Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62

Thread: Jaguars!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463

    Jaguars!

    Shameless plug...

    Name:  91125.jpg
Views: 2830
Size:  61.8 KB

    On sale now - Jaguar fans please take note

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,241
    Whoever picked a pink one to go on the cover? Looks dreadful!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463
    I did I agree that it isn't the most attractive of colours but it is what it is... blame the RAF!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NWI or BCWM
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by WH904 View Post
    I did I agree that it isn't the most attractive of colours but it is what it is... blame the RAF!
    Incorrect, blame MoD(IPR). It was XX725, the last Gulf War Jaguar left flying in 2007. David Walker AOC 1 Gp suggested a pink one, so we asked CinC STC to authorise it. It was Johnny Fartpants during GW1, but John Sullivan didn't want that. Commission was put out and the Can opener Girl was picked.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    WestNorEastSouth
    Posts
    5,602
    I dunno - I think pink kind of suits the Jag

    ; )

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463
    I guess everyone has a different view but it's not really up to me to decide what is attractive and what isn't! It's a Jaguar and it's a perfectly-positioned, top quality photograph. As I said before, one can only blame the RAF if one doesn't happen to like "Desert Sand" camouflage! I have to admit I think it would have looked far more impressive in Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Grantown on Spey
    Posts
    2,286
    the jaguars were hastily re painted at RAF Coltishall with the help of Air Cadets and staged via Akrotiri where i was lucky enough to watch them arrive while on emergency detachment to boost air traffic for 24 hour manning. Even more exciting was watching a U2 variant depart, no chance of pics as it was a rather sensitive time on base! I was an avid reader of Aviation News and often found out more of what was happening from the mag than we were told by the official channels. Back at Kinloss the station intelligence cell used to copy sections of my mag to help brief crews.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Harlow Essex
    Posts
    1,459
    Cant have enough Jags..one of, if not my favourite sharp noisy pointy things
    Hertfordshire Airfields Memorial Group
    http://hamg.co.uk

    Hunsdon, Sawbridgeworth and Matching Green airfields..
    http://www.wartime-airfields.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    In holding pattern north of Duxford
    Posts
    3,390
    Denis - ditto.
    Under my gruff exterior lies an even gruffer interior...

    行雲流水

    Warbirdskies Blog

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    3,247
    Its a part of the a/cs history. I allways loved PinkSpitfires too. My model goes down well at exhibitions.

    did Buster big bollox survive? An old boy saw the picture of her at Norwich and nearly passed out. For those not in the know its a Jaguar with nose art of a gentleman pushing his manhood in a wheelbarrow.
    pb::

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    cambridgeshire
    Posts
    1,514
    XZ118 was the ac that ended up at Tate Modern. Sadly now saucepans

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    3,247

    re;

    Quote Originally Posted by 12jaguar View Post
    XZ118 was the ac that ended up at Tate Modern. Sadly now saucepans
    Its ridiculous they have none at Hendon. The Jaguar schemed one would look fantastic in milestones of flight being so colourful, far more so than a grey F35 replica.
    pb::

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    cambridgeshire
    Posts
    1,514
    Quote Originally Posted by SADSACK View Post
    Its ridiculous they have none at Hendon. The Jaguar schemed one would look fantastic in milestones of flight being so colourful, far more so than a grey F35 replica.
    I've often raised this point with my contacts at RAFM, I think it's being worked on.....although personally I'd like to see a standard Jag scheme on display.

    John

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    3,247

    re;

    Quote Originally Posted by 12jaguar View Post
    I've often raised this point with my contacts at RAFM, I think it's being worked on.....although personally I'd like to see a standard Jag scheme on display.

    John
    It would be a tragedy to see that one broken up. Its eye catching and would go down well with the public.
    pb::

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Near Yeovilton, Somerset
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by SADSACK View Post
    did Buster big bollox survive?
    Wasn't that one called Buster Gonad?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NWI or BCWM
    Posts
    247
    What happened to the 12 Desert Cat frames of Desert Storm and present location.

    XX725/T, “Johnny Fartpants” GIA airframe at DCAE Cosford. Still a runner
    XX733/R ,”Baggers Spitfire” Crashed at Coltishall 23rd January 1996 after hitting the barrier on take off. CAT 5 and scrapped
    XZ119/Z,” Katrina Jane” National Museum of Flight, East Fortune.
    XZ358/W, “Diplomatic Service” Taxi able GIA at DCAE Cosford
    XZ364/Q, “Sadman” Sold to private collector, believe only the nose section remains
    XZ367/P “Debbie/White Rose” Exported to Karellas Koropiou, Greece
    XZ375/S “The Guardian Reader” Cockpit at the CNAM, Norwich
    XX748/U, GIA airframe at DCAE Cosford
    XX962/X, “Fat Slags” GIA airframe at DCAE Cosford
    XZ118/Y, “Buster” Fiona Banner destroyed
    XZ356/N “Mary Rose” Private owner, Welshpool
    XZ106/O “Rule Britannia” RAF Manston Museum.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,241
    Hopefully one of the four at Cosford will find its way into the RAF Museum collection in due course, but I'm not holding my breath as they seem to be heading down the route of rationalisation of the collection.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463
    Has anyone actually seen a copy of the Jaguar magazine? There seems to be a distinct shortage of copies in WH Smiths!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NWI or BCWM
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike J View Post
    Hopefully one of the four at Cosford will find its way into the RAF Museum collection in due course, but I'm not holding my breath as they seem to be heading down the route of rationalisation of the collection.
    With the move to Lyneham, I am fully expecting some of the DCAE frames to be disposed, certainly the older generation RAFG retired maintenance frames. XX119 to a Museum please, AI immortality..

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NWI or BCWM
    Posts
    247
    There are none in Norwich.. Anywhere..

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,241
    There were a pile in my local Tesco yesterday, and in WH Smiths this morning

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    cambridgeshire
    Posts
    1,514
    had loads in Tesco St Neots yesterday

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463
    That's good to know - maybe it's just my part of the world that seems to be affected!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NWI or BCWM
    Posts
    247
    The early nineteen sixties saw the air forces of Great Britain and France deep in thought over a problem in their capacity to train the future generation of combat pilots to fly the new highly complex and expensive frontline aircraft that were entering or due to enter service later in the decade or beyond. The British government had, after the destruction on many advanced projects in Duncan Sandys defence review in 1957, had forced rationalized the defence aviation constructors into two main company blocks for the development of the next generation of s aircraft. The British Aircraft Corporation (consisting of the former companies of English Electric, Vickers/Armstrong, Bristol and Hunting ltd) and The Hawker Siddeley Aviation group (a complex company who had brought or merged famous companies such as Hawker, ARVO, Blackburn and De Havilland and others over 25 years) had government contracts for the development of two extremely ambitious projects, BAC’s TSR 2 tactical/strike/reconnaissance aircraft fulfilling GOR 339 for the RAF and H.S.A’s P1154 project for a supersonic vertical take off and landing fighter/bomber for the RAF and the Royal Navy. The senior commanders within the RAF saw a problem in the training of future crews for these next generation strike aircraft and the October of 1961 began the process of identifying and producing a target specification for the possible provision of an advanced trainer aircraft to replace the Folland Gnat T Mk 1 and Hawker Hunter T Mk 7 that were used at that time. This was of the belief that the combination of trainers in service was not suitable in the longer term future to fill the training needs up to the next step of operation conversion on the future supersonic types and only barely adequate to fill the needs of training pilots of the Lightning fighters just entering service. After 5 previous drafts, early in 1963, the Royal Air Force issued an Air Staff Target 362, a specification of requirements for the Gnat/Hunter replacement, this specified that the design of trainer was to have supersonic performance in level flight (The Gnat and Hunter were only supersonic in a dive), be powered by two engines, be fully aerobatic, preferably be able to have good spin recovery characteristics and fulfil certain runway take off and landing criteria. It was expected to have a high rate of climb and that afterburning engines would be acceptable to achieve this. It was also a consideration that an aircraft with variable sweep wings would possibly be a strong contender to fulfil the varying requirements.
    The target was more far more ambitious to what the United States had specified for its selected advanced trainer, the Northrop T-38 Talon. The air staff target also looked at possibly using the airframe as a counter insurgency (COIN) attack aircraft as a secondary role, although this had raised some eyebrows in medium circles of the Air Ministry staff that wondered what use a supersonic aircraft had in fighting irregular forces, when aircraft more in line with the last ground attack fighter bombers of World War two seemed more suitable. The air ministry had made noises of the general specification of AST 362 to the various British manufacturing companies and in response to AST 362, The British Aircraft Corporation submitted their P.45 design, Hunting aviation drew up the H.155, Folland entered the Fo.147 and Hawker Siddeley submitted the P.1173.

    Across the Channel, the L’Armee De L’Air was considering a number of issues facing their operations. One was the operation costs of currency flying of their aircrews in the new delta winged Mirage III. They believed the costs were prohibitive with the number of aircraft held on high readiness and wanted a cheaper airframe to operate for continuation flying as well as considering a replacement for the Dasualt Mystere IV, the North American F-100 Super Sabre light strike fighter and the T-33 trainer currently in use. A requirement, known as ECAT (Ecole de Combat et l’Appui Tactique), literary translated in English to School of Combat and Tactical Support was drafted by the Aeronautics Technical Bureau and opened to the French manufacturing concerns to submit designs for ECAT in the April of 1964. The leading military manufacturer in the country was Avions Marcel Dassualt, who submitted a design called the Cavalier, whilst competition submissions came from the design office of Breguet aviation (the oldest aircraft manufacturing concern still in existence at the time and headed by George Ricard) with the BR 121, the Potez P-92, the Nord Harpoon and Sud-Aviation with their SA-12 (a version of the Northrop F-5 / T-38 built under licence). All three all French designs had twin engines with a fixed swept wing and a tandem cockpit layout. Main differences between the three however was the incorporation of a T mounted tail plane on the Cavalier, the P-92 had had engines mounted on the rear fuselage in pods and while the Breguet submission looked most conventional, it did not incorporate ailerons for roll control, using spoilers to induced bank and leaving the trailing edges of the wings available for high lift devices. This roll control configuration had been incorporated on their B1001 TAON prototypes in 1958, a single seat lightweight fighter design submitted for the NATO NBMR-1 requirement and won in the end by the FIAT G-91 design. The Cavalier was to be powered by General Electric G-58 turbojets, while the BR121 was to be powered by Rolls Royce RB 172-45 turbojets

    The two nations preliminary studies were running independent from each other, but both were aware of each other’s intentions, having expensive capital aircraft projects being developed and started to enquire if joint military programmes could follow the lead set by the treaty to develop the Concorde SST signed by the countries in the November of 1962. Towards the end of 1963 and into the beginning of 1964, air ministry officials had low level meetings with their French counterparts to discuss national programmes and if any common course towards collaboration towards any requirements across a range of projects existed. The French were not interested in any collaboration with the TSR 2 or P 1154 projects, however they were willing to discuss their basic requirements for the ECAT programme allowing the air ministry and the RAF to compare the ECAT specification to AST 362. Over the spring and summer of 1964, the various branches of the Ministry of Defence (as the air ministry had been absorbed into) involved examined what they could gather on what information the French had given them and compared against the Royal Air Force requirement. At first the British officers and staff saw massive differences, especially as the French had the ECAT primary role as a cheap tactical attack aircraft first and as a training aircraft as a secondary role, the complete opposites to the air staff target. Reservations in some of the physics of the ECAT specification (range, speed, all up weight and armament) also seemed to concern the British staff officers in offical papers as not adding up to theirs. However there seemed enough common ground to peruse a comprehensive study between the two specifications and see if common ground could be reached. The French made some changes to their specifications to bring ECAT more into line with AST 362, but were adamant that variable geometry was not on their agenda for such a programme as their requirement was more urgent in timescale than the 1975 deadline of the RAF and VG was going to add unnecessary cost in development. They continued to pursue ECAT independently in the mean time, although still open to negotiations if collaborations were possible.

    While the British and French air staffs were discussing their requirements with prospective contractors, the UK general election of 15 October 1964, saw Harold Wilson’s Labour party regain power after 13 years. The British economy was not fairing particularly well and the new government look at what cost saving measures could be made in defence spending. They immediately took a review of the progress of the development of the Hawker P1154, the HS.681 vertical take off and landing transport and of the much-delayed TSR-2 programme (The project was hitting major hurdles due to its complexity, developments costs were rising dramatically over the original estimates with reductions of performance way below the original Operation Requirement 339, only one prototype had flown a limited number of test flights, the RAF had already cut the number of airframes on cost grounds and there was no export market for the aircraft). They also enquired with the United States on the prospect of purchasing American types that could fulfil partially the roles of the British projects. The axe was sharpen in on the 4th of February 1965, the government announced the cancellation of the P1154 and HS681 projects and the aim to order Rolls Royce Spey powered F4 Phantoms, The Hawker P1127 subsonic Harrier and Lockheed C-130 turboprop transports. It was also announced that review of the TSR 2 was still ongoing. While the hammer blow to several all-British projects was announced, the Government had preserved the collaboration project with the French for a Concorde and started to make serious negotiations with Paris over opportunities to increase this co-operation over a wider field than just a supersonic airliner.

    Back over in France, The submissions for ECAT were being considered carefully by the ATB during the latter half of 1964 and much to the surprise of Dasualt, the French government on the 1st of February 1965 awarded the contract of prototype development for ECAT to Breguet (who had never built a combat fighter to reach service). This was because they believed that the BR 121 was the lightest, smallest and price of obtaining/ support was more consistent with the project objectives. Other suggestions at the time also included that the reluctance to use of American power plants and that the French government did not want to have all its combat aircraft projects under the control of one company as prime contractor.

    On the 27th of March 1965 a ministerial meeting between the two governments agreed on possible collaboration on four different military aircraft requirements. While Variable geometry, airborne early warning and tactical helicopters were considered; the previous work carried out on a strike trainer aircraft was enough for the summary of the meeting to report:
    • The military requirement and technical specifications have been agreed subject to matters of detail.
    • France required an in service date of 1970 while the UK didn’t require introduction until 1973. Because of the French requirement, development would at the as soon as possible.
    • Around 200 aircraft per government were envisaged
    • Work load and cost should be split 50:50 between the two governments
    • Joint direction of the programme should exist from the start
    • By the end of 1965, detailed technical and costing programme would be established, allowing review then and at later appropriate stages.
    • A joint effort to exploit foreign markets to the full.

    Back in the United Kingdom, the Government in two pre Budget cabinet meetings on the 4th of April 1965 dealt the death blow to the TSR-2 project, deciding that purchase of the General Dynamics F111-k variable geometry strike aircraft was a cheaper option that continuing with BAC’s troubled development project. However, the F111-k did not meet all of the RAF requirements in short field performance, so it was also decided to examine via the Anglo French links, if the two nations could also collaborate officially of development and production of a more advanced strike reconnaissance aircraft in addition to the trainer/close support aircraft. In a short space of 6 weeks, both French and British governmental committees stuck a stronger accord on the viability of running two such projects and on the 17th of May 1965, a Memorandum of Understating into collaboration on the two projects was signed by on behalf of the UK by defence minister, Denis Healy and trade minister Roy Jenkins and on behalf of France by Perrie Messmer and Marc Jacquet. The terms of the understanding were that both governments would fund jointly development of the two projects to prototype development stage, with the trainer/light strike aircraft lead being given to France for development from the Breguet BR121 design, with BAC as the British Contractor. The Swing-wing project (officially known as the Anglo French Variable Geometry or AFVG) would be British led and based on an updated concept of the BAC P.45 AST 362 submission. The French contractor for AFVG would be Dasualt, who were already examining VG with their private Mirage IIIG programme. Airframe development was not the only collaboration decided on. Both the contracts for power plant provision would be joint ventures too. The ECAT Powerplant would be an engine jointly developed by Rolls Royce and Turbomeca, based on the RB 172 low bypass turbofan and T260 turbojet while the AFVG engine was to be a SECMA / Bristol Siddeley design. The memorandum had many break out clauses that bothered the French as they had seen the actions of the UK government over the previous months. The memorandum also broke down the requirements for the RAF and AdA in possible production numbers, The RAF provisional order would be for 150 trainers while the AdA would require 75 trainers and 75 attack aircraft.

    The memorandum found Breguet and BAC forced together in a marriage of two organizations that had no previous experience with working with each other. This was complicated by having differencing national cultures of work, standards of engineering draw and of course language. BAC however could draw on its experience with Sud-Aviation in its ongoing Concorde research and development. The same could not be said about Rolls Royce and Turbomeca.
    It was obvious that the differing rules, regulations and attitudes concerning national military development projects would affect a collaborative effort, but all the companies chosen for the ECAT were determined that their efforts would pull in a common direction. This certainly was the case for a name for the Breguet/BAC 121 and it wasn’t long before that was agreed. By the start of the Paris Air Salon in the middle of June 1965, the Anglo French strike/ trainer had been formally named. The ECAT acronym was believed to have been the inspiration, especially the last 3 letters. It isn’t known exactly who thought up the idea of a big cat name or why the particular cats name was chosen (because English and French spelling for many of the big cat species names are the same), but the first meeting of the senior and technical management of the two companies at Breguet headquarters on the 2nd of June 1965 and the first point of the agenda, General Henri Ziegler, head of Breguet suggested a couple of names his company preferred and the urgency to decide because of Paris, to George Edwards, head of BAC. Edwards agreed and the name was suggested to the British ministry of aviation for approval and clearance was sought for use by a British car company that may have had copyright issues. Zieglier suggestions had been the Lynx (that found use for the Anglo French Westland led attack Helicopter) and of course, The Jaguar..

    By July 1965 the AdA and the RAF had reached a joint operational requirement for the Jaguar variants A, E and B. Thus Operational Requirement 362 set the specification for Breguet, BAC, Rolls Royce and Turbomeca to design airframe and engine to. OR 362 was for an advanced trainer and tactical support low level fighter that had to be bi variant constructed so that the end of the production line, the frame could be finished as a trainer or tactical variant. The aircraft had to be twin engined and trainer seating had to tandem in layout. The airframe was to be designed to be as simple and as sturdy as possible, with control systems that were easy to operate and maintain. The cockpit had to have means of cockpit access integral to the airframe and the aircraft had to be able to be turned around in 15 minutes from engine shut down to engine start
    up for the next mission. Tactical aircraft would require camouflage finish for low-level operations. Priority for construction was defined for the French trainer variant. Mission specifications for the tactical model included a range on full internal fuel of 500 kilometres armed with one anti radiation missile, with a cruising speed of 450 knots, ability to accelerate to mach 0.9 over a target area for 5 minutes with manoeuvrability at that speed and leaving a fuel reserves of 10 percent at the end.
    Conversely the trainer variant had to be able to carry out high-level supersonic training missions of 1 hour duration and 10 minutes of sustained supersonic flight, low-level training missions of one hour with 20 minute of flight at mach 0.9. fuel reserves had to be 10 percent of total internal fuel plus 10 minutes holding and two go around circuits. Both aircraft had to be able to take off from rolled grass strips or hastily constructed airstrips. The tactical version had to be able to clear a 15 metre obstruction in a distance of 800 metres from its starting position in basic role and the landing distance had to be comparable to take off. No auxiliary launch devices such as JATO rockets could be used and the aircraft had to be able to operate with cross winds of up to 20 knots at 90 degrees. Approach speeds with minimum fuel should not exceed 120 knots and if braking parachutes were designed into the airframe, they must be considered to for normal use. The aircraft had to have nose wheel steering and an emergency arrestor hook capable of stopping the aircraft with a 2 G deceleration force. While the trainers landing requirements where the same for short field performance, it also had to be able to take off and land on main and secondary runways as short as 1,650 metres (5,400 ft) in the worst conditions of safety taking off or landing on one engine, clearing an obstacle of 15 metres height at the end of the runway, landing or taking off, use only 90% of maximum braking power on a wet runway.

    As for aircraft performance, the aircraft was to have excellent manoeuvrability across its whole speed range with emphasis on the tactical aircrafts rate of acceleration to mach 0.9 and sustained turns of 3.5 G at this speed at sea level. The trainer would have the ability to reach supersonic speeds quickly and be able to turn at 1.5 G’s at Mach 1.5 at up to 14,000 metres (the tropopause) without buffet. Both variants without stores would have good stalling characteristics in straight and level flight and in a turn, with a clear onset of stall warning. The airframe had to be strong enough to withstand a load factor of +8g /-3g in the basic configuration with 2/3rds internal fuel and be able to recover normally from a dive at 400 knots at 7 G at sea level with the same fuel load and no adverse handling characteristics. The airframe was to have a fatigue life rated at 6000 hours flying time rated at the expected usage in the profiles.

    Basic operation equipment was also established. The tactical version would have two uhf radios, an Mk 10 IFF transponder and a TACAN /VOR receiver. The navigation system for the French Tactical variant would consist of a twin gyro platform and Doppler radar. The twin gyro platform would be able to provide navigation facilities if the Doppler failed. The navigational data was to be presented by distances and bearings from original loaded data or TACAN information. For the weapons sighting, a simple gyroscope sight was envisaged for air to air and air to ground engagement. Heading data was other data that was specified to be able to be seen in the sighting system. Standby compasses and artificial horizons were also specified.

    For the French trainer E version, a simple avionics set up with the same components as the A, minus the Doppler radar and twin platform but with the Mirage III equipped central gyro giving heading and height. All navigation controls and displays had to be installed in both cockpits. For the British B aircraft however two variations of a more advanced avionics suite were envisaged. The first, System B had as well as the radio, transponder and tactical navigation aids, an instrument landing system. The major difference was the highly developed inertial navigation system that was to include not only the inertial platform but also computer giving numerical position information of current position and heading and also drive an optically projected topographical display. An air data computer and gyro magnetic compass system would be used as a backup if the platform failed. An additional sighting computer would supply information to a head up display, giving the pilot exact information for navigation and bombing as well as heading and attitude information from the navigation computer. The other suite, System C was a simplified version of B using a gyro magnetic heading reference and air data computer and a simple computer to control a head down roller map and head up display. Both suites would have a weapon-recording device and an oblique mounted F95 camera. Both cockpits would have head up and projected map displays. The specification also stated that a basic avionics suite that possibly could be envisaged to fulfil both requirements with variation possible should be examined.

    As for armament provisions, all variants would be specified to have 5 weapons stations, one on the centreline fuselage and two on each wing. Loadings for each station were stated as 800 Kilograms for the centre and inboard wings and 470 kilograms for the outboards. Stores for the inner stations would include a 900 litre external fuel tank, 400 Kg or 1000 lb bombs, SNEB rocket containers, AS30 or (AS 37 Martel missiles for the tactical aircraft only), napalm canisters or 28lb practice bomb carriers. The outboard stations would be limited to 400 Kg bombs, SNEB rockets or practice bomb carriers. All variants would also carry two internally mounted 30 mm guns with 100 rounds carried per gun. However the tactical specification called for more comprehensive missile control and guidance equipment, two OMERA 60 cameras in the nose and a forward-looking radar-warning receiver.

    The requirement called for self sealing tanks or circuit selection against fire by light weapons, cockpit protection for pilots against small arms fire, by armour, cockpit escape by Martin Baker ejection seats, sufficient breathing oxygen stored in liquid form, normal levels of cockpit pressurisation for a fast combat aircraft, normal blind flying instrumentation for all variant cockpits, anti G equipment, windscreen wiping system and de mist and an armoured windscreen capable of protection of bird strike entry up to 600 knots. The trainer cockpits also most importantly had an optimal field of view downwards to allow landing of the aircraft and position the aircraft for air to air and air to ground weapons firing. The minimum angles of view downward they would accept would be 15 degrees for the forward seat and 11 degrees from the rear seat, although the preferred angles were 18 and 15 degrees. These angles were for a nominal approach configuration at maximum landing weight and an instrument approach speed on a 3-degree glide path. The aircraft was also be able to self-start without external power supplies and have a cheap and reliable electric generation system.

    The specification for the Poweplant life for units that had a minimum period of major overhauls of 250 hours and this period should increase to 1000 hrs as development progressed. Engine starting was to be autonomous without external starters, the engines must be interchangeable, various types of kerosene grades JP1, 4 and 5 could be used without differentiation with the possible inclusion of anti freezing additives, maximum fire detection and protection would be provided and the engines and other vital flight system should be protected from bird strike effects as much as possible.
    Last edited by Canopener Al; 30th November 2014 at 11:24.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    581
    Baggers Spitfire, was that alluding to Sqn Ldr Bagshaw?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463
    I'm still trying to work-out what the previous post was about?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NWI or BCWM
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbiesmurf View Post
    Baggers Spitfire, was that alluding to Sqn Ldr Bagshaw?
    Yes it was. XX733's crash with the tragic death of Greg Noble could fill a few paragraphs in its own right with the story, I was on crash guard two hours after the accident and saw the aftermath.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    581
    It never is a pretty sight.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    In holding pattern north of Duxford
    Posts
    3,390
    It's a bit like the search for the Holy Grail trying to find a copy of this bookazine - after the disappointment of the Cold War Warriors 'special' I am a bit loath to plonk near on eight quid blindly ordering it by post.

    Nowhere seems to have a copy (or have seen a copy) of it...
    Under my gruff exterior lies an even gruffer interior...

    行雲流水

    Warbirdskies Blog

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,241
    I've seen it on sale in several supermarkets around the Cambridge area.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES