more question of PAN avia Tornado

1976.July.29, tri-gov signed MoU for 809 Tornados in six batchs including 4 preseries brought up to production standard. But How this would be?
i22.photobucket.com...
Even we reduce the products of Saudi, the sixth batch products still not match the MoU initail.
Where is FredT? It's your responsibility I think

I've seen this said before. But what’s the deal with info on this sort of thing?

I cyber diagnose you with Gaining Aircraft Information Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (GAIOCD)

to the OP

from the file you linked the difference is

2

807 vs 809

maybe just maybe the last 2 were pushed over to batch 7 through time issues.

also what was the original order for the F-22

and look how many will be bought - these things happen all the time

No, not only two!
While MoU was signed by tri-gov in 1976, the 809 amount has never contained those Saudi ordered following. How can they acumulate the nomber which are unexpected?

Well it appears that Tornado production overall was 977 w/o prototypes and development aircraft, minus the 120 built for Saudi leaves 857, minus the additional 35 ECR's for Germany equals 822, a difference of only 13, which could easily be accounted for with attrition replacements for all three operators including those RAF aircraft lost in GW1.

Germany initially signed for 320 aircraft, but bought 357, including 35 ECR's plus two replacements

Italy initially signed for 100 aircraft but actually received one less at 99.
Almost half the Italian order was destined for storage from the off anyway so they wouldn't need to be buying spares, their 100 aircraft total was a political target, not a military one, aimed at securing workshare

The UK signed for 385 Tornadoes, made up of 220 IDS and 165 ADV and eventually received 228 IDS ( 8 replacements) and 173 ADV (8 extra new build F.3 trainers (batch 7). making a UK total of 401.

357 + 99 + 401 + 120 (Saudi) = 977

Makes sense to me.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by waynos]

[edit on 4-6-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by emile
No, not only two!
While MoU was signed by tri-gov in 1976, the 809 amount has never contained those Saudi ordered following. How can they acumulate the nomber which are unexpected?

The RAF deferred a number of their aircraft so Saudi Arabia could take earlier delivery slots, leaving the RAF with later production batches - in much the same way the Eurofighter deal was finalised.

At last! Waynos:
Without you, how can I live! You'd better join to write JAWA!
The Tornado make me to be more exciting.
Climb to 30000ft less than 2 minutes. Do you know how does Typhoon could be? -- to 36000 less than 2 minutes 30 seconds. So the initial climb rate would be similar! Is it possible? We should know that TW rate of Tornado is much less than Typhoon and wing load to both!
has product line of Tornado been dismantled?

[edit on 4-6-2007 by emile]

Yes, its perfectly possible emile, though the climb rate of the Tornado is for the ADV, its longer fuselage gives it an increased fineness ratio and its RB.199's are more powerful (or at least they were before GR.4) as the time-to-height is an important part of the RAF's intercept requirement.

Yes, the production lines for the Tornado are now long gone, the Typhoon is built at those sites.

The RAF English Electric Lightning had an initial climb rate of 50,000 ft per minute and could do this over the runway from a brake release roll to verticle climb in 600m of runway - and could climb to 90,000 feet in 2 1/2 mins (ft lt mike hale is reported in unofficial comments to have made a succesful intecept of a blackbird - intercepting is not about all out top speed but time to height and postition - 2 minutes is not along time at all especially with RAF controllers guiding you in)


it is off quoted the F3 Tornado ADV has a climb rate of 43,000 ft per minute - which follows on the tradition of High speed and climb rate interceptors - the ADV though of course has MUCH longer legs that the Lightning!

My only disappointment was that the ADV was never allowed to shine in GW1 or 2 - as an interceptor its an awesome aircraft and could very well have held its own.

[edit on 6/6/07 by Harlequin]

[edit on 6/6/07 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Harlequin
The RAF English Electric Lightning had an initial climb rate of 50,000 ft per minute and could do this over the runway from a brake release roll to verticle climb in 600m of runway - and could climb to 90,000 feet in 2 1/2 mins (ft lt mike hale is reported in unofficial comments to have made a succesful intecept of a blackbird - intercepting is not about all out top speed but time to height and postition - 2 minutes is not along time at all especially with RAF controllers guiding you in)


it is off quoted the F3 Tornado ADV has a climb rate of 43,000 ft per minute - which follows on the tradition of High speed and climb rate interceptors - the ADV though of course has MUCH longer legs that the Lightning!

My only disappointment was that the ADV was never allowed to shine in GW1 or 2 - as an interceptor its an awesome aircraft and could very well have held its own.

[edit on 6/6/07 by Harlequin]

[edit on 6/6/07 by Harlequin]

Wow! A big bigger thanks to Harlequin!
Where did you get the data of 43000ft/m by Torndao ADV? It seem to be much less than IDS, also less than F-4 phantom2 did. I want source, please.

Three aircraft are respactively kings of climb speed, F-4, EE Lightning and F-104 in 50's, then three in 60's are over 200m/s those are Su-15, MiG-25 and MiG-23.

Where did you get the data of 43000ft/m by Torndao ADV? It seem to be much less than IDS,

Surely you mean much *more* than IDS?

of course, think the climb time compare with the Typhoon,
IDS: time to 9150(30000ft) less tan 2 min
Eurofighter: time to 12200(36000ft) up to 2 min 30s
The Eurofighter's climb rate has been known as 315Meter/s
But the ADV only 43000ft/m approxi to 14964M/s = 249m/s
Now we presume all of those climb rate to be linear function, then we can get the line grawing below:

in which the bule denote as Eurofighter, the red line denote as Tornado IDS
I surpeised that slope of IDS even higher than Eurofighter, so the climb rate of IDS will be same as Eurofighter at least, maybe highter than Eurofighter.
But for the ADV which heavier, longer than IDS, I have no idea.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by emile]

I think you are working with the wrong figures or wrong equations emile, the IDS has the slowest climb rate of the three, because it was designed as a low level bomber. Remember, the ADV was specifically adapted from the IDS with this in mind and it recieved more powerful engines and a longer, more streamlined, fuselage *specifically* to increase the rate of climb to meet RAF needs. Also, it is not encumbered with the heavy payload that the IDS hauls around. The max level speed of the ADV is 1,450mph, compared with 1,385mph for an unladen IDS. They did not make the ADV to be slower, on the level or in the climb.

I don't care the purpose of design, all I know only is the result. 43000ft/min made Waynos so embarrassed I am still waiting for the course of data.

Originally posted by emile
I don't care the purpose of design, all I know only is the result. 43000ft/min made Waynos so embarrassed

I am still waiting for the course of data.

Its not me thats embarrassed emile, I'm not the one thqat thinks the low-level bomber variant of Tornado can outclimb the Interceptor version.

Let me spell it out for you. The figure given in Jane's for the Tornado IDS to 30,000ft is 'less than two minutes' - hardly a precise measurement, no figure at all is given for the ADV, from this you can only assume that there is no noticeable difference, the 43,000ft/min figure you are basing your assessment on is an *oft quoted* figure, again, not a precise measurement.

Before you ask, no, I do not have precise figures, only what is in Jane's, although the time for the ADV to 30,000ft is given as 1.7 minutes in the 1987 OBA, there is no figure given for the IDS with which to compare it - again it might be presumed that this is because the figures are the same.

Emile as wynos has repeatidly said , the IDS is a bomber and is designed for low level work , where as the much longer ADV , which has far less external stores and more powerful engies is designed for racing off teh runway after backfire bombers!

The ADV was desined and built to be faster than teh IDS.

please understand that - your quoting figures for the wrong aircraft.

Originally posted by emile
IDS: time to 9150(30000ft) less tan 2 min
Eurofighter: time to 12200(36000ft) up to 2 min 30s..... 315Meter/s
But the ADV only 43000ft/m approxi to 14964M/s = 249m/s
[edit on 6-6-2007 by emile]

I think all you need is those 3 lines right there to know what I would think. heck you don't even need the graph.

Waynos are these figure correct? I'm assuming that you had said that no one knows the true time to climb of the IDS and its all a guess correct? And I fail to see the point that emile is trying to make? sure wording/spelling doesn't help but I feel as if the water is getting more and more muddy.

The ADV was desined and built to be faster than teh IDS.

please understand that - your quoting figures for the wrong aircraft.

Thats exactly what I was thinking but can you/anyone explain what aircraft figures emile has been using?

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

He is using a rough estimate, 'less than two minutes' which he has himself converted into a precise meters/second figure (an amazing feat) and an 'oft quoted' figure, ie another estimate, which he has also magically converted into a very precise m/s climb rate and then compared these fictional values.

I had never before realised that the precise climb rate of the Tornado was so hard to come by, until I tried to find the proper figures for emile.

Im not sure how correct you would view this waynos but I found the figures for the IDS on wikipedia.... yeah I know they could be wrong but they sound right.

Rate of climb: 76.7 m/s (15,100 ft/min)

with that figure the plane would reach 30 200ft in a min making the statement correct that the plane will reach 30 000ft in under a min.

But again Canada, the 15,100ft/min figure rather neatly fits with 'under two minutes' to 30,000ft. This just leads me to question where it came from. Did, for example, the wiki contributor simply do what emile has also done and extrapolated a precise figure that fits with the rather broad statement? If so that renders it rather meaningless. If Janes says 'under two minutes' and aerospaceweb says 'unknown' I wonder if the figure is actually classified?

The OBA figure of '1.7 minutes' is the closest I have seen to an actual figure but I have been unable, as yet to find any other source. If that figure is accurate then it equates to 294 ft/second, or 17,640 ft/min. Not spectacular at all.