Help - How long is a Tornado IDS

[NickD]

Hi,

This feels like a dumb question. How long is a Tornado IDS. Surely there is no ambiguity here. Its not like a 1927 FIAT racer but...

BAE Systems produced leaflets (link here:   http://www.tornado-data.com/history/pressreleases/bae.htm) which cite the length as 16.70m or 17.20m. Not very helpful really.

 

Everywhere else quotes either one or the other. Panavia don't provide a definitive view on their website.

 

So does the assembled might of the Britmodeller hive mind have a view. Has this been asked and solved before? Does anyone have a credible reference source that is more definitive than BAE Systems managed!

 

Regards

Nick

 

 

[Paws4thot]

Well, Wikipedia quotes an IDS as being 16.72m, and helpfully includes a 3-view that shows the furthest aft point to be the aft RWR receiver, even with Hindenbergers fitted and swept wings. An ADV is 18.68m long (same note).

[NickD]

Hi Paws4thot,

 

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'd seen the Wikipedia article, the 3 view being particularly convincing. Unfortunately it doesn't say where the 16.72m dimension comes from. I did wonder whether the length of the pitot probe accounted for the difference but I could do with documentary proof which I haven't been able to find.

 

Regards

Nick

[Pete in Lincs]

This caused confusion from the start. It's quite simple really.

The ADV was the longer of the two, And was the official length for build/measurement purposes.

The GR version fuselage starts at frame 3. (Or was it frame 2? It was a long time ago).

That was it. Hence the two lengths.

[NickD]

Hi Pete,

 

Thanks for getting back to me. My problem is slightly different. There seems to be consensus on the length of an ADV. IDS not so much. All my books at home give 16.7m. Wikipedia gives 16.72m and BAE Systems unhelpfully give both 16.7m and 17.2m. Unfortunately I could not find the info on the Panavia site. Measuring proportion of pictures (always a difficult process) suggested 16.7 wasn't right compared to the span so I wondered if one is with the pitot and one without. What I've struggled to find is a manufacturer supplied picture with the lengths drawn on, like you would get in a  Flight Manual.

All the best

Nick

[NickD]

Just found this site: https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/luftsysteme-bundeswehr/pa-200-tornado. The german's think it is 17.23m!

[Giorgio N]

In the Fox Two book on the Tornado the length of the aircraft with pitot tube is given at 17.23 m and the publishers mention how this was confirmed by the Luftwaffe technical staff.

One Italian magazine gives a length of 17.22 including pitot tube and 16.72 without, so it may well be that the different measurements are due to including or not the pitot tube.

I would not worry about a 1 cm difference as this may be due to errors or differences in the shape of the rear RWR fairings (I seem to remember that they were not the same for all countries)

[NickD]

Hi Giorgio,

 

Perfect. Thanks for that. Digging round this morning I was beginning to come to the same conclusion. But I could not find a good source. Yours sounds perfect. It also sorts out why BAE Systems (who should after all know) quote both values.

 

Thanks to all for your contributions. I'm happy now!

 

Nick

 

[tempestfan]

Here is the blurb from AirDoc's site confrming what Giorgio has stated. 

[iainpeden]

Just to muddy the waters IIRC (or not) weren't the F.2 and the F.3  slightly different lengths due to differences at the back end. (As Pete said, it's along time ago.)

[Giorgio N]

19 hours ago, iainpeden said:

Just to muddy the waters IIRC (or not) weren't the F.2 and the F.3  slightly different lengths due to differences at the back end. (As Pete said, it's along time ago.)

 

There was a difference at the back end due to the different engines but this would not affect the overall length as the rearmost part would be the fin trailing edge at the top It would of course affect the length of the fuselage.

[Bandsaw Steve]

FWIW, this discussion is an excellent example of why I prefer to work with plans and drawings that include a linear scale.
 

An accurate linear scale (ideally on both the X and Y orientation) removes any such ambiguity and also is very helpful when enlarging or reducing plans to change scale.

 

So to anyone out there preparing such drawings please include linear scales, they really are helpful. 
 

Off soap box now.  📦 

[tempestfan]

The problem especially with length quotes is that it must be known which datum it is based on, and what the measurement includes (e.g. pitot heads, tail antennae etc.). I think it has been quoted a number of times that the drawings Italeri based their B-58 on was prepared on the assumption that the overall length includes the (massive) pitot probe - which it didn't -, resulting in a kit which must look somewhat stubby (but fits the box better).

[NickD]

Chaps,

 

Sorry not to get back to this for a few days. Your comments are all excellent. Thanks tempestfan for the link, very helpful. A linear scale would be very useful to though in my case less so as I am trying to generate my own drawings.

 

When I started this I had been fairly confident that I knew the other dimensions. How hard could it be.

 

In practice all the dimensions are problematic, not least for a Tornado. What follows deals only with IDS. Not begun to think about ADV!

 

Height. There is unanimous agreement the height should be 5.95m. In practice photos show aircraft at all sorts of weights. Looking at pictures of the aircraft airborne with the UC down show the legs are really long! So it is not clear what the height actually was on any given day.

 

Wingspan. Again there is agreement, even though it is not constant, at least for forward and rear sweep. At least in principle they are known. In practice, max sweep is different depending on what type of tanks are fitted. Top views usually have max sweep because the aircraft is low flying somewhere so good top views with forward sweep are quite rare. On the ground the reverse is true. It is difficult to find max sweep shots. Finally, aircraft are often shown in 45 sweep configuration, for which I have not tracked down a dimension (though only because I don't need the extra confusion of having 45 sweep in the mix).

 

All told a simple question became complicated as it usually does when I try compile some drawings. Part of the fun really.

 

Thanks again for all the help.

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

[tempestfan]

I think you'd even have more fun if you gathered together all the scale drawings (there are a number...) and try to get them in unison. Off the top of my head:

 

- MAP/SMI/Aircraft Archive by A. Haley (I think)

- Francis Mason in his splendid mid 80s book

- Mike Keep in various locations - Alfred Price's book published by Ian Allan, Aircraft Illustrated Special, possibly in AvNews and/or SAM at some point

- The ones in the Fox2 book referred to above.

 

[NickD]

Hi @tempestfan,

 

While part of the motivation is just the challenge of drawing an accurate set of plans.

 

Without a manufacturer drawing, the only choice is to use photos. An approximate set can be obtained relatively easily. The problem comes with camera characterisation. Focal length can be accounted for relatively systematically. Aberration is more difficult - relying on long straight features which may not be present.

 

I have some of the spectacular drawings you quote above, generated at a time where tools were more rudimentary. A testament to the tremendous skills of the author.

 

Maybe one day I will have a set I think is accurate. More likely, I will add another set to the confusion!

 

Thanks again

 

Nick