On the 30th of May 1973 the First RAF Jaguar was delivered to the OCU and so began
The following 2 users liked this post by Diff Tail Shim:
- at least I didn't quote Gunston's views on the French - this thread would have been straight to Jet Blast............ 
With regard to maintaining the Jag. I seem to recall the wheel change jack up procedure was a little more involved then just a bottle jack. If I remember correctly it involved a two-legged trestle type jack that had be arranged over the bogey that pulled the undercarriage up rather than lifted it. I remember taking an inordinate amount of time to clear Lossie's runway whilst dealing with a blown tyre/fusible plug. I also remember using locking wire to stitch brake chute noddy caps back together..
The following users liked this post:
With regard to maintaining the Jag. I seem to recall the wheel change jack up procedure was a little more involved then just a bottle jack. If I remember correctly it involved a two-legged trestle type jack that had be arranged over the bogey that pulled the undercarriage up rather than lifted it. I remember taking an inordinate amount of time to clear Lossie's runway whilst dealing with a blown tyre/fusible plug. I also remember using locking wire to stitch brake chute noddy caps back together..
Rolling 20 - From Martin Middlebrook ‘The Berlin Raids’ ‘…the Lancasters of 1 Gp carried the greatest load per aircraft: 4.17 tons…’.
Which, if Google is to be believed, equates to
8 340lbs per aircraft!
Cf a Halifax 1.52 tons to Berlin (c3000lbs) and a Stirling 1.43 tons (2 860lbs)!!!
Which, if Google is to be believed, equates to
8 340lbs per aircraft!
Cf a Halifax 1.52 tons to Berlin (c3000lbs) and a Stirling 1.43 tons (2 860lbs)!!!
I was at RAF Leconfield in the 70's, with 60 MU doing Lightning Majors on F6's. Across the hangar
medivac they were doing a Mod's program on Jag's. The Jag was a pretty little aircraft and the Lightning made it look like a dinky toy but the Jag made the Lightning look prehistoric.
Although the RAF only ever wanted it (to begin with) as an Advanced Trainer, her heritage goes back through the Breguet 121 and the 1001 to the Taon - Breguet's entry into the NATO Light-Weight Strike Fighter competition that was ultimately won by the Fiat G91. Those early branches went off in another direction to produce the Etendard, which was chosen instead of the Anglo-French project to operate from French carriers. Wouldn't have fancied catapult launches in a Jag, from what I've heard of the available power (or lack thereof).
Rolling 20 - From Martin Middlebrook ‘The Berlin Raids’ ‘…the Lancasters of 1 Gp carried the greatest load per aircraft: 4.17 tons…’.
Which, if Google is to be believed, equates to
8 340lbs per aircraft!
Cf a Halifax 1.52 tons to Berlin (c3000lbs) and a Stirling 1.43 tons (2 860lbs)!!!
Which, if Google is to be believed, equates to
8 340lbs per aircraft!
Cf a Halifax 1.52 tons to Berlin (c3000lbs) and a Stirling 1.43 tons (2 860lbs)!!!
P 383 103 and 57 squadron.
According to the operational record books, 103 on 1.1.44 carries the bomb load I quoted earlier and 57 slightly less. His figure is rather higher, but nothing to reference it to.
I'm happy with my figures as they are from the official records.
When I did my Air Power dissertation, my prof said never take at face value from others, always check official sources.
Still rings true.
That's me done, as others want to get back to the Jaguar.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,925
Received 1,745 Likes
on
752 Posts
A lot of light aircraft set up with fixed gear had jacking pads that were shaped to the section of leg with a pad welded on it and were simply held in place by the Jack, I could never understand why they never came out with similar, they could have secured it with a pip pin through the tow cable attachment if needed.
“We plough the fields and scatter the Jaguars from the land”
Cat 4/5 Accident Rates per 10,000 flying hours
Jag 1.02/10,000fg hrs (>1973)
GR7/9 0.97/10,000fg hrs (>1988)
GR1/4 0.59/10,000fg hrs (>1980)
F3 0.28/10,000fg hrs (>1985)
Quite shocking and goodness knows what that accident rate would have been in the hands of inexperienced students. People often think that the Harrier was the worst in recent times, but the dear old Jag had a truly shocking loss rate in training accidents linked to its handling characteristics at high alpha and lack of SEP.
Here is a list of those losses: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/JAGR
Cat 4/5 Accident Rates per 10,000 flying hours
Jag 1.02/10,000fg hrs (>1973)
GR7/9 0.97/10,000fg hrs (>1988)
GR1/4 0.59/10,000fg hrs (>1980)
F3 0.28/10,000fg hrs (>1985)
Quite shocking and goodness knows what that accident rate would have been in the hands of inexperienced students. People often think that the Harrier was the worst in recent times, but the dear old Jag had a truly shocking loss rate in training accidents linked to its handling characteristics at high alpha and lack of SEP.
Here is a list of those losses: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/JAGR
“We plough the fields and scatter the Jaguars from the land”
Cat 4/5 Accident Rates per 10,000 flying hours
Jag 1.02/10,000fg hrs (>1973)
GR7/9 0.97/10,000fg hrs (>1988)
GR1/4 0.59/10,000fg hrs (>1980)
F3 0.28/10,000fg hrs (>1985)
Quite shocking and goodness knows what that accident rate would have been in the hands of inexperienced students. People often think that the Harrier was the worst in recent times, but the dear old Jag had a truly shocking loss rate in training accidents linked to its handling characteristics at high alpha and lack of SEP.
Here is a list of those losses: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/JAGR
Cat 4/5 Accident Rates per 10,000 flying hours
Jag 1.02/10,000fg hrs (>1973)
GR7/9 0.97/10,000fg hrs (>1988)
GR1/4 0.59/10,000fg hrs (>1980)
F3 0.28/10,000fg hrs (>1985)
Quite shocking and goodness knows what that accident rate would have been in the hands of inexperienced students. People often think that the Harrier was the worst in recent times, but the dear old Jag had a truly shocking loss rate in training accidents linked to its handling characteristics at high alpha and lack of SEP.
Here is a list of those losses: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/JAGR
Quite a few ‘loss of control’ were suspected in these accidents too so the C really doesn’t belong in CFIT! I recall watching a T bird video where the student was flying simulated breaks against a bounce at low level - I think the aircraft departed around 15-16 AOA and the instructor yelled “I have control” as it did a crazy whiffadil at not many feet having bled off a lot of speed quickly. Lots of heavy breathing on the video with the student afterwards asking a somewhat quizzical “did I do that?” type question. Incredible that they did not crash.
Quite a few ‘loss of control’ were suspected in these accidents too so the C really doesn’t belong in CFIT! I recall watching a T bird video where the student was flying simulated breaks against a bounce at low level - I think the aircraft departed around 15-16 AOA and the instructor yelled “I have control” as it did a crazy whiffadil at not many feet having bled off a lot of speed quickly. Lots of heavy breathing on the video with the student afterwards asking a somewhat quizzical “did I do that?” type question. Incredible that they did not crash.
The following users liked this post:
limits
I've read that the Jaguar had somewhat tricky handling just beyond it's limits - could someone please expand on this?
Was it FBW?
Also with regards to maintainability in a previous life I was a mechanic / MOT inspector - it's a pet theory of mine that when the designers were designing if they had hands on experience of actually working on their own vehicles they'd either consciously or unconsciously make it easy to work on with those little features
i.e. a Toyota Hilux doesn't require special tools and most components are easy to remove say at the side of a road in the bush in deepest Australia whereas a modern Range Rover or most German stuff is something of a joke - lots of things literally require a body off the chassis (although they are now mainly a monocoque but still full of gormless ideas)
So a jacking pad on the bogey wouldn't necessarily occur to them within the design brief.
Was it FBW?
Also with regards to maintainability in a previous life I was a mechanic / MOT inspector - it's a pet theory of mine that when the designers were designing if they had hands on experience of actually working on their own vehicles they'd either consciously or unconsciously make it easy to work on with those little features
i.e. a Toyota Hilux doesn't require special tools and most components are easy to remove say at the side of a road in the bush in deepest Australia whereas a modern Range Rover or most German stuff is something of a joke - lots of things literally require a body off the chassis (although they are now mainly a monocoque but still full of gormless ideas)
So a jacking pad on the bogey wouldn't necessarily occur to them within the design brief.
No Fly By Wire - hydraulics and push rods only. However, there was a highly modified Jag, XX765, with large LERX and FBW. Apparently it handled really nicely, but the programme was axed in 1984. Some of the FBW data was used in EAP and thence Typhoon.
The aircraft is now at Cosford:
The aircraft is now at Cosford:
yeah, lead in technology for the Eurofighter. Totally unstable with C of P forward and G of G in a position that would be impossible for a normal Jag MAC to manually control. FBW system could. RAFM throw out significant research airframes outside?
I've read that the Jaguar had somewhat tricky handling just beyond it's limits - could someone please expand on this?
Was it FBW?
Also with regards to maintainability in a previous life I was a mechanic / MOT inspector - it's a pet theory of mine that when the designers were designing if they had hands on experience of actually working on their own vehicles they'd either consciously or unconsciously make it easy to work on with those little features
i.e. a Toyota Hilux doesn't require special tools and most components are easy to remove say at the side of a road in the bush in deepest Australia whereas a modern Range Rover or most German stuff is something of a joke - lots of things literally require a body off the chassis (although they are now mainly a monocoque but still full of gormless ideas)
So a jacking pad on the bogey wouldn't necessarily occur to them within the design brief.
Was it FBW?
Also with regards to maintainability in a previous life I was a mechanic / MOT inspector - it's a pet theory of mine that when the designers were designing if they had hands on experience of actually working on their own vehicles they'd either consciously or unconsciously make it easy to work on with those little features
i.e. a Toyota Hilux doesn't require special tools and most components are easy to remove say at the side of a road in the bush in deepest Australia whereas a modern Range Rover or most German stuff is something of a joke - lots of things literally require a body off the chassis (although they are now mainly a monocoque but still full of gormless ideas)
So a jacking pad on the bogey wouldn't necessarily occur to them within the design brief.
Jaguar was control runs of alloy rods and idler levers, bellcranks, gearing devices and mixer units for the primary flying controls of all moving tail plane halves, rudder and roll spoilers. Don't mention spine bending either when high G would impart uncommanded rudder inputs to spoil your day. Spine bending potentiometers saved the day. Messier Dowty didn't think to put a pad on the gear. ATR did for a similar design. Could have been a mod on one component. Alas the relationship was well broken then
A lot of light aircraft set up with fixed gear had jacking pads that were shaped to the section of leg with a pad welded on it and were simply held in place by the Jack, I could never understand why they never came out with similar, they could have secured it with a pip pin through the tow cable attachment if needed.
