A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Concorde vs Tornado F3



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 15th 05, 04:13 PM
aardvark aardvark is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Default Concorde vs Tornado F3

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 concordsst.com 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.

Last edited by aardvark : August 16th 05 at 12:35 PM.
Ads
  #2  
Old August 15th 05, 11:49 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #3  
Old August 16th 05, 08:32 PM
Starshiy Nemo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default





No need to have a greater speed, just a good radar and fast missiles !!!!
Cheers
  #4  
Old January 7th 06, 12:59 AM
Chris Wells Chris Wells is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Oct 2005
Posts: 106
Default

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.
  #5  
Old January 7th 06, 02:46 AM
clipclip clipclip is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Default

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

[...] for as long as the Concorde was in operation the RAF did not have a plane fast enough to catch it. [...] 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.
a tornado would have to be a LOT more speed than just a fraction of a klik to have any hope of catching it.

in a realistic intercept scenario, the tornado would have to be scrambled, climb to somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 feet and make up the time to climb which is at a much lower speed, and the time from alert to takeoff which is probably 3-5 minutes. in any case, by the time the tornado would be at the same altitude as the concorde, it might be as much as 10 minutes further from the concorde. that is about 400 kilometers further behind the passenger plane. even if the tornado flew 200 kph faster than the concorde it would take at least 1 hour to catch up to the plane.

i seriously doubt the tornado has enough fuel to fly for 2 hours at those speeds, and if it did, it probably wouldn't have enough to make it back to base since it would probably be over some ocean (since it probably wouldn't be authorised to chase it over eastern europe and asia). the only case where this wouldn't necessarily be true is when the concorde's projected track would be known well in advance. however aircraft that need to be intercepted rarely follow their intended flight plan.

the tornado would probably have to be 50% faster or more to have any hope of reliably intercepting the concorde. which it probably isn't.

so i' d say you win the bet.

cheers,

frank
  #6  
Old January 7th 06, 06:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Concorde vs Tornado F3

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)
  #7  
Old January 8th 06, 04:13 PM
Chris Wells Chris Wells is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Oct 2005
Posts: 106
Default

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

-Gord.

If it isn't self-explanatory enough, read post #5.
  #8  
Old January 8th 06, 07:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Concorde vs Tornado F3

clipclip schrieb:

i seriously doubt the tornado has enough fuel to fly for 2 hours at
those speeds, and if it did, it probably wouldn't have enough to make
it back to base since it would probably be over some ocean (since it
probably wouldn't be authorised to chase it over eastern europe and
asia).


But since the engines would be dead long before the fuel runs out this
is a very theroretical scenario. I don't know the data for the F3
version but the GR variants can fly around 30min in max reheat and
around 15min in combat before the throttle has to be taken back to ~70%
dry thrust, otherwise it would kill the engine...

Benjamin
  #9  
Old January 9th 06, 01:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Concorde vs Tornado F3

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)
  #10  
Old January 9th 06, 02:57 PM
Chris Wells Chris Wells is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Oct 2005
Posts: 106
Default

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Concorde: All Party Support...2012 ashtonvillageuk Piloting 2 August 15th 05 08:36 PM
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP vvcd Rotorcraft 0 September 22nd 04 07:17 PM
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP vvcd Piloting 0 September 22nd 04 07:13 PM
Concorde Icing Experiments 1970s Mike Kenner General Aviation 2 September 5th 04 01:53 PM
Lago Tornado and FS2004 Paul H. Simulators 0 July 20th 03 11:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.