REHEAT ON A TRAINER

[KPax]

Having watched the Korean Display team flying the T50B is there an advantage to having reheat on a fast jet training aircraft.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Sure is. Means it can get airborne, and eventually go round corners :E

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/galleries/images/4919/500x400/raf-sepecat-jaguar.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

The Jaguar was going to be our advanced FJ trainer. It seemed to need it.

EDIT: sorry, slow connection and missed the previous post.

[NutLoose]

The Jaguar shown there was originally developed as a trainer, had dual reheat, but required the curvature of the earth to get airborne.

Et Tu Brutus

[Genstabler]

Mock away fellahs, but it was cheap as chips and very effective once it got up.

[NutLoose]

Genstabler, I was on a couple of Jag Sqns as an Engineer and watching one depart Lossie with several 1000 pounders on was embarrassing, the Vulcan was there and rotated in about what seemed like 10 lengths, the Jag appeared to be using Barnes Wallaces bouncing bomb skipping technique out over the sea to become airborne having dissapeared nearly over the horizon.

[Willard Whyte]

I have no idea how much of USAFs syllabus is supersonic these days, or indeed any other day, but the T-38 has been afterburner 'capable' since its introduction into service in 1961.

I suspect that it is rarely used, and of course the T-X program will likely put an end to the widespread employ of afterburner in Western training syllabi.

[Harley Quinn]

Slightly disingenuous; the 1980 F16A was a lightweight day (dog)fighter optimised for work at 30k+ 1/2 a gen later than the mud moving Jaguar. A lot of work and treasure went into expanding the capability of F16 to its' current level. Don't think Jaguar ever had more than a belated avionics and engine upgrade.

Still, I think Jaguar was involved in more combat than Tor F3, so it can't have been a total pile of poo?

[Willard Whyte]

Irrelevant tribal loyalties put aside, I have a sneeking suspicion that most single seat drivers would have been happier strapped to a '16 than a Jag.

[Courtney Mil]

After the initial observation, I had hoped this wouldn't turn into a pointless Jag bashing thread. I should have known. :=:=

[Willard Whyte]

Since when has 'Jag-bashing' been pointless.

[NutLoose]

I have to admit it was a sad day when they went, as said it was a cheap and viable platform, when you used to look at the support the likes of the Tornado or Phantom needed away from base and that of the Jag, the Jag won hands down. Coupled with once the design authority I believe was taken in house the costs dropped even more.

[Milo Minderbinder]

So once you got it airborne, how god was the Jag at what it did? The books are full of such comments as it being the "best integrated" of the RAFs attack fleet, but was it really? Is that just rubbish spouted by the unknowing?

Did the French ones - which had simpler systems and I'm guessing were lighter - have better takeoff performance?

[Easy Street]

The advantages and disadvantages of reheat are much the same on a trainer as on any other aircraft, so here goes:

Advantage
Allows the aircraft to use a smaller engine than required for the specified takeoff performance; the reheat provides the extra thrust required during takeoff. Once airborne, the engine(s) can be run near to its design RPM (usually at the top end of the range) for most of the flight without flying excessively fast and wasting energy through drag. Smaller engines also generally mean smaller aircraft and less drag again. This means that overall fuel efficiency is increased - you just need to save more fuel during the sortie than the reheat burned during takeoff.

Disadvantages
Mechanical complexity (nozzle area control, burner ring, light-up system, fuel injection + pumping)
Fire hazard
IR signature
Noise
Combat manoeuvring generally requires reheat (=lots of fuel)
Potential to run out of fuel very quickly if mishandled

For a training type, the mechanical complexity and the ability for a student to run the fuel out in less than 5 minutes both militate against the incorporation of reheat as a desirable feature! Besides, most training sorties would not benefit from the kind of takeoff vs cruise fuel consumption compromise that the advantages stem from.

[ShyTorque]

Mock away fellahs, but it was cheap as chips and very effective once it got up.

Never mind the Jag, that sounds like my missus in the mornings!

[galaxy flyer]

T-38 uses AB on every take-off and rarely in flight, maybe to get some energy on form rejoins or a loop. Supersonic is a one flight deal, unless you goof and let it point downhill too long on a solo flight.

GF

[Fitter2]

Advantage
Allows the aircraft to use a smaller engine

than required for the specified takeoff performance

unless you were a md-20th C Gloster design eng, in which case the Dragmastyer (AKA Javelin) lost power below 10,000ft - the fuel pumps couldn't keep up).

Replace with 'makes a loud band frightening the sh1t out of ground troops'.

[sharpend]

'So once you got it airborne, how god was the Jag at what it did? The books are full of such comments as it being the "best integrated" of the RAFs attack fleet, but was it really? Is that just rubbish spouted by the unknowing?'

Answer YES. Trouble with Jaguar was that it was eventually re-designed as a trainer lead-in for TSR2. It needed top speed and the ability to fly LL at M1.2. It could not do that with big wings. So it suffered enormously from lift dependant drag and was hopeless at low speed. But it could do 800 mph at LL (clean). That can't be bad. On my first Maple Flag, no one could catch us. We even had to slow down to drop bombs as they were limited to M 0.95 for release.

[Lightning Mate]

On my first Maple Flag, no one could catch us. We even
had to slow down to drop bombs as they were limited to M 0.95 for
release.

I hope you didn't have drop tanks fitted then - they were limited to 0.9 if memory serves.

....and I well remember outrunning an "Aggressor" F4 on Red Flag.

[ZH875]

I have a sneeking suspicion that most single seat drivers would have been happier strapped to a '16 than a Jag.

Until they had an engine failure at low level, then I think the Jag may have been the chariot of choice.:ok:

[NutLoose]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willard Whyte
I have a sneeking suspicion that most single seat drivers would have been happier strapped to a '16 than a Jag.
Until they had an engine failure at low level, then I think the Jag may have been the chariot of choice.

Performance would be about the same. :E

[Lightning Mate]

Agreed.

....and for those who did not know the Jaguar, (prolly most here), it was absolutely fine on one engine, provided one adhered to the alpha rules.

During my time on 226 OCU, Bill Lewis, Idi Hill (RIP) and I persuaded the AOC that we should show the students single-engine flying with one shut down as opposed to flight idle.

I flew the Big Boss to show him how we intended to do this. He was more than happy and that's how we put it into the flying syllabus.

A great, enjoyable, and accurate little bomber, and nice to fly (and I have six years on the Lightning as well).

Why does every thread which mentions the Jaguar end up with ill-informed posters speaking from the lower end of their bodies?

Yours faithfully.......

[Phil_R]

In about, ooh, 2005ish, I found myself at the end of the runway at Coltishall, with the intention to film some takeoffs. It turned out that this was impossible because the aircraft generally disappeared from view before takoff actually occurred. A while later - really quite a long while later, now I think back - the aircraft would climb very slowly into view over the distant horizon.

I wasn't sure if this just because the runway went over a hill, or because they were particularly heavily loaded that day for some reason.

[Willard Whyte]

Why does every thread which mentions the Jaguar end up with ill-informed posters speaking from the lower end of their bodies?


Because fiction is often funny, truth is often boring.

[Alber Ratman]

LM, did you try that single engine handling in the middle of a sortie on a clean T-bird or during an approach with 40 degree flap with a GR not in clean fit?:E

The first examples of Jaguar single engine flying ended up with Bernard Witt breaking the French Prototype A03 with an undershoot landing in early May 1969 and Jimmy Dell scaring himself while saving A04 from the same fate by the use of the good engines burner, a couple of weeks later. From these incidents and other test flights, the PTR system for the Adour 102 was designed and flight tested by prototype E02 before introduction to the other prototypes and the first production frames.

I flew on two T Bird flights, one on a cool late summer day from Colt in a clean bird.. Ray Pearce said " Take off is like a sporty Hawk in this fit". The other was at Total + with a 1000 lb lump of concrete on the centre pylon off a middle eastern airfield at a bit of altitude and 35 degrees C.. Take off and climb out took forever!!

Whatever the faults of the power available on the aircraft, as its adopted role as a strike and ground attack aircraft, it punched well about its weight. Not bad for an aircraft originally designed to be a trainer, even with the dogs dinner of a specification that was AST 362..:E

[ShyTorque]

Why does every thread which mentions the Jaguar end up with ill-informed posters speaking from the lower end of their bodies?

Yes, it's terrible isn't it? I have it on good authority that the Jag had a relatively adequate takeoff performance. Once they curved the earth a bit more.

A Jaguar pilot ex-colleague of mine (I'm reluctant to use the word mate, in the circumstances) told me that flying Jags was a bit like masturbation. Very enjoyable when you're doing it but it's best to keep quiet about it.

[NutLoose]

And that brings me nicely on to the Jag at Bruggen that came back from Red Flag and a used Condom was found under the seat..... I suppose it was a case of having your cake and eating it...... If I remember correctly the said item was returned to the owner at a dining in night..

[60024]

You forgot to mention the concrete shrapnel all down the side and the split intake.....:eek:

[60024]

I got airborne in one at Colt before the approach end cable and settled for 40 degrees nose up and 475 in the climb once. Levelled at FL180 with 2.5 miles on the tacan..... ATC were well confused (and I was hanging off the back of the fin!). The jet was clean, no pylons/guns etc on its way to Shawbury for storage. Sustained a 7g climbing turn before recovery too.

LM, 0.95. The tanks started humming above that.... so I was told...

[pr00ne]

sharpend,

Jaguar redesigned as a lead in trainer for TSR2? What hoop! TSR2 was cancelled in 1965, while the Jaguar was only advocated as the advanced trainer to replace the Gnat a few years AFTER the cancellation.

The French also binned it as a trainer, having intended to use it in exactly the same way as the RAF, i.e the majority as advanced trainers with a smaller number as tactical support aircraft. The NATO change of tack from all out nuclear trip wire to flexible response was the main reason that both countries ended up with all 200 as tactical support aircraft. Just a pity it replaced a REAL aeroplane...

[Courtney Mil]

Mock all you like. Never a better, low cost, effective tac support a/c. Hats off to the guys that made it work. Of course, that doesn't mean I exclude myself from offering a little banter. But respect where it's due.

Courtney.

[NutLoose]

I was sitting at the lights at Bruggen on the way into work when one staggered past us just managing to get in the air with his airbrakes out!!! I actually called ATC on the runway phone and they let him know... :eek:

[sharpend]

I stand corrected then. Maybe it was not specifically designed as a lead in to TSR2, but the Jaguar program began in the early 1960s, in response to a British requirement (Air Staff Target 362) for an advanced supersonic jet trainer to replace the Folland Gnat T1 and Hawker Hunter T7. Supersonic mean M 1.2 which meant thin wings.

[Lightning Mate]

LM, did you try that single engine handling in the middle of a sortie on a clean
T-bird or during an approach with 40 degree flap with a GR not in clean fit?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

We did it in the usual training fit with five pylons and two drop tanks in the T birds.

The jet was fine in this fit, but we always impressed upon the students that it's always better to bin the tanks for a single-engine approach.

In display fit I always had the inboard and CL pylons removed and faired, but retained the outboards for slightly improved directional stability.

[BOAC]

I always remember the day when, as DP in the tower at Colt (when it had real a/c......), hearing the polished R/T of the new Sqn boss in his tin toy telling us that he was going to fly a s/e circuit on 04 'for our benefit' and that it 'needed reheat'. Yes, we stood on chairs trying to see into Suffolk as he turned finals........................................:)

[BEagle]

Planned lead-in trainer for the TSR2 was, I understand, the Hunter Mk12? Basically a T7 with a 200-ser Avon.

Which would have been nice! RAE had the only one built, but it was written off 30 years ago, having suffered an 11th stage compressor failure and engine disintegration shortly after taking off from Farnborough.

Hunter T-bird with the big engine, T8M radar, 2 x Aden and 4 x 9 Limas. Now that would have been fun!

When I was doing my PPL course in 1968, there was an RAF recruiting poster on the wall showing 'aircraft of the RAF' - including an artist's impression of the forthcoming Jaguar trainer in grey and dayglo.....in a vertical climb...:\

[ex-fast-jets]

Why have you gone deep and silent on this??

I can only assume that you are away on holiday, not to have offered your considerable knowledge on single engine approaches in a Jag with a stuffed donk!!

[Geehovah]

The Jaguar was one of the successes of our procurement system but only because the "desky" bypassed it! I could wax lyrical. Even as an air defender I have a lot of respect for the boys on the Jag Force given the kit they had in the early days. Later they got what they needed. If only the F3 had been able to use DERA as the DA!

[NutLoose]

When I was doing my PPL course in 1968, there was an RAF recruiting poster on the wall showing 'aircraft of the RAF' - including an artist's impression of the forthcoming Jaguar trainer in grey and dayglo.....in a vertical climb...

So People were still putting that poster upside down way back then ? :E

[Lightning Mate]

Why have you gone deep and silent on this??

Prolly because Newt thinks the same as me!

[NutLoose]

Sadly even the Artistic Jaguar knew its place...


From

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Tate_Britain_North_Gallery_Jaguar.jpg/613px-Tate_Britain_North_Gallery_Jaguar.jpg

To


http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fiona-banner-jaguar.jpg

[500N]

Nutloose

At least it is in one piece and is less embarrassing than this .......

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/03/article-2153741-135F2F9F000005DC-24_634x409.jpg


:O

[NutLoose]

And remember the hanging Harrier?

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/harrier-and-jaguar.jpg

More here

Scrapped: Remains of Fiona Banner's Harrier and Jaguar? | (http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2011/03/scrapped-remains-fiona-banners-harrier-jaguar/)

[exMudmover]

Or this perhaps,

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-53jUDf7tYpk/T5zjrjwit5E/AAAAAAAAABY/Si8E0lLyYBQ/s323-c/Jerry1

[flipflopman RB199]

Further to that, the Harrier and Jag were later Melted down and re-cast into Ingots. :(

Link and pictures here (http://www.fionabanner.com/news/index.htm)


Flipflopman

[Alber Ratman]

The undershoot incidents with the prototypes were with the aircraft in normal configuration for landing and of course with the development Adours that never had the max dry rating of a 104 unit.. On the overshoot, was the burner used? I bet it was. The drag of a bust external didn't equat to the induced drag of the flaps / slats out either I would wager.

As for Nutloose comments on seeing a Jaguar struggle into the air with its airbrakes out, I was one of the the first guys out on crash guard at Coltishall when Greg Noble lost his life. I do remember seeing that one of the airbrakes had been ripped off with its jack at full extension, laying behind the airframe. I always wondered how the hell that had been ripped off when it is flush against the airframe when retracted. That was never mentioned in the accident report.

[Wholigan]

Prolly because Newt thinks the same as me!


And me mate. :zzz:

[fade to grey]

Interesting thread. Sounds like it was 'tricky' on one donk.

Being a mere civvy airline bod, I can't hang with you cool cats here but...

I remember building the airfix 1:72 Jag when I was ten. It was the second thing I had built after a spitfire, it looked 'right' and I loved it, in it's 54 squadron markings...

fast forward to 1991 and a pass at OASC, if it wasn't for my eyesight I may have got a bit closer...

Bugger !

[NutLoose]

You should have gone for the 1/48th Jag, these days they command a price of about £50 due to the shortage.