victor kit.

[ysi_maniac]

[Gondor]

Found this snippet:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Panavia-Tornado.html

Plans have been outlined for at least some GR.Mk 1 Bs to be modified to carry the Flight Refueling Mk 20B HDU pods that were previously used by the Victor fleet.

Buddy refuelling for RAF tonkas would be a subtle whiff, HDU pods robbed from the Victor kit.

You could use the buddy pod from the Revell Luftwaffe version of the Tonka

Gondor

[ysi_maniac]

Single seat Tornado

[McColm]

A maritime version of the F3 seems plausible.

[Zero-Sen]