Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Mach 1.6 Jaguar

Old 20th Jul 2021, 12:20
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Seen his new T bird one Orac, the end of the line.

https://www.collectair.co.uk/coltish...-the-line.html

I must admit being on them they were very reliable, just not my ideal posting, I applied for Germany to go with the Chinooks and ended up on Jags, with no course, not even a Ground handling one.

Coming off 7 years of Helicopters, Wings and things and seats that go bang were not something I’d seen since training, I was then sent straight on detachment and left to man the engine desk while everyone else forked off to run a Jag out of contact across the airfield……….

The Winco then had a starting problem and I was sent out to deal with it, standing on the ladder he showed me that the micro turbo wouldn’t spool up the engine sufficiently to start and asked me what I thought…… now bearing in mind I’d been on the Jag about a week, didn’t even know where the micro turbo was and had no courses, I thought I’d give him a clear concise engineers diagnostic reply, that would be both informative and accurate and leave him in no doubt about my ability to rectify the situation……..

Fork knows…. Didn’t appear to go down well….

He never did like me after that, ironically when the Sqn folded I was still stood up as the final crew on QRA for about a week, we were met by the Staish and the Wing Co as we came off Q and given Champagne, the Staish telling the Wing Co to drive me home afterwards… that was a trip in total silence!


..
Discharge valve not fully closed? leaking sense line can do that. Microturbo cutting out after 20 seconds is another favourite. 23K box. Get the Dog botherers. I know the last man to run a Jag mounted Sahpir GTS. Wonder if BV has used his Hawk mounted one today? Waiting for his defence to the cackling hoards.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2021, 18:47
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kemble
Posts: 80
Flew it, loved it, been at 1.3 at 500ft.
kemblejet01 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 15:00
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
The export version, the "Jaguar International" was marketed as a M1.6 aircraft but whether it ever achieved it in service, I've no idea. It did have a slightly more powerful engine and the intake was supposed to be good up to M1.8 but who knows? Some of the export customers weren't averse to flying enthusiastically and I can't recall them complaining about a performance deficit.

The Mk 106 might have been helpful in going to M1.6 but the approved financial case was predicated on reduced in-service costs so performance improvements didn't get too much emphasis (apart from easier AAR; needing PTR for some parts of the AAR envelope is a bit self defeating). ISTR that RR estimated almost 20% thrust improvement in the early days of the 106. I'm not sure what the final number was but single digit %age seems about right.

I think the M version was purely a French requirement.

EAP
EAP86 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 21:57
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by kemblejet01 View Post
Flew it, loved it, been at 1.3 at 500ft.
That is around 850 kts IAS. I am fascinated to know how you achieved that!
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2021, 16:13
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: lgw
Posts: 170
Saw something close to that once, unfortunately it was in the comp wind box!!
factanonverba is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 15:51
  #26 (permalink)  
R3O
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by kemblejet01 View Post
Flew it, loved it, been at 1.3 at 500ft.
I think that might be a typo. M:1.03 at 500ft is a lot more likely and has been seen by lots of Jaguar pilots. The Jaguar still had plenty of go at that speed, but pitch control issues dissuaded most from going much faster and only the very brave pushed on towards 700kts Indicated.
R3O is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2021, 13:47
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lechlade, Glos.UK
Posts: 752
Originally Posted by mike rondot View Post
Perhaps you should not make comments like that unless you have flown the jet. Repeating the uninformed snipes of others is not helpful to the general appreciation of a fine aircraft.
Totally agree Mike. I got a clean Jaguar up to M1.1 at 6000 feet (by accident). And I was going up! Shall not say where
sharpend is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2021, 07:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 51
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by mike rondot View Post
Perhaps you should not make comments like that unless you have flown the jet. Repeating the uninformed snipes of others is not helpful to the general appreciation of a fine aircraft.
In my formative days as a holding officer on 6 Sqn, you took me flying in a 2 seater and I remember we went easily to 0.99M. As I recall the only reason we didn’t go supersonic was because the external tanks weren’t rated! Still the fastest I’ve flown!

To all doubters and nay sayers, this was in level flight!
DCThumb is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2021, 08:11
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,098
I have no doubt a clean (ie. no stores) Jag would make M1.0 at low level, but you would need a good run at it and as soon as you turn you’ll be quickly down to 400kts. The aircraft had pretty poor levels of specific excess power (SEP) as it was designed to be a trainer, but the Hawk took that role. Oddly enough I’ve been supersonic in a Hawk T1 as well, but looking at the slip ball we were going a bit sideways!

Anyway, if you want to go quick at low level, with live weapons then look no further than the F3 - just over 850KIAS at 250ft was the fasted I ever saw with a 2x2 weapons fit and she would have gone way faster if it hadn’t reached the edge of the operational clearance. She was still accelerating as she was throttled back at 850 and got towards 870 for a wee while as the engines spooled down.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2021, 12:03
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 187
youb would need a good run at it and as soon as you turn you’ll be quickly down to 400kts.
I seem to remember reading clean, burners, 500kts, 5g sustained.
blimey is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2021, 15:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,098
blimey Exactly, clean it was fine as it was designed to be a trainer. But as soon as you want to do anything with it then you would start to run out of puff. Which is a bit like F3 would above 25,000ft where any tomfoolery would need loads of burner, loads of smash or a descent during it. Until Typhoon the Brits had a habit of buying jets with limited puff (apart from Harrier that had plenty of oomph fitted around a Dragmaster 9000 body!).

The Jag was the development of Air Staff Target 362 which demanded a supersonic training aircraft. They pretty much got what Air Staff Target 362 asked for. I shudder to think how many studes we would have lost from Jag’s unforgiving high alpha characteristics if we’d used it for training. There used to be a classic video shown by IFS on how a Jag was departed at low level and so very nearly lost but for the sharp reactions of the Instructor (initials AC if I recall correctly).
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2021, 18:01
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kemble
Posts: 80
you recall correctly...
kemblejet01 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2021, 01:00
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by kemblejet01 View Post
you recall correctly...

And showing what a Cat could do clean. Top bloke whom has suffered personal traumas I would never wish on anyone. His mount is being restored back into those colours.This and the Late Mike Seares canyon flying are my two favourite Jag vids not generated with some input by myself.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2021, 09:42
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: norfolk, uk
Posts: 115
I remember those T-Bird sorties very well. It was my privilege to show back-seaters the fastest speed they were ever likely to travel on earth unless they went on to fly the Tornado. At 250ft over the sea, M:0.99 was around 660kts, depending on the temperature. The only reason to stay subsonic was fear of the drop tanks hunting and coming apart. You could see in your peripheral vision the noses of the tanks weaving around at high Mach. A few years later that fear was dispelled when we did the supersonic dive release trials of 1000lb bombs and CBU 87s with the centreline tank unfazed by the excursions outside its design envelope.
mike rondot is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2021, 11:09
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 187
It was my privilege to show back-seaters the fastest speed they were ever likely to travel on earth.
Flapless landing?


blimey is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 10:00
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by mike rondot View Post
I remember those T-Bird sorties very well. It was my privilege to show back-seaters the fastest speed they were ever likely to travel on earth unless they went on to fly the Tornado. At 250ft over the sea, M:0.99 was around 660kts, depending on the temperature. The only reason to stay subsonic was fear of the drop tanks hunting and coming apart. You could see in your peripheral vision the noses of the tanks weaving around at high Mach. A few years later that fear was dispelled when we did the supersonic dive release trials of 1000lb bombs and CBU 87s with the centreline tank unfazed by the excursions outside its design envelope.
Talking about Backseat rides, I was on holiday in the North East this summer just gone and was visiting Beamish. On the last exhibt to see (the 1940s farm), and by thelLand girl volunteer was a bloke that looked famiiar. He had been on telly the week before on Countryfile (and I had mentioned his name to the missus, before the article was broadcast). I said "Excuse me? Are you?" to which I got the look of (you know me, but I haven't got a clue who you are!) and the reply of "Yes!". My reply was "Cat Techie, at Colt and you took me up on my first Jag Backset trip! The Land Girl was then asking the questions!
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 10:08
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by blimey View Post
Flapless landing?
Try the Arizona take offs. BV will possibly mention the scrubbed flying at Tucson in 2005. In 2003 @ Davis Monthan, 6 Mates were forced to take off with a substantial tail wind that put take off ground speed well in excess of the maximum speed rating of the Dunlop tyres fitted. When one tyre gave up the ghost on rotation, such operating parameters were reviewed so such an incident didn't happen again.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 12:53
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 732
It is perhaps just worth reflecting on the maximum cleared airspeeds in some of the types mentioned. The Jag with tanks fitted was 0.95M and the Tornado F3 without tanks was 800 KCAS. The reasons for speed limits are usually not promulgated but may be due to the limit of testing, a handling qualities characteristic or a structural consideration, either for ultimate load or fatigue. Please do not take this as a criticism of anyone because I also have knowingly (and unwittingly!) exceeded published speed limits in some aircraft, but it is something that is worth contemplating in the context of this discussion.

My fastest/lowest combination was 700 KIAS at 100 ft overland in a CF-104 out of Cold Lake - and that was spectacular!
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 13:53
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,994
CT

Perhaps RCS would be better qualified to speak of the horrors of a heavy Jag at DM. Before you banter it was with a couple of thousand pounders, drop tanks and overwing missiles in +35C. DM being close to 3000’ AMSL.

As I recall his rotate speed was 193 that day and when he pulled back on the stick the jet didn’t want to rotate.

What followed was a high speed abort, a cable engagement and a few shredded tyres.

What also followed was early finishes for the remainder of the detachment.

What I should add was that on the first day of ops there we received 14 noise complaints from our use of runway 30. One of the complaints was from the Mayor.

Apparently the locals were happy with the A10s overflying the city on take off. They were not so happy with Jags in reheat at low altitude straight over downtown.

Some people just have no sense of humour.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 18:14
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,098
LOMCEVAK

Incorrect. Peacetime clearance for F3 was 725KIAS Vno and 750KIAS Vne. There were various speeds above that for operational necessity, under Operational Emergency Clearance (OEC), one of which was 850KIAS for F3. I did hear that 900KIAS was also authorised at one point and I do know some that got to that with ease before the DECUs were trimmed back following some uncontained engine issues.

We still do OECs these days and you can read about their policy here: https://assets.publishing.service.go...30_Issue_5.pdf
Lima Juliet is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.