PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Mach 1.6 Jaguar (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/641564-mach-1-6-jaguar.html)

NutLoose 11th Jul 2021 23:16

Mach 1.6 Jaguar
 
The new Aeroplane100 magazine has a fascinating large coverage of the Maritime Jag, who knew part of the military spec they had to meet was Mach 1.6 which they attained after a struggle.

Ascend Charlie 12th Jul 2021 02:29


Mach 0.16 which they attained after a struggle.
There, I fixed it for you.

Old-Duffer 12th Jul 2021 05:32

The Jaguar, in its early days, only became airborne because of the curvature of the earth.

OldDuffer

ORAC 12th Jul 2021 06:42

The claim that “the Jaguar is supersonic at all levels” was usually interpreted to mean in a dive.

NutLoose 12th Jul 2021 09:41

Seriously it was a requirement of the spec that it attained Mach 1.6 which it did eventually after a struggle, then was binned as it had shown it had attained the brief, various mods were introduced, I didn't realise the step in the elevon was to reduce strain on the actuators and it was smoothed out by about 1 inch during testing, the M was going to eventually have a different wing. Various differences included beefed up hook, straight longer stroke main legs and twin nose wheels, beefed up fuselage with fuselage mounted catapult attachments. It also said all Jags had the ability to carry centre line refuelling pods, did ours?

Ninthace 12th Jul 2021 10:59

I saw a French Navy Jag at Thurleigh having trouble getting out of the way of a Varsity. (To be fair, the Jag had its wheels down and the Varsity didn't)

Old-Duffer 12th Jul 2021 13:08

RAF Jaguars could and did carry a centre line pod and for GRANBY it had five hard points underneath and two on the roof. The over wing points were the subject of a UOR and required the most careful of drilling and as will be seen in many pics, carried an AIM9. The installation was made 'easier' as most single seat aircraft then in service still had the nuclear wiring installed and this was used.

The centre line hard point could take the big recce pod (for those Jags nodified for it) or a 1200 litre fuel tank. The inboard points could take 1200 litre tanks also and the 'tandem beam' dual bomb carrier. The outboard hard points were usually used for various bits of electronic wizardry.

It will be appreciated that there was some flexibility as to what could be carried and the mix of same but that's the basics.
The twin seat Jags used by the RAF had only one gun and no AAR, there were also a few single seaters which were not modified after being loaned to India and they ended up in the OCU, where AAR was not seen as important.

Old Duffer

NutLoose 12th Jul 2021 13:27

So they could do buddy buddy refuelling? I never knew.

The Jag could also carry Sidewinders on the inboard pylon too if I remember correctly ( or some could ) TBirds also lacked the rudder damper as it was deemed not neccessary for a trainer, stbd gunbay was filled with avionics displaced by the second cockpit...Though one of Mike Rondots last pictures looks like it has a rudder damper it on it, but it might be my eyes :)

ORAC 12th Jul 2021 13:37

Does being able to carry a pod or tank equate to being able to stream buddy tank hose or clearance trials having been performed?

Have the French or Indians ever cleared theirs?

Old-Duffer 12th Jul 2021 15:59

Sorry NutLoose,
I didn't mean to suggest that the Jag could do buddy - buddy refuelling because the RAF ones could not. When I said 'pod' I should have been more careful. The centre line could take the tandem beam, a recce pod (if modified) or a fuel tank. As I mentioned there was flexibility and there are some promotional photos around showing the variety of stuff that could be carried. For Granby, lots of things were cleared in a hurry, including some US weapons, the CRV7 rockets. Stealth paint, tiles in the intakes to reduce signature and all sorts of things with non jammable radios, improved RWR, various allowances re engine rating etc.

Post GRANBY, the battle was on to incorporate the improvements/changes but a couple of guys in the air staff nearly 'killed' the jet by offering to sale a load of cabs in exchange for the improvements. Treasury took the offered savings and then baulked at the exchange. The aircraft to be sold would have been the attrition replacements and those required to get the aircraft's fatigue consumption through to its (ever changing) out of service date. It was such an unnecessary cock up by people who should have known better - rant over.

Later things like a Vinten recce pod and other goodies came along and just after the new engine was approved, the jet was chopped!!!

Old Duffer

NutLoose 12th Jul 2021 16:11

I believe the spotty Jag was the only one to try out the uprated 106 engine for India.

ExAscoteer2 12th Jul 2021 16:38


Originally Posted by Old-Duffer (Post 11077526)
Sorry NutLoose,
For Granby, lots of things were cleared in a hurry, including some US weapons, the CRV7 rockets.

Surely the CRV7 is Canadian not American, standing as it does for Canadian Rocket Vehicle 7?

Old-Duffer 14th Jul 2021 08:18

ExAscoteer2,

You are correct, poor punctuation etc on my part!
Old Duffer

Haraka 14th Jul 2021 08:48

CRV7 . Once looked at in the early 80's at as potential armament for Wallis Type Autogiros.....

superplum 14th Jul 2021 11:24


Originally Posted by Old-Duffer (Post 11077526)
Sorry NutLoose,
I didn't mean to suggest that the Jag could do buddy - buddy refuelling because the RAF ones could not. When I said 'pod' I should have been more careful. The centre line could take the tandem beam, a recce pod (if modified) or a fuel tank. As I mentioned there was flexibility and there are some promotional photos around showing the variety of stuff that could be carried. For Granby, lots of things were cleared in a hurry, including some US weapons, the CRV7 rockets. Stealth paint, tiles in the intakes to reduce signature and all sorts of things with non jammable radios, improved RWR, various allowances re engine rating etc.

Post GRANBY, the battle was on to incorporate the improvements/changes but a couple of guys in the air staff nearly 'killed' the jet by offering to sale a load of cabs in exchange for the improvements. Treasury took the offered savings and then baulked at the exchange. The aircraft to be sold would have been the attrition replacements and those required to get the aircraft's fatigue consumption through to its (ever changing) out of service date. It was such an unnecessary cock up by people who should have known better - rant over.

Later things like a Vinten recce pod and other goodies came along and just after the new engine was approved, the jet was chopped!!!

Old Duffer

O-D

Pedant point only - "The centre line could take the tandem beam, a recce pod (if modified) or a fuel tank." Not tandem beam; the pylon itself contained the 3 ERUs for stores carriage Front and Rear (119) for bombs etc and Centre (120) for tanks, pods and 115 for "Germany" tasking.

mike rondot 19th Jul 2021 20:17

Orac
 

Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 11077242)
The claim that “the Jaguar is supersonic at all levels” was usually interpreted to mean in a dive.

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.

charliegolf 19th Jul 2021 20:55


Originally Posted by mike rondot (Post 11081510)
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.

Agreed. I've been told that being sent Jags (whether you wanted it or not) meant you were very close to the top of the league at role disposal time. I guess that's why actual Jag pilots don't feel the need to defend it on here?

CG

ORAC 19th Jul 2021 21:45


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.
It reflects the general appreciation of the aircraft, as opposed to that of those that flew it. Hurtful perhaps, but the general perception in its early years.

p.s. I know you flew and loved it and have many of your prints.

NutLoose 19th Jul 2021 22:15

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!


..

Cat Techie 20th Jul 2021 12:15


Originally Posted by NutLoose (Post 11077313)
Seriously it was a requirement of the spec that it attained Mach 1.6 which it did eventually after a struggle, then was binned as it had shown it had attained the brief, various mods were introduced, I didn't realise the step in the elevon was to reduce strain on the actuators and it was smoothed out by about 1 inch during testing, the M was going to eventually have a different wing. Various differences included beefed up hook, straight longer stroke main legs and twin nose wheels, beefed up fuselage with fuselage mounted catapult attachments. It also said all Jags had the ability to carry centre line refuelling pods, did ours?

Elevon? If you worked on then you would know they are called tailplanes. If totally correct, they are tailplane halves. Not Tailerons either, Clean T bird at attitude was capable of Mach 1.3, but by the time production was happening, Mach number of 1.6 was actually never going to be needed. The M was a mistake even to be considered. Jaguar was never suitable for a carrier. The cancelled jets, of course, were built instead as AdA A kites.

Cat Techie 20th Jul 2021 12:20


Originally Posted by NutLoose (Post 11081568)
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.

kemblejet01 20th Jul 2021 18:47

Flew it, loved it, been at 1.3 at 500ft.

EAP86 21st Jul 2021 15:00

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

LOMCEVAK 21st Jul 2021 21:57


Originally Posted by kemblejet01 (Post 11082104)
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!

factanonverba 1st Aug 2021 16:13

Saw something close to that once, unfortunately it was in the comp wind box!!

R3O 8th Oct 2021 15:51


Originally Posted by kemblejet01 (Post 11082104)
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.

sharpend 9th Oct 2021 13:47


Originally Posted by mike rondot (Post 11081510)
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 :)

DCThumb 10th Oct 2021 07:00


Originally Posted by mike rondot (Post 11081510)
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!

Lima Juliet 10th Oct 2021 08:11

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.

blimey 10th Oct 2021 12:03


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.

Lima Juliet 10th Oct 2021 15:49

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).

kemblejet01 10th Oct 2021 18:01

you recall correctly...

Cat Techie 11th Oct 2021 01:00


Originally Posted by kemblejet01 (Post 11124364)
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.

mike rondot 11th Oct 2021 09:42

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.

blimey 11th Oct 2021 11:09


It was my privilege to show back-seaters the fastest speed they were ever likely to travel on earth.
Flapless landing?



Cat Techie 12th Oct 2021 10:00


Originally Posted by mike rondot (Post 11124621)
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 12th Oct 2021 10:08


Originally Posted by blimey (Post 11124671)
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.

LOMCEVAK 12th Oct 2021 12:53

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!

Bob Viking 12th Oct 2021 13:53

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

Lima Juliet 12th Oct 2021 18:14

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15.


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