Did you know that registration to Fighter Control is completely free and brings you lots of added features? Find out more....
Silly Tonka question
Silly Tonka question
I've just been watching some film of the Tonkas going through Lossie, swept wings, pushing the magic mach 1 and spread at about 200 mph and it got me thinking. What is the time scale from flying with spread wings at say 200 mph to first mach 1 and then to 'full chat'?
Like I said, silly question that has popped into my head!
Like I said, silly question that has popped into my head!
Jim Bowen, on "Bullseye" :- In which state of the U.S.A. is Dallas, Texas ??
Re: Silly Tonka question
Tonkas can't do mach1 they had the ramps in the intakes wired at a certain angle (cant remember what).
it is also to do with altituide speed is relevant to that.
ie concorde doing mach2 at 40000 ft the ground speed would be a lot slower.
it is also to do with altituide speed is relevant to that.
ie concorde doing mach2 at 40000 ft the ground speed would be a lot slower.
Re: Silly Tonka question
Actually if the Jet was clean she could in theory go supersonic, the Ramps when they were operational didn't start moving until she hit M1.3. However the LRMTS fairing on the RH side would cause the engine to flame out before then hence the strake in the intake. Ramp position was also controlled by AOA not just airspeed.
Regards
Regards
It don't mean a thing if the wings don't swing!!
Miracles I can do...the impossible takes a little longer!
Miracles I can do...the impossible takes a little longer!
Re: Silly Tonka question
The variable inlet ramps were wield as a cost saving measure a few years back, however she can still hit Mach 1.2 to 1.4 at height. No hope low level
-
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:19 pm
Re: Silly Tonka question
GR4 or F3? The F-3 is still one of the fastest aircraft?
Re: Silly Tonka question
Tornados not capable of Mach 1?
Funny , I'm sure they were capable of Mach 2, I have them as being capable of 2,338 km/h!!
Anyway, no body has actually answered my question!
Funny , I'm sure they were capable of Mach 2, I have them as being capable of 2,338 km/h!!
Anyway, no body has actually answered my question!
Jim Bowen, on "Bullseye" :- In which state of the U.S.A. is Dallas, Texas ??
Re: Silly Tonka question
Probably because nobody on here has any idea! Sounds like a question for PPrune.
Anyway there's not a lot of point looking at Top Trump-style max speed numbers as most of the stores carried are limited to subsonic speeds. I think the F3 was the fastest at sea level at the time, no idea if anything's beaten it since.
Anyway there's not a lot of point looking at Top Trump-style max speed numbers as most of the stores carried are limited to subsonic speeds. I think the F3 was the fastest at sea level at the time, no idea if anything's beaten it since.
-
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:19 pm
Re: Silly Tonka question
Indeed, that's how I know the F3 is the fastest at low level (faster than F-15s, F-111s, B-1s etc) and very competitive at higher levels.gamecock wrote:Probably because nobody on here has any idea! Sounds like a question for PPrune.
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-102450.html
Re: Silly Tonka question
Not sure comparing an F3 to a B1, i.e. a fighter to a strategic bomber is really proving anything? I'm led to believe also that the F3 was less than competitive at higher levels.page_verify wrote:Indeed, that's how I know the F3 is the fastest at low level (faster than F-15s, F-111s, B-1s etc) and very competitive at higher levels.gamecock wrote:Probably because nobody on here has any idea! Sounds like a question for PPrune.
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-102450.html
-
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:19 pm
Re: Silly Tonka question
Pure low level speed, the B-1B was also meant to be capable of supersonic speeds a low level.
Re: Silly Tonka question
I stand to be corrected but I thought the B1B was subsonic at low levels, only supersonic (just) at higher altitude. The B1A which never reached production was proposed to be faster.page_verify wrote:Pure low level speed, the B-1B was also meant to be capable of supersonic speeds a low level.
Re: Silly Tonka question
The BAe pilots would routinely take the Tornados over the North sea for supersonic runs on their post maintenance shakedown flights. I'm guessing always in clean loadout. Not heard that happen for a year or so with the winding down.
An old but good thread on Pprune about the subject of the GR4 being supersonic http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-249417.html (11 years old now )
An old but good thread on Pprune about the subject of the GR4 being supersonic http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-249417.html (11 years old now )
Posh BSM Trophy winners 2024
Re: Silly Tonka question
On a tour of CBY last year a 41 sqd pilot told us he took a GR4 to M1.6, once, with tanks, and never again, as it was trying to shake itself to pieces. So sounds like its still capable of mid range M1, but you wouldn't want to do it often.
Re: Silly Tonka question
I've just read 'Testing Tornado:Cold War Naval Fighter Pilot To BAe Chief Test Pilot'. I'm sure the answer is in there, I can't recall it though, when I go for the second read I'll post up if the info is there. He does talk at length about maneuverability and performance at the different wing sweeps and speeds and compares the GR/F versions.
In this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
Re: Silly Tonka question
I had a quick flick through, no timings but in testing they took the IDS P-08 prototype to M1.8 at least at altitude. They did quite a few 4 hour test flights down the Irish sea with Victor tanker support checking VNE at various configurations.
In this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
Re: Silly Tonka question
So the old stated max speed in lots of books and on the plaque infront of GR1's at airshows in the 80's, saying M2.2, was a load of old guff to fool the Ruskies
Re: Silly Tonka question
Maybe possible at the right height, clean, and with tanker support? I'd say certainly not operationally, but there are others on here that know a lot more than me. In the book I mention above David Eagles says there was very little that could catch an F3 at low level.
In this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
- Ghostrider01
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:16 pm
Re: Silly Tonka question
There's been some good technical answers to the original question but, looking at it again with the question rephrased, it was not about speed but about how long would it take for the aircraft to accelerate from 200mph (or knots) to M.1 at the same time as transitioning to a fully swept configuration.
I've had a quick bash around the web for an answer to no avail but the answer, like many above, will be variable depending on many factors such as climate, AC weight and configuration, altitude, if you've got a SAM heading your way etc.
I've had a quick bash around the web for an answer to no avail but the answer, like many above, will be variable depending on many factors such as climate, AC weight and configuration, altitude, if you've got a SAM heading your way etc.
Re: Silly Tonka question
Thankyou, somebody finally understands the question!
I was hoping we may have an ex Tonka driver on here to help out.
I was hoping we may have an ex Tonka driver on here to help out.
Jim Bowen, on "Bullseye" :- In which state of the U.S.A. is Dallas, Texas ??
- Ghostrider01
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:16 pm
Re: Silly Tonka question
Alas beefsteak that is not me ... I'd love to have been a pilot of anything (especially fast jets) but I chose to miss school way to often when I had the chance to be educated
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests