Concorde vs Tornado F3

I'm not sure that this information will help, but if I refer to Jane's
All The World's Aircraft from 1978-79, they list the following
performance specs for the two aircraft:

Concorde - Mach 2.02 @ 51,300' = 1176kts / 2179 km/hr

Tornado GR Mk1 (prototype) = Mach 1.93 = 1108 kts, 2053 km/hr

However, the Jane's from 1993-94 lists the Tornado ADV as being capable
of Mach 2.2 (altitude unknown)

Looks like the original Tornado couldn't catch the concorde, but the
Tornado evolved over the years and the Concorde didn't. I'd say you may
wind up in the butler role.

Good luck getting a clear answer, hopefully this helps...

Eric

aardvark wrote:
I sincerely hope that someone might be able to come to my aid in this
very dark moment.

The scenario is the following:

About a month ago I watched a very interesting program on the Discovery
Channel called "Flying heavy metal". A large part of the program focused
on the Concorde, during which the presenter mention that for as long as
the Concorde was in operation the RAF did not have a plane fast enough
to catch it. What an amazing though, that a commercial plane would be
faster than anything the RAF possessed at the time.

On Saturday night some friends and I were attending a social gathering
during which I happened to mention the above fact. A friend of mine
took great umbrage with the statement, and explained quite emphatically
that this could not be the case as he was certain that the Tornado would
have been faster ( Given the parameters of the statement, he was
referring to the Tornado F3 ).

Surely you have been in the situation were one of your facts are taken
into question and you are left with no option but to defend said fact
at all cost, even if the source is the drummer of "Iron maiden" (the
presenter of the program "Flying heavy metal"). As you would know these
discussions usually end in a bet, ours was no different. The loser would
be the winner's butler for an entire weekend during our next climbing
trip. Although this might not seem like much of a forfeit believe me
that the reality of carrying 2 backpacks instead of one, having to be
cook, coffee maker, cleaner-upper, washer-upper and generally being
bossed around for pure entertainment is no joke and one which I would
preferably avoid at all cost.

This afternoon I scoured the web searching for the comparative top
speeds of the 2 planes in question: the Concord vs. the Tornado F3.
Thus far my research has been somewhat troubling; according to
answers.com the F3 had a top speed of 2333 km/hour as did the Concorde
according to your site. Unfortunately a similar top speed still means
that my name would be "Jeeves" for an entire weekend.

Thus I pose to you this most emphatic of questions:

Has the Concorde ever, under any circumstances flown faster than 2333
km/hour?

Please understand that even a fraction would put me in the clear.


--
aardvark

No need to have a greater speed, just a good radar and fast missiles !!!!
Cheers

There is also the fact that even if the Tornado was a little faster, it still probably wouldn't be able to catch up to the Concorde - a technicality, but a relevant one.

Of course, you should have simply told your friend your source, and admitted it was unverified. Defending something you're unsure of is the kind of backwards thinking that, for instance, gets countries into damn fool wars.

Chris Wells wrote:


There is also the fact that even if the Tornado was a little faster, it
still probably wouldn't be able to catch up to the Concorde - a
technicality, but a relevant one.


That statement sure doesn't compute...wanna try to justify it?..
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

That statement sure doesn't compute...wanna try to justify it?..
--

-Gord.

If it isn't self-explanatory enough, read post #5.

Chris Wells wrote:


That statement sure doesn't compute...wanna try to justify it?..
--

-Gord.

If it isn't self-explanatory enough, read post #5.

Yeh...well, I guess we can excuse you this time, you likely
haven't been using usenet long enough to realize that people
don't always get all the posts in a thread.

A small hint to make you seem more experienced would be for you
to 'quote' enough of some prior post to give your intended target
at least a glimmer as to your meaning, or, failing that
(especially if you don't know 'how' to 'quote'), you could just
explain your argument in plain language...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Two wasted posts are enough. I don't gear my posts to the LCD crowd; I've got better things to do with my time. They can watch TV.

The last word seems more valuable to you, so go ahead and take it.

Chris Wells wrote:
That statement sure doesn't compute...wanna try to justify it?..

What statement?
Please quote appropriate context -as has been customary for the past 20
years- such that people have a chance to understand what you are talking
about.

jue