Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality...

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Yimmy RE:Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality... 8/6/2005 12:22:59 PM

The Hunter had good looks, and was supposed to be a joy to fly, while the Lightning had its brute speed... what does the Jag have? I don't really see what the Jag has ever been able to do that the Harrier hasn't. The early harriers had rather limited range and all, but I would have rather seen more of them at the expense of the Jags.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality... 8/6/2005 11:29:23 PM

I've never thought of the Hunter as having good looks, and the trainer version has the most woeful nose/cackpit shape I have ever seen. Erk!!

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality... 8/7/2005 2:15:24 AM

the Indians are very attached to the cat, it will be interesting to see how they react.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality... 8/7/2005 2:19:48 AM

It surprises me as it appears that the GR.3 is still being updated even though they are to be phased out. Almost like integrating GM-142E onto Pig, less than a few years before it gets melted down.

Quote Reply

eon RE:Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality... 8/7/2005 6:58:10 AM

The Jag acquitted itself well in Desert Storm, but proved to have problems with absorbing ground fire; the cure was to bolt the pop-open inspection doors shut on the engine housings. (They were spring-loaded, and could be opened by a push of an engineman's hand for adjustments. They >also< could be opened by anything hitting them in flight, including bullets, resulting in the intruding whatever going right through the pump assembly and into the turbine. Oops.) Once this liitle "glitch" was dealt with, the Jag went on to drop nearly as much tonnage as the Tornado, and had a higher mission cycle (Jags from the RAF and other Coalition forces flew more total sorties than any other single type except Harrier). The reason the Jag is leving the force now is that, quite simply, it's an old bird that has reached its max. allowable airframe life. Hopefully there will be a replacement that is at least as capable (JSF?) The thing is from my POV, I've always considered the Jaguar to be just absolutely butt-ugly, but like our own A-10 Warthog, "handsome is as handsome does". P.S.- DB, I agree with you absolutely on the Hunter T. Mk. 1 and later. >Why< didn't they make it a >tandem< two-seater like T-33? (Of course, we perpetrated the TF-102, so we don't have much room to talk, either......):-) Cheers. eon

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality... 9/6/2005 7:10:13 AM

Re Hunter. The side by side arrangemen was due to the fact that the Hunter is build up en section to facilitate dismantling for transport to the colonies. Thus the pit section comes off rather easily and you can bolt another one on. The stubby nosed apperance is due to the fact, that under the pilot there is a a tray with four canons weighing - well like canons. This means you have to keep the nose short to maintain center of gravity. Thus side by side. Does this answer your question? To the theme: well the British know something about building light bombers: the Canberra, the Buccaneer, the Jaguar and the Tornado.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:Demise of the Big Cat and RAF sentimentality... 9/6/2005 7:50:18 AM

Dismantling for the colonies? Which ones?

Quote Reply