Flying a JP
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: NE England
Flying a JP
When I landed back yesterday, I met up with two guys returning in a JP - a group I've considered joining last year and whilst chatting to them, it made me think some more about joining again.
On the one hand, its great fun to fly, very manouverable, just had a new engine, very cheap to join the group, relatively cheap to fly (£300 / hr @ 250kts) and very, very different from the PA28 I fly now.
On the other hand, its old, its a jet, the systems are much more complex than a PA28, it doesn't have ejection seats, it weighs 3.5 tonnes so landing fees are a relative fortune, can't be flown in IMC (not that you'd particularly want to) and its not really a "going places" aircraft.
When I was chatting to these two, one of the guys I know does about 100hrs a year in it and I believe joined the group when he had sub-100 hours total. He's quite straight up and says that its down to what sort of flying you want to do - hour building and touring or going for a low level blast round the Mach loop every so often etc. The other guy was (not sure if he's on this forum) to be honest, a bit full of himself - more of a "I rather fly this once a month than mess about in a silly 152" kind of person.
I personally don't think that flying a 250kt jet low level once a month for an hour or so is safe - at all! But, interested to know if anyone else has, or has had, a share in anything similar and what their views are of safety, both of the aircraft, hours required and technical knowledge of the aircraft?
I was chatting to a mate (ex RAF multi engine pilot), who said he did a few hours on JP's before going on to complete training on Tucano's. He seems to remember that the RAF required circa 150 hours before letting anyone loose on the JPs / Tucanos but then again, the RAF training is much more intense and repetitive than anything in civvy street (albeit I accept, probably better in the long run).
On the one hand, its great fun to fly, very manouverable, just had a new engine, very cheap to join the group, relatively cheap to fly (£300 / hr @ 250kts) and very, very different from the PA28 I fly now.
On the other hand, its old, its a jet, the systems are much more complex than a PA28, it doesn't have ejection seats, it weighs 3.5 tonnes so landing fees are a relative fortune, can't be flown in IMC (not that you'd particularly want to) and its not really a "going places" aircraft.
When I was chatting to these two, one of the guys I know does about 100hrs a year in it and I believe joined the group when he had sub-100 hours total. He's quite straight up and says that its down to what sort of flying you want to do - hour building and touring or going for a low level blast round the Mach loop every so often etc. The other guy was (not sure if he's on this forum) to be honest, a bit full of himself - more of a "I rather fly this once a month than mess about in a silly 152" kind of person.
I personally don't think that flying a 250kt jet low level once a month for an hour or so is safe - at all! But, interested to know if anyone else has, or has had, a share in anything similar and what their views are of safety, both of the aircraft, hours required and technical knowledge of the aircraft?
I was chatting to a mate (ex RAF multi engine pilot), who said he did a few hours on JP's before going on to complete training on Tucano's. He seems to remember that the RAF required circa 150 hours before letting anyone loose on the JPs / Tucanos but then again, the RAF training is much more intense and repetitive than anything in civvy street (albeit I accept, probably better in the long run).
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 549
Likes: 2
From: The frozen north....
No probs, have replied, had to laugh at the 250kts at £300 per hr, flat out it only does circa 270kts low level, 180kts normal cruise and probably still burning more than £300 per hr.... I can cruise my Cassutt at that speed on approx £40 per hour !!!
Last edited by Unusual Attitude; 13th September 2010 at 10:45.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 270
Likes: 1
From: Near the Mountains of Sussex
I've no connection to the seller, but here is an advert for a Cassutt.........
Cassutt IIIM Racer G-RUNT £14,500
Cassutt IIIM Racer G-RUNT £14,500
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 549
Likes: 2
From: The frozen north....
Indeed, thats the last of the ex Dukes of Cassutt machines that Richard Grace displayed, I bought G-BOMB which has only approx 150hrs TT AF and Eng and a starter fitted, was totally rebuilt 2 years ago. Bit of a handfull with a gusty crosswind but otherwise nothing like as bad to fly as the reputation suggests....cruise 160mph at 20L per hr, 180mph at 21L per hr and 200mph at a bit more....VNE 248mph which it does easily in a slight descent...
Last edited by Unusual Attitude; 13th September 2010 at 13:21.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
VMC
For background I have 1200+hrs on JPs, ~200 in last 8 years or so instructing for JP groups at North Weald. The bulk was instructing on them in the RAF.
RAF hardly ever measures in hours! They sent people who had never flown before solo in JPs in <10hrs if they were up to it.
JP3 is max, say 260K S&L, 5 350K, 4 in between. To fly >250K <10K' you need a radar service - interpret "need" as you will 
"Low Level" is illegal, and in a JP you'll get caught - they are not that common, and bl**dy noisy! >500' is not Low Level and legal, but pretty anti-social.
They will eat, at current prices, ~£400/hr in fuel. If you troll around at 180K at medium level, you'll reduce that, roar around at 250K/500' maybe double it. Maint costs will probably double the cost/hr, and very much down to how many hours the owners fly. By prepared for some annuals over five digits. Hence why <<very cheap to join the group>> they need more people to split the annual between
Most guys only fly, say, 10 hrs / year. Training is as per a proper syllabus, thereafter 6 monthly or annual dual checks, all as laid down in CAP 632.
I would quite happily train a 50hr PPL, and if they listen to what you say (and were taught well), will solo in a few hours. I have flown 500hr+ PPLs who will never go solo.
Safety: As safe as normal PPL flying, so long as CAP632 / OCM are applied sensibly. If there is a "Problem" same as any aeroplane, the attitude of the pilot.
Hours reqd: as above - PPL + a bit is worthwhile.
Tech Knowledge: Will be covered by instructors, nothing too difficult if you put the work in
HTH?
NoD
For background I have 1200+hrs on JPs, ~200 in last 8 years or so instructing for JP groups at North Weald. The bulk was instructing on them in the RAF.
He seems to remember that the RAF required circa 150 hours before letting anyone loose on the JPs
I personally don't think that flying a 250kt jet low level once a month for an hour or so is safe
"Low Level" is illegal, and in a JP you'll get caught - they are not that common, and bl**dy noisy! >500' is not Low Level and legal, but pretty anti-social.They will eat, at current prices, ~£400/hr in fuel. If you troll around at 180K at medium level, you'll reduce that, roar around at 250K/500' maybe double it. Maint costs will probably double the cost/hr, and very much down to how many hours the owners fly. By prepared for some annuals over five digits. Hence why <<very cheap to join the group>> they need more people to split the annual between
Most guys only fly, say, 10 hrs / year. Training is as per a proper syllabus, thereafter 6 monthly or annual dual checks, all as laid down in CAP 632.
I would quite happily train a 50hr PPL, and if they listen to what you say (and were taught well), will solo in a few hours. I have flown 500hr+ PPLs who will never go solo.
and what their views are of safety, both of the aircraft, hours required and technical knowledge of the aircraft?
Hours reqd: as above - PPL + a bit is worthwhile.
Tech Knowledge: Will be covered by instructors, nothing too difficult if you put the work in
HTH?
NoD
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 549
Likes: 2
From: The frozen north....
Spot on NoD,
The aircraft in question has no hourly costs, yup thats right you pay for only the fuel you burn and your landing fees. Great group model if you fly 100hrs per year in it as one member does (lots of free fuel from airshow attendance) and then split the bills equally come permit time. Not so good if like most you only manage 5-10hrs per year but are then landed with a share of £10k-£15k bill when something expensive goes pop....
As NoD points out fuel burn depends on how you fly but even on an average sortie I'd think £300 is an understatement.
Not a difficult aircraft to fly at all, I solo'd it in the minimum 5hrs, spent a couple of weeks studying the tech manaul and learning the systems etc but most of it was stuff I'd learned during my ATPL's so pretty straighforward.
Makes a lot of noise but the JP3 really isnt that exciting once you've got used to it, JP4/5 has considerably more grunt...
As for safety I'd look at the training sylabus you'll be undertaking and how well the aircraft is maintained...
The aircraft in question has no hourly costs, yup thats right you pay for only the fuel you burn and your landing fees. Great group model if you fly 100hrs per year in it as one member does (lots of free fuel from airshow attendance) and then split the bills equally come permit time. Not so good if like most you only manage 5-10hrs per year but are then landed with a share of £10k-£15k bill when something expensive goes pop....
As NoD points out fuel burn depends on how you fly but even on an average sortie I'd think £300 is an understatement.
Not a difficult aircraft to fly at all, I solo'd it in the minimum 5hrs, spent a couple of weeks studying the tech manaul and learning the systems etc but most of it was stuff I'd learned during my ATPL's so pretty straighforward.
Makes a lot of noise but the JP3 really isnt that exciting once you've got used to it, JP4/5 has considerably more grunt...
As for safety I'd look at the training sylabus you'll be undertaking and how well the aircraft is maintained...
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
Further to UA's points...
JP3: Call it "baseline" model. Underpowered, but once energy built up, the nicest handling e.g. for aeros. Smaller engine, flown at lower speeds, uses least fuel. I did 1:30 airborne the other day at mostly 180K-190K doing a photoshoot and used ~1500lb of fuel.
JP5: Bigger motor
Streamlined nose. Electric Windows. Pressurised = quiet inside (you canot tell how fast you are going by noise). Gentleman's touring version, handles signifcantly more poorly than JP3 due heavier, and in the RAF version I flew / JP5 I now fly, no tip tanks (reduces roll rate). The weight, higher cruise speed, bigger engine = uses much more fuel than a JP3. We could use the same 1500lb of fuel in 35min TO-Ldg in RAF 300K+ low level navs 
JP4: Essentially JP3 with JP5 motor. Not as fast as JP5 since still has blunt nose. Feels more powerful on takeoff than JP5 since lighter, and no pressurisation. Not quite as nice handling as JP3 - ailerons adapted due higher max IAS (400K). Fuel between the above 2, depends on how heavy your left hand is Were not around when I was in the RAF since they were such fun the JP3s were stored until the JP4s fatigued out!
Be aware that there is an "MPD" out there restricting some JPs to +3g/-0.25g. Pretty much a waste of time flying one with that in place
It is "removed" by some expensive engineering (wings off, lugs/bushes checked / re-worked). I believe any JP with the MPD in place does have to have the work done at some point i.e. within X hours. I would steer well clear of a JP with that MPD in place, and only offer to join after the work has been done (and paid for!) / the limits removed.
NoD
JP3: Call it "baseline" model. Underpowered, but once energy built up, the nicest handling e.g. for aeros. Smaller engine, flown at lower speeds, uses least fuel. I did 1:30 airborne the other day at mostly 180K-190K doing a photoshoot and used ~1500lb of fuel.
JP5: Bigger motor
Streamlined nose. Electric Windows. Pressurised = quiet inside (you canot tell how fast you are going by noise). Gentleman's touring version, handles signifcantly more poorly than JP3 due heavier, and in the RAF version I flew / JP5 I now fly, no tip tanks (reduces roll rate). The weight, higher cruise speed, bigger engine = uses much more fuel than a JP3. We could use the same 1500lb of fuel in 35min TO-Ldg in RAF 300K+ low level navs JP4: Essentially JP3 with JP5 motor. Not as fast as JP5 since still has blunt nose. Feels more powerful on takeoff than JP5 since lighter, and no pressurisation. Not quite as nice handling as JP3 - ailerons adapted due higher max IAS (400K). Fuel between the above 2, depends on how heavy your left hand is
Were not around when I was in the RAF since they were such fun the JP3s were stored until the JP4s fatigued out!Be aware that there is an "MPD" out there restricting some JPs to +3g/-0.25g. Pretty much a waste of time flying one with that in place
It is "removed" by some expensive engineering (wings off, lugs/bushes checked / re-worked). I believe any JP with the MPD in place does have to have the work done at some point i.e. within X hours. I would steer well clear of a JP with that MPD in place, and only offer to join after the work has been done (and paid for!) / the limits removed.NoD
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 549
Likes: 2
From: The frozen north....
Are there any JP4's still flying just out of interest? Eddie Todd had the last one I saw getting regular use but he sold that a couple of years back.....did a 45min trip in it a few years ago and he certainly didnt hold back!
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
Are there any JP4's still flying just out of interest?
Essentially was a JP4, got armed up for the Middle East, and still has Gun Ports / Weapon Switiching stick tops and Air-Con, and is flown using JP4 manuals/techniques etc.See Swords Aviation at North Weald.
NoD
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
Are there any JP4's still flying just out of interest? Eddie Todd had the last one I saw getting regular use but he sold that a couple of years back.....did a 45min trip in it a few years ago and he certainly didnt hold back!
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 549
Likes: 2
From: The frozen north....
I remember departing from 1200m one on a hot summers day with full mains and tips in a Mk3 and there wasn't much room for error, more grunt from the mk4 but even so I'd think it's pretty tight, must have gone through a lot of brakes!
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
Lister - the Cassutt is not for us dear chap, racing snakes only!
JP's - I've flown the 3, 4A and 5 many years ago when in Aunty Bett's Flying Club. Personally, I'd leave them well alone and find an aerobatic LAA type for a tenth of the hourly fuel burn and have ten times more fun!
JP's - I've flown the 3, 4A and 5 many years ago when in Aunty Bett's Flying Club. Personally, I'd leave them well alone and find an aerobatic LAA type for a tenth of the hourly fuel burn and have ten times more fun!
