Jaguar!

[NutLoose]

I know I rip the pee out of them....... However first time I've seen this and it's pretty impressive flying.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mieYuDB5zLM

[Rhino power]

Great video, watched this display at several airshows, looked amazing from the ground, as did the the Mirage F.1 pairs display too. If anything the F.1 display was even more impressive!

-RP

[Fishtailed]

Thanks for posting this NutLoose, excellent flying, and good quality video. Just happened on it while listening to Layla on the headphones, very complementary!

[thing]

Crikey some of that line astern stuff from 2:00 on was a bit good. well done Le Frogs. Although looking at the Jag reheat I think I've seen more power in a couple of Zippo fag lighters.

Good posting Nutty.

[newt]

Very cavalier and in places too damn close for my liking! :=

[Buster Hyman]

I see what you mean there Nutty...do they have to keep the after burners on for normal flight? :p

(Great flying there!) :D

[RetiredF4]

Great quality, excellent close trail formation flying.
Other than that it is amazing how much fuel in reheat there is converted mainly to noise for some turning and rolling within 13 minutes flying time. And the wide landing pattern would suite a bomber too.

[Vendee]

One thing I'm curious about is the ejection seat. I know the RAF Jags had the mk9 Martin Baker but the french one in the clip clearly has a face blind handle. MB's website doesn't shed any light.

[pr00ne]

Didn't these guys end up having a fatal air to air?

[longer ron]

One thing I'm curious about is the ejection seat. I know the RAF Jags had the mk9 Martin Baker but the french one in the clip clearly has a face blind handle. MB's website doesn't shed any light.

Martin Baker Mark 4

rgds LR

[Al R]

I'm not surprised there was some pretty heavy breathing going on there.

[BEagle]

Comrade pr00ne asked Didn't these guys end up having a fatal air to air?

You're perhaps thinking of the fatal accident involving the 'Voltige Victor' Mirage F1 duo in Mar 2003?

The Jaguar duo were the 'Raffin Mike' team; I don't think that they ever had an accident.

[Vendee]

Martin Baker Mark 4
Thanks for that LR. I've got it on the MB site now. I didn't go back far enough through the mark numbers to find it. I'm guessing that the French used that mark of seat through reasons of commonality with Mirage, Alpha Jet etc.

[longer ron]

Yes I guess so Vendee - they obviously did not place too high a value on their aircrew : (
The 'Awful Jets' operated by qinetiq updated to Mk10's

[Courtney Mil]

Re the point about the use of burner, the Jag had partial throttle reheat. Useful in close formation due to the slow acceleration (spool-up) of the Ardour engine.

It doesn't explain why they seemed to get airborne with 80% set :E

Great flying, fun to watch. Thank you.

[Vendee]

The PTR on the Jag was a funny old thing. When selected, reheat would light at 86% NH but would stay lit until something like 80% on the way down.

As for the acceleration of the Adour, from memory of post installation EGR's I think you were allowed up to 10 seconds for a slam from idle to max reheat although I think about 6 seconds was typical. I went from the Adour to the Pegasus which accelerated so fast, it was difficult to capture an accurate figure on the stopwatch.

[Gericault]

An outstanding display from both a punter and a fellow operator's point of view. Given how underpowered the Fr jet was, it's impressive to watch the climb after take off even given a low fuel weight and clean fit. Great guys too (Marchie) and a sad loss to the circuit, never mind wider defence.

[27mm]

If you can find it, the Blue Angels F4 vid is reminiscent of this, especially viewed from the slot man - mostly a pair of large pink burners hovering just above the canopy bow; any dudes out there got a link?:cool:

[Background Noise]

The PTR was devised to bridge the gap between full dry and min burner (presumably the French versions also had it). The Fr jet was less powerful but also considerably lighter so performance was reasonable.

Nevertheless, having seen the pair a number of times, it was pretty impressive both in terms of close formation and performance with the whole display not being much larger than the brit singleton display.

[Vendee]

The PTR was devised to bridge the gap between full dry and min burner (presumably the French versions also had it). The Fr jet was less powerful but also considerably lighter so performance was reasonable.There wasn't much of a thrust gap between max dry and min reheat but there was a big drop off in thrust below 97% NH. The PTR smoothed out that step. As for the French jet being less powerful, only the first handful had the early Mk101 engine. Most of them had the 102's that the RAF used up to 1980.

[tartare]

Jeez that's close.
Felt nervous watching it.
And if something went wrong, an ejection seat wouldn't be much use either; you'd end up collecting the other jet as you went out.

[AR1]

The video needed to be 14 minutes long just to fit the takeoff roll in.

[ShotOne]

That's very very close. Did that add anything to the audience experience? Very low final approach too, for some reason.

[Rhino power]

That's very very close. Did that add anything to the audience experience?

Absolutely. Having watched the display several times at airshows, the distance from the crowd eliminates much of the movement visually, of the jets relative to each other when in very close formation, almost looked like they were attached to each other!

-RP

[ShotOne]

No argument that it's an impressive display... although strikingly (chillingly, rather) similar to the fateful "Voltige Victor" display.

[Lyneham Lad]

Just watched this very impressive. Just after take-off they adopt their 'close'! formation position whilst banking to port, which takes them over built-up areas and later on they perform manoeuvres in close formation again over such areas. Is not SOP to keep within the confines of the airbase for such phases?

Did not have much involvement with Jags (the occasional survey of bird-struck ones to categorise the damage, oh and trudging through the woods near Wesel plotting the location of bits&pieces of a certain machine). Anyway, the leading edge slats on the T-bird in the video appeared to be extended for the duration - would that be normal only for high-G manoeuvres or are they fixed?

[thing]

I went from the Adour to the Pegasus which accelerated so fast, it was difficult to capture an accurate figure on the stopwatch.

I was on GR3's as a techy and seem to remember there was a slam check before take off where it had to go from idle to 95% in two seconds. I'm sure bona mates on here will put me straight but I don't think I'm far off.

[tartare]

Could any fast jet drivers give an insight into the effects of met phenomena like gusts when you are so close?
Are they any closer than the Reds, or any other dispaly team?
It appears so from the video - but I'm no expert.
Wing loading on many fighters is quite low, and they appear to be flying quite slowly.
I would have thought you could have been at significant risk of being blown into the other ship, before you could react?
Are there weather minima above which a display like this would not be flown?

[airpolice]

I'm keen to read how a gust would affect one more than the other.

If wind from, say, "under" the belly of the lower airframe pushed it "up" in the turn, would the air spilled over the top of the wings not push the other airframe "up" and away as well?

[thing]

Wing loading on many fighters is quite low,

Depends on the aircraft. Compare the loading on an F15 and F104.

[airpolice]

Yeah, but on a Jaguar?

[thing]

Don't know what the loading was on a Jag. I would say remembering the wing planform that it wan't that high especially at display weights but I didn't fly them so don't know what the gust respone was.

[tartare]

Thing - hence use of the word `many' not `all'
The F-104 is a rather extreme wing loading example...

[thing]

I know that's why I used it...

[Sleeping]

That's very impressive flying!

The jet sure had its limitations but boy did we have some fun!

Brought me out in a cold sweat reminding me how crap I was at those bl00dy flat turns at Deci!!!

[West Coast]

The slats seem to be out for the bulk of the video. Are they extended/retracted aerodynamically or otherwise?

[Arfur Dent]

Ahhh! "Flat turns at Deci"! Weren't they fun.................:ok:

[Cows getting bigger]

I have little knowledge of the comparative advantages of one type over the other but in my relatively shore quarter of a century in the RAF I always thought that the Jaguar, especially the T-bird, was the sexiest looking fighter.

Standing-back for incoming. :eek:

[Vendee]

I was on GR3's as a techy and seem to remember there was a slam check before take off where it had to go from idle to 95% in two seconds. I'm sure bona mates on here will put me straight but I don't think I'm far off.I was also the GR3 and you are not wrong about the accel times. It wasn't just the speed of the thing, its was the severe vibration (with the nozzles aft) which meant that it was hard to read the RPM gauge, let alone nail it on the stopwatch.

Remember the "max bleed wet" slam? Water on, full rudder with left leg, right leg wrapped round the stick pulling it full left and aft, left hand slamming the throttle and right hand on the stopwatch. It was rather challenging but fun :)

[Alber Ratman]

Slats. "Combat" or 1/4 Slat was automatic, up to around 500 Knts if angles of attack exceeded 5 degrees (signalled by the incidence probe). slightly improved the limits of incidence of the Jaguar that wasn't great as most know. The PTR was originally developed for the Jaguar after the first 2 French "A" prototypes suffered undershoot incidents trying to recover on single engine approaches early in the flight test program. The maximum dry thrust of the Adour 101 was not powerful enough to allow normal approaches at anything above minimum weights, while min burner was too much boost, so PTR was developed "to fill the gap". Of course PTR was almost mandatory for in flight refuelling and some other flight regimes.

[newt]

Flat turns were never easy as one had to remember to put on power as you need to move forward to maintain the correct position. Just try doing it with your hands. Start in echelon and just roll into a turn! Instantly you see the reason for suddenly being out of position. A nice tight arrow formation is just as good and probably slightly safer!

As for PTR it was used mainly for practice approaches when both engines were working well. With one engine dead and the other down to the lower limits of thrust off the tested, it was not enough power unless the aircraft was down to min fuel for the approach. I still believe the correct teaching should have been to aim to touchdown a third of the way down the runway to allow for any shortage of thrust on the final approach. One thing the Jagusr did very well was to stop on the runway. Great chute and a hook!:ok: