Jag performance figures and spec - Unclass.

[Jackonicko]

The official RAF and MoD sites give a very bare bones spec for the aircraft. Using only open but official sources (station families day programmes, unrestricted briefing docs, air show display boards but NOT Jane's, etc.) can anyone add anything to this? (Including length and MTOW for the T4/T4A, if poss)

(From RAF Equipment Factsheets and Aircraft and Weapons Factsheets, hence two thrust ratings, two metric MTOWs, etc.)

Specifications
Powerplant: Two Turbomeca/RR Adour 104 (upgrading to MK 106)
Thrust: 8,040lbs (presumably 104?)
Thrust: 8,249lbs (presumably 106?)
Weight: Max TO 15,700kg or 15,733kg (34,612lb)
Wingspan: 8.69m (28ft 6in)
Length: 16.83m (55ft 2in)
Height: 4.89m (16ft 1in)
Fuel, Internal: 3,337kg (7,357lb)
Fuel, External: 2,844kg (6,270lb) in three drop tanks
Max Speed: 917kts (1056mph) at 36,000ft
Max speed: Mach 1.4
Max Altitude: 14,000m (46,000ft)

It would be nice to have wing area, empty weight, range and radius figures, and 46,000 ft sounds a tad optimistic..... - rather more than the service ceiling figure of 45,986 ft given for the export Jag Internationals.

I'd also like an official thrust rating for the vanilla GR1's 102 engines.

Do people agree with 10,000-lb as a theoretical max weaponload (yes, I know that with that load you wouldn't reach Norwich, and that with fuel, Phimat and ECM you're very limited for pylons) or 10,500-lb?

150 rpg or 152?

And does anyone remember what the Adour 106 was originally supposed to be rated at?

[Jackonicko]

And were II at Laarbruch ever strike and recce, or just recce and attack?

[pr00ne]

Writing another magazine article JN?

Can't comment on the Jag days but in the FGR2 days I am pretty sure that 11 did NOT have a strike commitment. 80/20 was the split I think. Different from that of 41.

[Jackonicko]

That's what I remembered, Proone.

I found this snippet in Hansard, spoken by Mr Wilkinson:

"The Jaguar's cost per flying hour is only £13,000--markedly less than that of the Tornado, which is £23,000. The maintenance hours per flying hour are 12.2 for the Jaguar and 17 for the Tornado."

Shame equivalent figures for Harrier GR7 weren't provided....

I wonder whether anyone ever answered the question as to how many Jags needed to be deployed to guarantee a daily recce pair, and how many for a daily four ship, and how many Tornados (or Harriers) to achieve the same sortie rate. And the question as to how many groundcrew/support personnel were required to support the number of aircraft required to generate the sortie rate.....

Where are Bob Viking et al, when you need 'em? Too busy studying for their ATPLs, or getting ready to move to Coningsby?

[Skeleton]

I wonder whether anyone ever answered the question as to how many Jags needed to be deployed to guarantee a daily recce pair, and how many for a daily four ship, and how many Tornados (or Harriers) to achieve the same sortie rate. And the question as to how many groundcrew/support personnel were required to support the number of aircraft required to generate the sortie rate.....
Nice bit of fishing... which era though? and more importantly where you there?
No thought not.

[LateArmLive]

Jeez,Skeleton, that was a bit harsh!
Jackonicko
I'm always suspicious of figures quoted regardin cost/flying hour. Do they include wages, fuel, expendables, replacement parts, production costs etc. I'd suggest it would be safe to say that the Tonka would be more expensive to run than the Jag anyway.
I can't talk with a great deal of authority on the serviceability rates of either Tonka or Jag, but regarding maintainers, take a look at the numbers of engineers deployed with GR4s in the desert vs those deployed with other jets that we currently have in theatre. The GR4 is a complex beast, whereas the Jag is more simple in design.
Regarding how many jets required to get two airborne? Plan as a 4 ship, walk as a 3..........;)
Hope this helps (probably not!)

[Bob Viking]

Jacko
ATPL?! You must be kidding. Not for another couple of years anyway.
I'll try and answer what I can. I'm not a great facts and figures man and I can't speak with any authority on the Mk 102 engine!
Max weapon load is going to be 8 1000 pounders. Limited by pylon space in that respect. I suppose you could stretch to putting a bigger bomb on the centre line but we wouldn't do that for real.
Range and radius is dependent on a billion factors. Un-refuelled we normally look at a hi-lo-hi up to 250 miles away with a few dog-legs and a bit of bouncing. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.
By RPG I presume you mean number of rounds in the gun? A trip to the range would normally have 60 or 90 rounds. Normal max load would be 120 with 150 a risky possibility.
I think empty weight with no stores is 8900 kg, but ops is more than twenty yards away and it's cold so I'm not going to grab the ODM right now!
As for ceiling. I've been to 39,000 and it seemed fine, albeit in a very light jet. A clean jet (obviously using burner) should be able to get to your stated height but she'd be a little twitchy!
As for serviceability, from stories I've heard from my Tornado brethren, the Jag compares very favourably. A good example was plan 8, launch 8 (all bombed up, with no spare) on a recent det to the states.
Thats enough for now. Feel free to ask more if this didn't make sense.
BV:ok:

[Jackonicko]

Perfect sense, BV, very many thanks.

A Typhoon tour before ATPL, perhaps?

[LateArmLive]

Bob,
Eight 1000lb-ers? On a Jag? When and where?
In the hanger maybe, or did you mean 8 3kg bombs!:}

[stiknruda]

Jacko, BV to Typhoon? You are having a laugh!

His boss assures me that he is "just not good looking enough"!

Stik;)

[Jackonicko]

Ah, but he has friends in low places, wit, charm, and a proven ability to be helpful.....

[Bob Viking]

Jacko.
You're too kind.
Latearm, my friend. There are pictures and indeed video evidence of just such a fit. Don't believe everything you hear in the bar. Although. to be fair, without drop tanks you wouldn't get very far!
BV;)

[LateArmLive]

Bob, I've seen a model of a Jag with lots of bombs on - I honestly thought it was a mickey-take! As an innocent question, how much runway would you need to get airborne in 8 cracker fit, and would there be any restrictions like tyre limiting speed or owt like that? I'll understand if you don't want to go into detail, just a rough estimate would be fine.
I remember one summer day at Valley a few years back when ATC tannoyed that a Jag would be departing, and all those interested should come and watch so they wouldn't have to be at the BOI! It was +32, and the jet only had tanks on. As far as I remember he made it with a bit to spare!:ok:

Cheers, LAL

[Bob Viking]

Using a high alpha take off technique you'd be amazed what we can haul off the ground!
Too high above sea level and in high temperatures would make it sporty though.
I won't be getting the ODM out so you'll just have to speculate!
+32 with tanks not too bad, although with a 7500 foot runway it gets interesting.
BV:ok:

[Jackonicko]

So we know how high you've been in a Jag, BV, but how about how fast?

LL, in burner, KIAS?

What's the limit according to the MAR?

And how about VNO, VNE and limiting Mach no.?

"After a BAE trial operating from the unopened M55 motorway in 1973, No.31 Squadron undertook similar operations from a stretch of motorway between Bremen and Bremerhaven in September 1977. Even when carrying a full centreline fuel tank and four cluster bombs, the Jaguar was airborne within 600 yards (about the same distance required by a similarly armed Harrier) and the aircraft could land in 400 yards. Nor would the Jaguar have needed a well-constructed motorway, as rough field trials at Boscombe Down later that Autumn showed. During these, Jaguars operated from grass strips deliberately peppered with obstacles including rabbit holes and shallow ditches, and which crossed strips of tarmac."

(Were these real rabbit holes or NATO Standard, A&AEE designed 'rabbit holes'?)

And this was in the days of the asthmatic Adour 102!

[Jackonicko]

I could do with a T2 weight and length, too.....

[giblets]

Does anyone know a links of the pictures of the jag doing motorway trials? They used to be quite common,

[27mm]

The Ecuadorian AF operates Jags, don't they? Guyaquil airbase, for example, is approx 10000ft AMSL - now that would be sporty in any fit......

[factanonverba]

Recollect Vmo with the tanks at M.95, had 620+ (a/c would have gone faster) at low level running under an F15 cap at low level. The a/c would maintain speed in dry power, once achieved, non manoeuvring. Only real problem was the trim, you ended up with your arm extended, with the stick up close to the PMD(moving map display). We are talking 25 years ago!

[Bob Viking]

Apologies once again for my tardiness in replying.
Speed at low level eh? Quite fast, but there are limitations at the moment and I won't say in public cos they're probably restricted!
How fast at medium level?
If I tell you it will probably open me up to some derogatory remarks from the Tonka fraternity. Oh go on then. I'm in a good mood. M1.2 at about twenty grand. That was after RIAT 04 when I got to bring the display jet back. Jim told me to go as fast as I could and pull the wings off it. Only happy to oblige! By the way the picture in the following months AFM of the display jet leaving was little ol' me. If only they'd known it was someone with all of 35 hours experience on type! They'd have photographed something else instead. Still it was a cool paint job.
BV:ok:
PS. T2 (now the T4 - thought you'd know that!) length figures? 2 feet longer than the GR.

[Flap62]

Ref the take off run in 8 1000lber fit. It's not really an issue as in that fit they just taxy to the target and pickle em off.

[OCCWMF]

Course we use delay fuzes so we can taxi clear before the bnag. And we can't do targets on anything over a 23% incline.:}

[alemaobaiano]

The Ecuadorian AF operates Jags, don't they? Guyaquil airbase, for example, is approx 10000ft AMSL - now that would be sporty in any fit......

Not all of Ecuador is lost in the clouds, the FAE Jags operate from Taura, near Guayaquil, at a heady elevation of 56ft.

Tony

[The Rocket]

How fast at medium level?
If I tell you it will probably open me up to some derogatory remarks from the Tonka fraternity

Not all of them Bob, that's a whole 0.24M faster than those short fat dark grey jobs.

Us sleek, magnificent fighter types could do that without even needing the WORKING intake ramps to come into operation however :p :p :ok:

So all in, a bit like the special Olympics. Even if you win gold, you're still a spastic!

[Zoom]

I think I'm right in saying that 1000 pounders generally weigh in at over 1100lb depending on the tail assembly, etc. So 8 x 1000 pounders equals about 9000lb. Not too bad - if it can do it.

And CBUs are about 600lb, correct? And 500 pounders about 540lb, etc, so don't always believe what it says on the label.

[engineer(retard)]

Thats what happens when you let armourers near sums. :)

[mike rondot]

How fast at low level in burner? Around 650KIAS in training fit was safe. Faster than that it became very pitchy. I routinely showed passengers in the T-bird 600 KIAS at 250 ft, especially if they expressed an interest in the Harrier. During mid-1980s Jaguar release to service was amended for ALE-40 trials to 700KIAS. A couple of us tried it in a clean GR1 aircraft. Best speed was achieved by Graham Wardell, who brought back Telford HUD film confirming 695KIAS 300 ft over the North Sea.
Speed KIAS is one thing; controllability above 600 knots at very low level? You need to be in a Viggen to see what a real high-performance aircraft will do...

[LateArmLive]

Impressive speeds in clean jet, but what kind of limits are there for tanks/ECM gubbins/ bombs(all eight of them:E )?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Does anyone know a links of the pictures of the jag doing motorway trials? They used to be quite common,
http://www.iht.org/motorway/jaguar.jpg
In the days before speed cameras.

[mike rondot]

OOOPS. Typo finger trouble there. T-bird speed runs were to 600KIAS, not 650.

[Lord Snot]

programmes, unrestricted briefing docs, air show display boards, etc..... can anyone add anything to this? (Including length and MTOW for the T4/T4A, if poss)

Specifications
Powerplant: Two Turbomeca/RR Adour 104 (upgrading to MK 106)
Thrust: 8,040lbs (presumably 104?)
Max speed: Mach 1.4
Max Altitude: 46,000ft

It would be nice to have wing area, empty weight, range and radius figures...... I'd also like an official thrust rating for the vanilla GR1's 102 engines.

How about a photo so we can see what it looked like......

[Jag Jock]

OK - My personal best in a Jag over 9 years:
640 KIAS/ M0.97 - 100Ft AGL/3000AMSL (Alaska) but in a war fit (ECM, Phimat, 2xTanks, overwing Aqui & ACMI pod, plus a 1000 pounder on the centreline. (And yes I was made aware of the RtoS afterwards but in my defence the F3's didn't catch me! Early days so balls/brains imbalance + last off the tanker)
About 660 KIAS in T-fit but too busy with the bucking bronco to be too sure. Started at 100 ft over the sea and finished up around 500ft.
M1.4 and 46,500ft - but not at the same time!
45,000ft in AC/DC fit (2xTanks & outboard CBLS), which with the benefit of hindsight was a very silly idea. Both engines surged but thankfully only one "locked in".
Many, many other happy memories.:)

[A2QFI]

I did manage to get a Jaguar near enough suspersonic at low level to blow in the windows of the Masirah control tower and to collapse some suspended ceilings in the Ops Block. I am not actually proud of this but mention it re the performance!

[L J R]

Hey A2, - Low level in Oman. How Low???? (You know what I mean!)

[Jackonicko]

Great stories - let's have more!

Like how violent were the departure characteristics with a centreline fuel tank? ;)

[A2QFI]

Some of you will have seen the photos and vids posted elsewhere on this site some 18 months ago. The man who took a lot of the video (actually 8mm cine!) was the late Neil McGibbon. The quality has suffered with copying and transfer to video but Jerry Seavers, Oman Jags 1978 to 1984(?) is working on a DVD of the material. I will keep all interested parties posted on the progress of this project. Hopefully it will include a clip where I went up the pan and had a photo taken of the uper surface of my wing my a man standing on a Houchin GPU! I am much happier about that than smashing the Masirah windows!

[A2QFI]

Link to the original thread, with interesting photos is

http://tinyurl.com/8bxum

[Wrathmonk]

Says it all really ...

"...but in a war fit (ECM, Phimat, 2xTanks, overwing Aqui & ACMI pod, plus a 1000 pounder on the centreline..."

That'll do the job then ...!:}

[Jackonicko]

Could have been two 1,000-lb on the centreline, though, or a more powerful weapon than any Harrier GR has ever carried......

On the Omani thread Ronald added: "Flown with 8x1,000lb (concrete) twice. No problems getting airborne and actually not that draggy, but the circuit(s) to land were interesting. Cruising at 45,000ft in a lightweight jet was no problem provided M.98 maintained to keep the IAS sensible (and the engines happy). Fond memories."

[Jag Jock]

Obviously, there was only one 'cos they are expensive (in peacetime). You can pretty much carry "two for the price of one" on the centreline but I take your point on our payload. The Jag Force never claimed to take the most bombs to the target but we have a fair claim on having had the most fun.
I certainly did.
:)

[mike rondot]

How's this for an aircraft designed to operate at low level: CL tank with some fuel remaining, 4x1000lb bombs on tandem beams inboard, 240 rounds 30mm, 2xAIM9L, ECM & Phimat outboard, ALE40 cans and a ton of old newspapers in lieu of armour plate in the cockpit. Level cruise M:0.99 at 34000ft. Yes, with burner; yes, I have the HUD video. Incidentally, several pilots reported releasing 1000lb bombs supersonic in the dive without drama. Those sticky PTR switch gates again...

[LateArmLive]

Can you ever really cruise with burner? :ok:

[mike rondot]

Cruise in PTR/burner? Frequently, especially at medium level when in a hurry, and why not?

[Wrathmonk]

Mike

Respect - who was chasing you!:ok:

W

[mike rondot]

No-one, I was referring to racing back to Colt from Lossie on Friday afternoons with ATC threatening to close the airfield. Various records were claimed for fastest time from brakes off to landing in both directions. Anyone care to elaborate?

[LateArmLive]

What I mean is, you're not really cruising, you're going quite quick!

[Jackonicko]

Low blow, Michael. The Harrier is a 'fast' jet too, you know.

The RAF website says so.

"When flying at low level the Harrier cruises at 420kts (480mph) and then typically increases speed to 480kts (550mph) when delivering weapons. This gives it a low level combat radius of approx 250nm. When operating at medium level it cruises at 0.75 Mach and has a combat radius of approx 350nm. These ranges vary upon the tasking requirement and weapon load carried and can be greatly increased by the use of in-flight refuelling."

"Max Speed: 575kts (661mph)"

[LowObservable]

That cruise speed is a whole 0.03M faster than the A400M.

[LateArmLive]

Yeah, but the lunches are better on the Airbus ;)
Remember ladies, it's not about how fast you go, it's what you do when you get there that counts!:ok:

[The Rocket]

Various records were claimed for fastest time from brakes off to landing in both directions. Anyone care to elaborate?

Leuchars to Coningsby in 16 mins 40 Secs. Not that that's any kind of record, just the fastest I have done it

[mike rondot]

Rocket, were you in a Jaguar flying from Leuchars to Coningsby?
Why?

[Jackonicko]

So how would your description of how you'd plan a Jag sortie differ from the speeds and ranges quoted for the GR7?

And how about for the GR4?

[Safeware]

Jacko, in planning, the Harrier doesn't need to rely on the curvature of the earth to get airborne :)
sw

[Jackonicko]

More prone to FOD, though.....

[LateArmLive]

Only because it actually has an engine capable of sucking anything up :}

[engineer(retard)]

LAL

That's unfair the Adour sucked as well :)

retard

[308Win]

Breaks off at Lossie to wheels touch at Colt - 33 mins.

[Bob Viking]

Lets face it, as my Jock friend pointed out, we'll never win a p1ssing contest with regard to performance figures, but I'll happily take anyone on in the fun stakes. Wouldn't swap it for anything.
Oh alright, maybe a Raptor but only because you asked nicely!
BV:O

[LateArmLive]

Agreed, Bob, it'll be sad to see the last gentlemans flying club go. In all seriousness, where are the bulk of you guys (first tourists) going when the Jag finally retires?

[Bob Viking]

Let me say it before any other smart @rse gets in before me:

Valley!

Probably. Some of us will get on to the Typhoon directly, hopefully more as time progresses. Wouldn't like to elaborate further!
BV;)

[Jackonicko]

And how did the doggers go, Bob?

[Bob Viking]

Jacko
The other jet broke unfortunately so I ended up doing a tour of local bases practicing my IF skills. I needed it as well. It'd been a while!
Been up to 14 tango today though. Now that WAS fun. Definitely something we can do well in our little aeroplane!
Sorry, I'm getting boring now. I'll stop!
BV:O