Jump to content

Tornado F.3 question


Recommended Posts

hi guys, please would someone let me know if technically the Tornado F.3 can fly with 4 fuel tanks? (2x 2250 lt. Hindenburg underwing + 2x 1500 lt. standard underbelly) and if yes, the shoulder pylons are the same of GR.1/4s?

I read in an old thread that they had flown so for long transfer journeys, but I can not find pictures.

thanks in advance.

Edited by Alpagueur
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks yes, big ones on the wings with 1500 or 1000 under the fuse.

Wing Pylons, the F3 inboard pylon usually had 2 sidewinder rails, one either side gr1/4 usually only had 1 (inboard), out board pylons could be carried (actually prefered as if reduced fatigue) but don't know if it would with 4 tanks.

Regards,

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless someone can provide photographic evidence to suggest otherwise I will say no they couldn't carry under fuselage tanks. There is no evidence on the net to support that they could and in all my years working with the RAF I've never seen it. We used to get the F3's into Lossiemouth on a regular basis before they headed Stateside on deployments and no aircraft ever turned up with that fitment of tanks. Although there is the photograph of the F2 with them fitted it was a completely different a/c. There was no need for the F3 to carry all that fuel as it was born an interceptor who's job was to get airborne and make contact with the enemy as quick as possible, with all that fuel onboard it would've been a slouch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall reading somewhere, though I can't for the life of me remember where, that the fuselage extensions made to create the F.3, plus internal re-plumbing associated with different engines and the recesses for the Skyflash missiles, essentially made it impossible for the F.3 to make any practical use of the shoulder pylons for auxiliary fuel tank purposes. Essentially, the F.3's fuel lines were run with no consideration made for extra fuel carried on fuselage stations.

Whether it was possible or not for the F.3 to carry four fuel tanks, is quite secondary to how impractical it would be for it to do so. Even for long range ferrying purposes, it would make more sense for the aircraft to be flown with tanker support than load them down with unnecessary drag penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall reading somewhere, though I can't for the life of me remember where, that the fuselage extensions made to create the F.3, plus internal re-plumbing associated with different engines and the recesses for the Skyflash missiles, essentially made it impossible for the F.3 to make any practical use of the shoulder pylons for auxiliary fuel tank purposes. Essentially, the F.3's fuel lines were run with no consideration made for extra fuel carried on fuselage stations.

Whether it was possible or not for the F.3 to carry four fuel tanks, is quite secondary to how impractical it would be for it to do so. Even for long range ferrying purposes, it would make more sense for the aircraft to be flown with tanker support than load them down with unnecessary drag penalties.

Well I'd say the recesses weren't an issue, because there are readily available pictures of the F.2 with shoulder pylon tanks in place. The shoulder lyons fit behind the front recesses and outside of the rear fairings (the rear Skyflash mounts weren't recessed) ,Which takes care of the front fuselage extension as a re-plumbing issue. The rear fuselage extension for the longer afterburner on the F.3 is at the rear of the fuselage, behind the taileron hinge point, so while it's certainly not unfeasible that some replumbing of fuel lines made it impossible for shoulder tanks to be carried, it does seem unlikely given the placement of the rear fuselage extension relative to the shoulder pylons.

Pictures of GR.1/4/IDS with shoulder or centreline pylons for ferrying purposes are very common, so clearly it IS used as a ferry option for them, and frequently, irrespective of tanker support. My assessment would be that fitting the F.3 with shoulder tanks was probably quite possible, but simply never required for ferrying. The F.2 pics are a trials aircraft at Boscombe down, so trialled and never cleared or trialled but never needed? Dunno, but it's an interesting question. There are also pics of an F.2 with Kormoran missiles on the shoulder pylons. The only store I ever saw on the F.3 with shoulder pylons was the EF.3's ALARM fit.

(footnote :- I was POSITIVE I'd seen pics of an F.3 with belly tanks, but am happy to concede I was mistaken, and the pics I was thinking of are the Boscombe trials F.2. Live and learn!)

Went to PPRUNE to ask the question, as expected quick replies putting the issue to bed with exact details of where and when:-

F.3 shoulder tanks

Edited by Dmanton300
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, my bad. I thought those tanks on the aircraft I photographed were on the fixed part of the wing root area (ala the F-14, hence my description as shoulder pylons) now I see they were wing mounted. Sorry about that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, my bad. I thought those tanks on the aircraft I photographed were on the fixed part of the wing root area (ala the F-14, hence my description as shoulder pylons) now I see they were wing mounted. Sorry about that...

Easy mistake to make. The Tornado has three belly pylons, a centreline and two outers, the outers are known as the "shoulder" pylons for the Tornado.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to PPRUNE to ask the question, as expected quick replies putting the issue to bed with exact details of where and when:-

F.3 shoulder tanks

many thanks Dmanton... so which F.3 would be more reliable for this heavy ferry configuration?

where could I find pics of the "XXV(F) Sqn (2005)" bird Take That was talking about?

regards

Edited by Alpagueur
Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy mistake to make. The Tornado has three belly pylons, a centreline and two outers, the outers are known as the "shoulder" pylons for the Tornado.

Only on the RAF GR1/GR4 after Op Granby in 1990.

GR1A/GR4A cant carry the centerline one because it interfears with the recon pod buldge underneath

That picture is of a display showing what can be carried, hence the gun and ammo box in the foreground. The tanks are positioned to show that either tank can be carried under the wing.

Yeah,it looks like a publicity/role shot to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...