Fulcrum & Flanker, the Soviet’s Latest Fighters

Russians are generally considered to be obsessive chess players, and like good chess players they looked at the emerging teen series fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18) during the seventies and drafted an appropriate strategy to counter. This strategy revolved about which design parameters would receive attention in the generation of aircraft built to succeed the mediocre MiG-21 Fishbed, MiG-23 Flogger and tactically dubious MiG-25 Foxbat. To fully understand the scale of change in Soviet thinking about air warfare, we must look closely at the history of Soviet fighter development which reflects within itself much about Soviet military thinking.

The first tactically useful jet fighter which the Soviets produced was the Rolls-Royce Nene powered MiG-15 Fagot, which drew heavily upon WWII German research into swept wing aerodynamics. The MiG-15 was a simple and rugged airframe, with a respectable thrust to weight ratio and heavy gun armament of two 23mm and one 37mm cannon. It came as a rude surprise to Western air forces when the MiG-15 first challenged Western air forces in Korea as it easily outclassed the underpowered Meteor and F-84. Lighter than the leading US air superiority fighter- the F-86 Sabre – largely due to its rudimentary systems fit, the MiG-15 proved to be a tough adversary when well flown and the quoted 10:1 exchange rate in favour of the F-86 resulted largely from superior Western tactical airmanship.

The MiG-15 thus set the mold for the two subsequent generations of fighters: lightweight, simple and cheap to produce with good thrust to weight ratios and primarily gun armament, designed to fit into a closely controlled air defence environment tied to the local offensive land forces.

Arguably this approach did not stem so much from doctrine as from circumstances, the technologically unsophisticated industrial base of the USSR severely constrained what could be done in terms of powerplant performance, particularly specific fuel consumption, and avionicfit which determines radar and missile capability. Given that the USSR, as a continental power, placed most of its offensive warfare capabilities into the basket of massed tank and motorised infantry formations, there was hardly a perceived need to invest in the Douhet flavoured long-range air war strategies espoused by the major Western powers. The Soviet military relied instead on the proven approach of overrunning its opponent with massive concentrations of armour, rather than bleeding its opponent to death by sustained air war against production facilities and infrastructure. In this environment the role of the air forces, the tactical Frontovaya Aviatsia Voenno-Vozdushnykh Sil (FA WS-Tactical Aviation/Military Air Forces) and home defence Aviatsia Protivo Vozdushnoy Oborony Strany (IA PVOS – Interceptor Aviation/National Air Defences) was clear cut, the former would wrest control of the airspace above the battlefield, while the latter would defend the Soviet homeland from long range air attack. The specialisation would eventually lead to two unique streams of fighter development, the WS tactical fighters and the PVO interceptor.

Initially, this manifested itself in specialised variants of standard fighters, ie the WS flew the MiG-17F (Fresco) and MiG-19S (Farmer), while the PVO flew the MiG-17PF, MiG-19PF and PM, the PVO types carrying rudimentary air intercept (Al) radar and guns in PF or air-to-air missiles (ie AAM) in PM versions.

Both the MiG-17 and MiG-19 were lightweight, short legged aircraft with good turn performance, thrust weight ratio and short field performance.

The early sixties saw the first major split in fighter development, with the WS adopting the MiG-21F Fishbed, essentially a VFR fighter armed with guns and cloned AIM-9B missiles designated K-13 (AA-2 Atoll), and the PVO adopting the Su-9 Fishpot family. The MiG-21 proved the more successful, spawning a string of variants with a wide range of capabilities (FA, PF, FL, PFS, PFM, PFMA, M, R, MF), spanning two decades in production, and achieving the distinction of being built in greater numbers than any other supersonic fighter. However, exhaustive coverage of the genealogy of the MiG-21 is well beyond the scope of this discussion. The Fishpot in turn led to the larger Su-11 and Su-15/21 family of aircraft, all specialised interceptors locked via datalink into ground control air defence systems.

The PVO had thus opted out of the air combat game altogether, these aircraft being capable only against bombers. This philosophy culminated in the MiG-25 Foxbat family of Mach 3 interceptors, aircraft virtually useless in any task other than killing high flying high speed bombers and recce aircraft (the Foxbat is a major topic within itself, conceived to kill the B-70 Valkyrie and ultimately the means of a massive and successful strategic deception played against the USAF).

The WS pursued its tactical role with vigour, adopting the Su-7 family of fighter bombers typified by the Su-7BM and creating a split within its own fighter force, between strike fighters and local air superiority aircraft. This in turn led to the next major Soviet fighter type, the swing wing MiG-23 Flogger family.

The late sixties saw the relative success, as perceived by the Soviets, of the surface-to-air missile (SAM) in Vietnam which saw the Red Army deemphasise the air superiority role in favour of strike. WS aircraft would support land forces with air strikes against battlefield and theatre targets.

The Flogger drew heavily on the fad which created the F-111 family, the idea of the tactical strike aircraft which by virtue of AAMs could compete successfully in the air superiority role. Much like the F-111, the Flogger was cast into this mold at an early stage and thus proved to be an inferior air superiority fighter to the aircraft it was intended to defeat, the F-4 Phantom II.

The early seventies became a pivotal point in the global struggle for air superiority. The PVO was largely equipped with the ineffective Su-15 Flagon, supported by growing numbers of interceptor versions of the MiG-25 Foxbat and MiG-23M/MF Flogger, the latter entering massive series production. The WS were still largely equipped with Fishbeds, but with substantial quantities of the Flogger becoming available, supported by growing numbers of swing wing Su-17 Fitter strike fighters. There was no capable air superiority aircraft in the class of the F-4E available, the Soviets having pushed the specialisation of their inventory to the point where fighterroles were subjugated to the respective services’ primary missions.

The Americans were at that time introducing the F-14A Tomcat and F-15 A Eagle, both aircraft designed around the concept of energy manoeuvrability and the practical lessons gleaned from the many engagements flown between the USAF’s F-4C/D/E, F-105D/F, the Navy’s F-4B/N, F-8E and the MiG-17s, 19s and 21s of the North Vietnamese Air Force. Vietnam was a rude awakening for the Americans, who did not enjoy the absolute air superiority they sought over Hanoi and Haiphong. While they did decimate the NVAF and ultimately wiped out the NV air defence system, the exchange rate between the complex and expensive F-4 family and the cheap and nasty MiGs hardly reflected the technological advantage of the US. The new generation of fighters, dubbed the teen series, embodied a number of major departures from previous design strategies. Air combat manoeuvring performance was a major priority, with both designs builtfor maximum thrust weight ratio and minimum energy bleed, to provide the sustained turn performance required to get a guns or tail aspect heat seeking missile kill against a manoeuvrable and small target. The use of afterburning turbofan engines and substantial internal fuel capacity provided an effective combat radius well beyond 500nm, to fight a strategic air war in the opponent’s back yard. The cockpit saw major improvements in ergonomics and all round visibility, and look-down shoot-down pulse Doppler radars were fitted to allow beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile attacks on low flying targets. Both teen series fighters were thus formidable air combat fighters built for the long range air war strategy implicit within Western air war doctrine.

The strategic deception played by the Soviets with the Foxbat (seen by the Americans at the time as a highly manoeuvrable, 600nm radiusMach 3 air superiority fighter) had to some degree backfired, as the specifications for the F-14/15 performance and weapon system included the ability to defeat such an aircraft.

Many observers have commented, in the light of Belenko’s defection to Japan in the mid seventies, that both the F-14 and F-15 were clearly a case of overkill in capability against the mediocre Fishbeds and Floggers of the WS. While that is true, the margin in performance has been of benefit in that these types are still serious players twenty years after their conception and are likely to remain so for the next decade.

Both the F-14 and F-15 were expensive and this quickly reflected in political pressure to adopt a ‘Hi-Lo’ mix of fighters, with cheaper aircraft supplementing these types. The USAF’s Light Weight Fighter (LWF) flyoff between the YF-16 and YF-17 resulted in the adoption of the F-16, initially a clear weather dogfighter, to supplement the F-15. The YF-17 ultimately evolved into the Navy’s F-18 multirole strike fighter, replacing A-4s, A-7s and F-4s in the fleet.

The teen series fighters had undisputed control of the skies since the late seventies and if there was any surprise, it was in the Soviets’ apparent lack of response to this new generation of technology.

But the Soviets were not idle, and commenced work on a new generation of fighters daring the early seventies, drawing heavily on the concepts adopted by the Americans in the teen series fighters. Clearly the new aircraft had to provide a worthwhile performance margin against the US aircraft as they would be at least half a decade later in deployment. Also they had to be manufactured within an industrial base much less sophisticated than that of the Western world, while also retaining the simplicity and ruggedness which the Soviet military uncompromisingly demanded.

There is some contention at this time concerning the origin of the basic aerodynamic configuration which the Soviets adopted for both the Fulcrum and Flanker, its nearest equivalent in the West was one of Grumman’s early F-14 proposals with a fixed rather than variable geometry wing. This configuration was adopted with the addition of ogival forebody strakes and wing/ fuselage blending, a technique first used in the West on the YF-16 LWF demonstrator. Many Western observers, noting the commonality in layout between both Soviet fighters, have attributed the configuration to the TsAGI (Central Aero-Fluiddynamics Institute, a Russian equivalent of NACNNASA), who are known to have wind tunnel tested a Sukhoi design of the given configuration extensively during the early seventies. No doubt time (and glasnost) will shed light upon the full story.

The twin engine twin tail blended fuselage/strake hybrid planform configuration common to both designs is optimised for sustained subsonic manoeuvring. Excellent high angle of attack (AoA) lifting performance is achieved by a combination of body lift generated by the large fuselage carapace, and enhanced wing lift resulting from the formation of vortices by the large forebody strakes. In this fashion the configuration exploits attributes of both the F-14 family and the F-17/18 family.

The usage of large strakes well forward will also substantially affect the lift distribution by shifting the centre of pressure forward and thus reducing the static stability margin, particularly with increasing AoA. This, used with a stability augmentation system, will improve instantaneous pitch rates while reducing the necessary tailplane download required to maintain high AoA. The twin vertical tails of both the MiG-29 and Su-27 are large and very widely spaced to avoid interference with the forebody vortices at high angle of attack.

The powerplant installation in long nacelles, with inlets well below the forward fuselage, is designed for minimum interference with external flow and best possible pressure recovery at high AoA. While this arrangement has some penalties insofar as vulnerability to foreign object damage (FOO), weapon carriage and undercarriage stowage go, these were sacrifices made quite readily in the quest for good engine performance at high AoA. Both the Fulcrum and Flanker have relatively narrow fuselage tunnels in comparison with the F-14, which limits the usefulness of the fuselage for semiconformal weapon or fuel tank carriage. Again this penalty was accepted to ensure the desired relative geometry between the inlets and forebody/nose of the aircraft. The upper lip of the variable geometry inlets is clearly offset to ensure removal of the ventral forebody boundary layer. Supersonic dash performance for the air defence role was a lesser priority but reflects in the usage of variable inlet geometry and the pronounced area ruling of the fuselage, resulting in the substantial forward hump. The resulting airframe configuration thus offers excellent sustained and instantaneous turn performance at subsonic speeds, adequate supersonic dash performance and a substantial internal volume for fuel. It is penalised by limited fuselage area available for stores carriage, particularly in the MiG design, and poor fuselage and inlet clearance in landing configuration. Clearly air combat manoeuvring performance

was the highest priority in the minds of the designers and little was compromised in the pursuit of this objective.

The common configuration of the Fulcrum and Flanker cleverly blends aerodynamic features used in several earlier Western designs with the result of superb subsonic manoeuvring performance, without the benefit of sophisticated flight control software. The agility displayed by both types at various events over the last several years provides practical evidence of what can be inferred from the geometry of the aircraft. The detail areas in which the two aircraft differ in turn reflect the specific roles of the aircraft.

Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker

The development of the Flanker was a protracted affair. It appears that conceptual work on the design began as far back as 1969, in response to the emerging F-14 and F-15. In any event, the design work progressed slowly with the first prototype of the Flanker A first flying only in early 1977, soon receiving the provisional designation of Ram-K.

The A model was largely a technology demonstrator for aerodynamic, propulsion and structural design purposes. It differed from later airframes in many respects, with vertical tails above the engine nacelles, beavertail afterbody, different wing planform with fences and a lanky rearward retracting forward undercarriage assembly. While this aircraft had many of the sought after aerodynamic characteristics, its undercarriage and inlet arrangement were unsuitable for field deployment, its strakes did not perform to expectations and its vertical tails would have suffered similar problems to those of the F-17/18 family, ie vortex interference. The production standard B first flew in 1·9fff but again experienced numerous delays to deployment, reportedly due to difficulties with the radar and avionic equipment. This is credible given the crudeness of preceding Soviet designs.

The US DoD states that IOC was achieved in 1986 when the first aircraft were delivered to PVO regiments.

At the time of writing Flanker numbers had reached well over 100 with production continuing at a steady pace.

It is not clear whether the Soviets plan to export the Flanker in substantial numbers. Because it is a large and complex aircraft it will be expensive to purchase and to run, therefore few of the USSR’s Third World clients will be able to afford it, let alone have a strategically viable use for it. Given however the desperate need the Russians have for hard currency, and the bombastic attitudes of many Third World leaders, the possibility of export cannot be discounted in the longer term. It is believed that India is examining the possibility of acquiring Flankers, as is Finland.

Airframe and Propulsion

The airframe of the Flanker is far more aerodynamically refined than that of the smaller Fulcrum. Like the Fulcrum, which is analysed in-depth in the next issue, the general layout dictates much of the structural configuration of the aircraft, with correspondingly similar placement of functional blocks. The structure of the Flanker, for instance, employs generous amounts of titanium.

The fuselage/carapace of the Flanker employs wing body blending which is most apparent aft of the strakes and this provides considerable internal volume for fuel. Further fuel is housed in the pronounced hump which also structurally supports an F-15 style dorsal speedbrake. This arrangement cleverly exploits area ruling for low supersonic drag while maximising fuel volume, fuel being held in urethane foam cells.

The inlets of the Flanker are typical of a multiple oblique shock ramp inlet, as used on the F-14, but it is not clear as to how many wedges are used. The result is an inlet with very good performance at high supersonic speeds. Like the Fulcrum, protection against FOD is use9, with an internal grill deployed at low speed which diverts ingested solids out through a bank of ventral louvres.

The aft fuselage uses a tail boom arrangement for structural support of the vertical tails and stabilators, with additional ventral strakes fitted to enhance directional stability. The fuselage centrebody ends in a distinctive tail bullet.

The undercarriage is conventional with nosewheel and mainwheels retracting forward, the nosewheel being fitted with has a mud guard. The large size of the Flanker allows a reasonably wide fuselage tunnel (much like the F-14) used for stores carriage.

The aircraft has two tandem tunnel stations and two nacelle stations.

The wing is moderately swept and fitted with full span leading edge manoeuvre flaps and part span inboard flaperons for roll control, all tied into the fly-by-wire system. Two pylons can be fitted and the wingtip carries a fixed launch rail.

The fly-by-wire control system is a first for a Soviet tactical aircraft: it is a triple redundant analogue system comparable to that in the F-16A. An AoA limiter (35 degrees), load factor, roll, yaw and pitch rate limiters are built in, some of which may be disengaged by the pilot.

Avionic Systems

Like the Fulcrum, the Flanker’s weapon system is built around a large pulse Doppler lookdown shootdown radar augmented by an IRST/LR system. The designation of the radar and its performance figures have not been made available to date, but given the size of the aircraft and antenna a detection range of 130 nautical miles has been suggested. Other conjecture suggests the radar is a high PRF (pulse repetition frequency) type optimised for maximising the detection range of head on targets, which is entirely consistent with the aircraft’s stated primary role of long range interception. The IRST/LR equipment fitted appears to be larger than that of the Fulcrum which implies larger optics and thus more sensitivity, implying in turn better detection range performance. It is likely that the IRST/LR and radar are integrated in the same fashion as that of the smaller MiG.

Nothing has to date been published on the Flanker’s defensive avionic suite, but given the size of the aircraft and its alternate offensive role a capable system must be assumed. Dielectric patches on the strakes, wing roots, tail bullet and inlet antenna housings suggest a separate RWR and defensive trackbreaker ECM. The location of the chaff/flare dispenser is not clear from published photographs. In terms of communications equipment, the standard Soviet air defence suite must be assumed, with additional HF equipment for long range operations. The HF antenna is most likely hidden beneath the dielectric panel on the leading edge of the right vertical stabiliser. An unknown at this time is the reported new variant of the Flanker equipped with a digital flight control system, glass cockpit and presumably a sophisticated computer based fire control system.

Cockpit

The cockpit of the Flanker is much like that of the Fulcrum, both in usage of conventional instruments and in layout. Unlike the Fulcrum, the Flanker has a large bubble canopy with sills well below pilot shoulder height, and much larger consoles on either side. The instrument panel has a similar layout, but is less crowded with most of the switches shifted to the side consoles. The left hand console mounts the twin throttles, while the right hand consoles are occupied with three sets of keypads, the function of which has not been discussed. It is likely that these will be associated with a digital weapon delivery computer, stores control system and possibly the flight control computer. The HUD is similar to that of the Fulcrum, but uses slightly different controls and does not appear to have the lensing and cable associated with the gun camera. Provision is made for a Helmet Mounted Sight.

The Flanker cockpit offers excellent visibility in all directions (much like Western fighters) and is spacious enough to be comfortable on long range missions. As such it is major departure from traditional Soviet design practice which suggests a more serious view of this matter.

Performance and Weapons

The Flanker is an air superiority fighter with aerodynamic performance in the class of the F-15 and F-14D, with good manoeuvring ability, acceleration and excellent combat radius. Rated at 9G maximum load factor and using a fly-by-wirecontrol system and relaxed static stability, the Flanker offers excellent sustained and instantaneous turning performance which are essential for successful gun and all aspect missile engagements. The aircraft’s controllability at extreme AoA – first demonstrated at the 1989 Paris air show- suggests few restrictions upon manoeuvring during dogfights.

The combat thrust/weight ratio of 1. 25 at 30% fuel load implies excellent acceleration and climb performance, thus providing the Flanker with a·major energy advantage against most opponents.

As an interceptor, the 20,000lb of internal fuel, climb performance and 2. 35M dash speed, suggest sustained afterburning dashes to intercept are feasible which vastly reduces the opportunities available for its quarry to escape.

Flanker’scombat radius will depend upon profile and payload, but will certainly approach 800nm and with external tanks would be substantially greater.

Sukhoi have never been big on employing external drop tanks and claim a range on internal fuel of some 2,100nm for the single seat Flanker and over 1,600nm for the dual which trades a fuselage fuel cell for the second seat. During the type’s deployment to Asian Aerospace at Singapore in February the two Flankers flew on internal fuel from Moscow to Minayerali Vodi near the Black Sea, onto Dubai, Bombay, Calcutta and finally to Singapore. The 1,600nm Calcutta/Singapore leg was flown in 3hrs 15mins with the help of a 97kt average tailwind. An impressive performance by any standard.

The Flanker is equipped with a single internal 30mm gun carrying over 200 rounds of ammunition, which given its rate of fire is a reasonable figure if Soviet statements concerning the accuracy of the infrared/laser fire control are correct.

The aircraft can carry up to ten air-to-air missiles which would be mixed for the mission to be flown. Operational aircraft have been photographed with loads of six BVRAA-10 Alamo missiles (two rounds on tandem tunnel stations, two on nacelle stations and two on inboard wing stations). Typically the wing station rounds are the heat seekingAA-1OB and the fuselage rounds the semi active radar AA-10C. Outboard wing and wingtip stations are then available for the AA-11 heat seeking dogfight missile.

Mission

The formally stated role of the Flanker is long range air intercept and air superiority. What this implies is that the aircraft would defend the extremities of Soviet airspace and associated ocean areas from hostile aircraft.

In practice, PVO Flankers deployed to strategic areas such as the Kola peninsula and Kamchatka would perform two roles: intercepting SAC bombers on strategic raids and frustrating the US Navy’s attempts to implement its Maritime Strategy by sailing carrier battle groups up to Soviet ocean sanctuaries. In either of the roles the Flanker will have a major impact. With its radar/lRS T capability, it will threaten both the B-1B and B-52H on penetration missions and possibly even standoff cruise missile strikes, given its substantial combat radius. In the maritime scenario, it will tie down USN fighter assets at those operating radii where massed bomber/ALCM strikes against the carriers are most likely. As a result, the F-14s would have to fight both the Flanker and the inbound bombers. In this fashion the Flanker is a potent defensive asset.

What has received little publicity is the assignment of the Flanker to squadrons of the Soviet strategic air force, Russia’s counterpart to SAC. In this role the Flanker becomes a long range fighter escort for the Backfires, Blackjacks and Bears tasked with conventional or nuclear strike against strategic or theatre targets. In this fashion bombers inbound to targets in the UK, Iceland, Norway, Japan, Alaska and the Aleutians would receive fighter escort with the objective of frustrating defending interceptors. Needless to say, the Tornado ADVs, F-4s and F-16s tasked with air intercept are likely to sustain substantial attrition if they engage the Flanker. Deployment of substantial numbers of Flankers in this role would have a major impact upon any large confrontation, as the Soviets would for the first time be able to implement a Douhet strategy of sustained strategic air attack and thus put at risk Western targets up to now considered secure. The implications are obvious.

The navalised Flanker currently undergoing carrier compatibility trials on the new Soviet CVN Tbilisi will cause revolutionary changes in Soviet naval capability. The absence of capable naval fighters has historically rendered Soviet naval surface forces impotent in the face of the USN CBG, as there can be no contest between a SAM firing ship and a massed strike force of missile firing aircraft. Flanker will defend the fleet and provide offensive fighter escort for anti shipping strikes.

It is fair to say that the Flanker will ultimately have the greatest impact upon Soviet air capability of any fighter aircraft since WW II. It is therefore surprising that the deployment of this aircraft has produced so little reaction, in comparison with the ineffective Foxbat during the sixties. The success of the Allied air war against the Axis powers resulted largely from the superior combat radius of Allied fighters. Flanker represents the first departure by the Soviets from Axis air warfare strategy and should be seen as such. Western air warfare strategists are well advised to take this event seriously.

Next issue we examine the MiG-29 Fulcrum, complete with cutaway and colour spread.

Tour Leader

Your 1990 Farnborough Tour Leader is Eric Allen, one of our most experienced and dedicated writers. Eric is well familiar with the UK and has visited its major aviation attractions on numerous occasions. Eric writes our interesting Yesteryear column each issue in addition to regular In Australian Service and Profile features. His enthusiasm and specialist aeronautical knowledge will ensure that you are ably catered for during your UK tour.

Tour Itinerary

The tour departs Sydney on 4th September by Cathay Pacific Airways to London via Hong Kong arriving at Gatwick Airport the following day. A city sightseeing tour will introduce you to this historic capital, before attending the famous Farnborough Airshow, renowned as the world’s most important, most prestigious and most exciting aerospace exhibition of the year. You will enjoy a Farnborough Trade Day, Public Day and an optional third day at this fantastic Airshow.

During your 6 night stay in London you will visit the Mosquito Museum, and the greatest Aviation Display on Earth – the RAF Museum Hendon – incorporating the Battle of Britain and Bomber Command Museums. To celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain, the RAF Museum will present a special programme, including ‘The Battle of Britain Experience’. Time is also allowed for you to enjoy the more traditional attractions of London.

During your coach tour of Britain and her aviation attractions, you travel through some of England’s most picturesque villages and countryside. First stop is the beautiful cathedral city of Salisbury and the Museum of Army Flying, Middle Wallop, which tells the story of 100 years of Army Flying, from early ballooning to today’s modern missile carrying helicopters. A brief stop is made at the incredible prehistoric monument Stonehenge.

Travelling across country into Somerset you visit one of the world’s major aviation museums, the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton. The museum offers a unique insight into the history of Naval Aviation andfeatures some 50 historic aircraft, the Concorde 002 prototype, a Falklands display, and a Japanese Kamikaze exhibition.

Northwards to the famous spa town of Bath for two nights and a sightseeing tour of Britain’s most elegant city, including the Roman Baths and Pump Room. Time for relaxing or individual sightseeing In this ancient city.

Driving through the peaceful and scenic Cotswolds, an area of quaint lanes, and thatched and stone houses, we stop in the lovely village of Broadway before discovering William Shakespeare’s birthplace, Stratford upon Avon. A visit to the impressive 14th century Warwick Castle and we head south for the university city of Oxford, home of England’s oldest university.

A spectacular weekend for all aviation enthusiasts – Saturday you will enjoy the RAF Air Show at the Royal Air Force Abingdon Home’ Day, with its theme ’50th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain’, followed by the Imperial War Museum’s Air Show and celebrations of the Battle of Britain at the Duxford 1990 Battle of Britain Sunday.

Transfer to Cambridge, the famous university town situated in a district which boasts some of the most fascinating aircraft exhibitions anywhere in the world. Our 3 night stay enables you to visit the major museums and exhibits including the Imperial War Museum’s impressive collection of military and civil aircraft at Duxford – Duxford Airfield was an RAF Fighter Station and played a vital part in the Battle of Britain. You will visit the American War Cemetery and the unique and world famous Shuttleworth Collection of vintage aircraft at Old Warden Aerodrome, followed by an inspection at British Aerospace Hatfield, the ‘Birthplace of British Aviation’ and the home of the BAe 146 production line.

We head north through the rich farmlands to the medieval city of York via RAF Coningsby, home of the famous Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. A day at leisure for you to explore York, followed by a day sightseeing in the Yorkshire countryside through the lovely Yorkshire Dales, Herriot Country, and the towns from the series II Creatures Great and Small’.

Our third day in York is spent at the Battle of Britain Air Pageant at RAF Finningley.

Travelling north you inspect the historic remains of Hadrian’s Wall, the Roman defense against marauding Scottish Tribes before arriving in Edinburgh, Scotland’s Capital for a sightseeing tour of this historic city. From the Castle perched on a massive crag overlooking the bustling city step back into history as you travel the Royal Mile finishing at the Scottish residence of the Royal Family, Holyrood Palace. Enjoy a traditional Scottish night, a banquet with Scottish Pipers and dancers to entertain you and maybe sample the local haggis! We depart Scotland via Gretna Green, scene of many runaway marriages, and pass through the beautiful Lake District for some of the most breathtaking scenery in England. An overnight stop in the medieval walled city of Chester allows time for sightseeing and last minute shopping before visiting our final aviation attraction, the Aerospace Museum at RAF Cosford, one of the finest collections of military and civil transport aircraft in the United Kingdom, together with World War II and Post War aircraft, Rockets and Missiles, Aero Engines and the famous aviation Research and Development collection.

We bid farewell to England and join our Cathay Pacific flight to Hong Kong for an overnight stop in this fabulous city. Enjoy the shopping and sights before Cathay Pacific returns us to Sydney on Sunday 30th September.

Hotels and Travel

Accommodation throughout the tour will be in good quality hotels, comfortable, secure and well situated. Ramada Hotels will be used in London and Hong Kong. Point to point travel will be by deluxe coaches.

Tour Operators

Torii Study Tours (fARB 1154) specialise in finding the most interesting and inspirational points of call for their fellow travellers. Their travel expertise, coupled with Eric Allen’s aviation background, ensure your Farnborough experience will be rewarding and memorable. Accompanying Members

Our sightseeing programme is varied and suitable for accompanying friends/ spouses whose interest is not entirely involved with aviation.

Cost

The price of this comprehensive trip is $5,985 based on twin share rooms. Single supplement is $890. Cost includes economy class round trip group air fares from Sydney, hotel accommodation, coach travel, transfers between airports and hotels, sightseeing as specified, Admission to attractions including 1 Trade Day and 1 Public Day Farnborough Airshow ticket, Continental breakfasts in London and Gatwick, Full English breakfasts throughout the UK, and 10 Dinners. The tour is also available from other Australian centres, please contact Torii Tours for additional costs.

Cancellations

Up until 4th July, 1990, refunds will be made on cancellation less a $100 administration fee. Refunds after that date will be made at the discretion of Torii Tours. We strongly recommend you take out cancellation insurance which we can provide.