View Full Version : Concorde vs Tornado F3
aardvark
August 15th 05, 04:13 PM
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.
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
Starshiy Nemo
August 16th 05, 08:32 PM
>
>
>
No need to have a greater speed, just a good radar and fast missiles !!!!
Cheers
Chris Wells
January 6th 06, 11:59 PM
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.
clipclip
January 7th 06, 01:46 AM
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
Gord Beaman
January 7th 06, 05:25 PM
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)
Chris Wells
January 8th 06, 03:13 PM
That statement sure doesn't compute...wanna try to justify it?..
--
-Gord.
If it isn't self-explanatory enough, read post #5.
Benjamin Gawert
January 8th 06, 06:24 PM
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
Gord Beaman
January 9th 06, 12:00 AM
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)
Chris Wells
January 9th 06, 01:57 PM
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.
Richard Lamb
January 10th 06, 07:33 AM
Chris Wells wrote:
> 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
Chill, Chris.
..Manners are important.
cavelamb
Chris Wells
January 10th 06, 04:24 PM
Chill, Chris.
..Manners are important.
--
Ok, I just didn't feel I had anything to be "excused" for...my feathers are unruffled now...
Thanks to those experienced folk generous enough to donate their time and knowledge to those of us "just out of the nest".
Jürgen Exner
January 14th 06, 05:40 AM
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
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.