Topic: Why have they retired the Jaguar?

However the pounding it took low level over land whilst in RAF service caused severe fatigue problems with the main spar resulting in a change of role and finally

IIRC when the RAF took the Bucc one of the mods was to the wingtips, but what they didn't realise untill after one crashed in Nevada was that this tip put a twisting moment through the wing which was previously unknown. Hence why Buccs had the top panel removed above the joints for easy inspection.

is it possible that just as today we find the Spitfire simple, in 30 years time things like Tornados will be "simple"?

I assume we are talking about the GR1/4 Tornado and not that famous waste of space the F-3.

first name of something just about still in service that came to mind

is it possible that just as today we find the Spitfire simple, in 30 years time things like Tornados will be "simple"?

No.

PDR

lol PDR is the peak of human knowledge
you don't think in 1000 years time cold fusion and space travel will be simple?
by then even kids will know more about aerodynamics and flight theory than you, heck i could wipe the floor with the wright brothers on aerodynamics even now.

lol PDR is the peak of human knowledge
you don't think in 1000 years time cold fusion and space travel will be simple?
by then even kids will know more about aerodynamics and flight theory than you, heck i could wipe the floor with the wright brothers on aerodynamics even now.

I wonder ; built your own wind tunnel yet?

Mike

heck i could wipe the floor with the wright brothers on aerodynamics even now.

LOL.............I doubt it Phil, they had a wind tunnel and did sums 

I'm afraid my case is resting.

PDR

lol PDR is the peak of human knowledge
you don't think in 1000 years time cold fusion and space travel will be simple?
by then even kids will know more about aerodynamics and flight theory than you, heck i could wipe the floor with the wright brothers on aerodynamics even now.

Shaun and Bradley?

they built the blimming thing backwards

Shaun and Bradley?

 

ok, their first attempts were pitch unstable, i know how to work out the CofG
the wing was under cambered, i know far more sections.
i know how to build a monoplane wing, and not rely on biplanes with rigging.

everything we modelers know is from what these guys of the last 100 years found out through experiment.

so, the majority of us know far more than they did.

i know how a jet engine works, Orville didn't


if this wasn't the case of the new generations taking on the knowledge of the previous and building on it, we'd still be in the trees.

Do you mean like a Typhoon Phil?  With pitch control surface at the front, wing & engine(s) in the middle and yaw control surface(s) at the back with thrust "pushing" (rather than "pulling")
Pete

ok, their first attempts were pitch unstable, i know how to work out the CofG

So did they. The reason for the pitch instability of the Flyer is nothing to do with the CG position. By 1906 they knew that, too.

the wing was under cambered, i know far more sections.

They knew WHY they'd chosen their particular sections - do you? What makes you think your choice would be better?

i know how to build a monoplane wing, and not rely on biplanes with rigging.

They knew how to build a monoplane wing as well. But unlike you they realised that a biplane layout would provide a very small drag penalty in return for which they'd get less than half the structure weight for a given wing area.

everything we modelers know is from what these guys of the last 100 years found out through experiment.

so, the majority of us know far more than they did.

The Wright Brothers understood the underlying theory - so they knew when results were applicable and when they weren't. The wright brothers could design with numbers - could you? Their wing had an ultimate structural margin of roughly 1.4. Please describe how you would go about designing such a structure and analysing the stresses to calculate the structural margins. All working to be shown. You may use a calculator (but they didn't).

i know how a jet engine works, Orville didn't

Do you? OK then - why do we compress the air into the combustion chambers before burning fuel in it? The Wright Brothers knew the answer to this one BTW.

PDR

...
if this wasn't the case of the new generations taking on the knowledge of the previous and building on it, we'd still be in the trees.

Or in Cornwall. 

Pat.

Or in Cornwall. 

Did the Cornish ever make it to the trees? I thought they were still at the mud-skipping stage...



PDR

Or in Cornwall. 

Pat.

(I'm from Devon!)

Most importantly they knew what it was that they knew, they knew what it was that they didn't know and they didn't confuse the two.

Is Donald H. Rumsfeld Cornish ? 

Pat.

No.

PDR

Now that is simple

Now that is simple

That was the intention...

:cig

PDR

lol PDR is the peak of human knowledge
you don't think in 1000 years time cold fusion and space travel will be simple?
by then even kids will know more about aerodynamics and flight theory than you, heck i could wipe the floor with the wright brothers on aerodynamics even now.

Phil even if the current jets are considered "simple" in years to come - it will be in terms of technology employed. It wont make a jot of difference to the manhours required to perform a given task on the aircraft.

Some of us here fly electric shockies. Plug in the battery - switch them on - fly.

Phil Clark built a mahoosive model Skyraider (which I saw at Duxford and looks a bit nice  ) which arrives at the flying field in bits and requires lots of screwing/bolting/plugging in before it is capable of functioning as an aeroplane.

The Skyraider will always take a longer to assemble than the shockie nomatter what Phil (or anyone else for that matter) builds next.

The current RAF jets will ALWAYS take a LOT of work to keep flyable - even assuming the parts etc were available.

In a thousand years in wont matter if we have time travel technology - it wont change the fact that the current RAF jets do (and will continue) to require countless manhours and associated monies to perform even the most basic tasks.

Nuts and bolts are considered simple today but no amount of understanding changes the time taken to unscrew and remove them  Surely that's pretty obvious?

Just pretend for a moment that you owned a modern fast jet, and you alone had to do all your own maintenance so that you alone could fly it. How much time do you reckon you'd spend on the ground to make the a/c ready for a flight? Pretending money was no object - how often would it actually get flown? In reality you'll have to employ professional engineering support for your jet - so you wont have to put in the manhours. Lets assume that you find some mug who'll work for a tenner an hour. How much will it cost you to get the jet ready for a flight?

If people think that maintaining an old Precedent Hiboy with a clapped out Merco 35 and obsolete Digifleet radio is a pain in the butt - just try extrapolating that nuisance by an untold factor to get some idea of what a nightmare it is keeping clapped out old complex fast jets flying 

Just pretend for a moment that you owned a modern fast jet, and you alone had to do all your own maintenance so that you alone could fly it. How much time do you reckon you'd spend on the ground to make the a/c ready for a flight?

To put some numbers on this: from memory the Jag runs at something like 35 first-line maintenance man-hours per flying hour. Assume 5-6 hours of this is concerned with weapons loading and mission specific role-prep, so we'll call it 30. But it's a deceptive figure because (as stated above) the Jag's design is such that most of the unscheduled rectification work is performed off-aircraft. SO for a real maintenance burden figure I'd be looking to factor this by a figure of between 5 and 10. Then remember that this is for an aeroplane which does between 250 and 300 flying hours per year. A "historic display" aircraft would be expected to do less than 100 hours a year - possibly as little as 30 hours a year. At such low flying rates the specific maintenance burden increases dramatcically because the seals harden up, oils drain to the lowest point, corrosion rates increase, condensation does damage etc etc.

To the basic point. There's a world of difference between things being "well understood" and things being "simple". When Einstein first dreamed up the principles of Relativity nearly a hundred years ago it was ground-breaking stuff. These days it's taught to all physics and most maths undergrads, but it's still pretty complicated to actually *understand* (as opposed to just being able to use the equations by rote). Better still - about 250 years ago John Harrison finally perfected the Marine Chronometer. These days his basic design is still used, is in mass production and it's very well documented. But I doubt many people really understand it in all its intricacies, and the number of people who could set out to make one from scratch is extremely small.

PDR

the vulcan isn't being done by one bloke and an oily spanner, and neither is the BoB collection.
why would you assume anything more modern would be?
heck, i imagine the ground crew for something like that must be a small army all on it's own once they get it flying!

i'm well aware of the ground hours vs flight for projects like the Lighting F5 that was restored ( if not the numbers, but 60 comes to mind ), but in the end it was the FAA that stoped that flying here not the ground problems.

the vulcan isn't being done by one bloke and an oily spanner, and neither is the BoB collection.
why would you assume anything more modern would be?
heck, i imagine the ground crew for something like that must be a small army all on it's own once they get it flying!

i'm well aware of the ground hours vs flight for projects like the Lighting F5 that was restored ( if not the numbers, but 60 comes to mind ), but in the end it was the FAA that stoped that flying here not the ground problems.

The Fleet Air Arm stopped the Lightning flying here?

Never trust them Naval types

ah what ever their blimmin name is. federation against aviation

Sure you don't mean the CAA?

probably

A fuel critical supersonic fairly complex twin engined jet maintained on a budget.... can't for the life of me think why the CAA wouldn't one of those flying over the UK 

the vulcan isn't being done by one bloke and an oily spanner, and neither is the BoB collection.
why would you assume anything more modern would be?
heck, i imagine the ground crew for something like that must be a small army all on it's own once they get it flying!

i'm well aware of the ground hours vs flight for projects like the Lighting F5 that was restored ( if not the numbers, but 60 comes to mind ), but in the end it was the FAA that stoped that flying here not the ground problems.

I do love the way after even the most detailed answers Cactus still won't take no for an answer... clearly the vast engineering experience of the staff of both the RAF and BAeS are wrong and it's really simple to do... because Cactus says so..

details don't mean nowt, i'm pretty sure if you asked someone in the RAF if there would be spitfires and mustangs flying past their service life they'd laugh too.

details don't mean nowt, i'm pretty sure if you asked someone in the RAF if there would be spitfires and mustangs flying past their service life they'd laugh too.

Wrong.

Details mean everything in that particular game and, when it comes down to it, in a lot of other human endeavour. What looks to be a simple case of bish-bash-bosh-sorted to those with no inkling of what is actually involved can often be highly complex and not feasible in economic terms or not desireable in engineering terms.

.....i'm pretty sure if you asked someone in the RAF if there would be spitfires and mustangs flying past their service life they'd laugh too.

I can't remember the design life of a Spit, but I'd be surprised if many of them worldwide were outside it.

I can't remember the design life of a Spit, but I'd be surprised if many of them worldwide were outside it.

Indeed. Most of the surviving warbirds around today are either original aircraft which more-or-less missed the war and went straight into storage somewhere, or had short service careers and were subsequently damaged (and thus sat on the ground whilst their counterparts were worn out) and have since been fully or partially rebuilt. Very few surviving warbirds have long and distinguished service histories - for the very reason that those which did do lots of hours "back in the day" were indeed worn out, just like all the Jaguars are now.

Even the BBMF Lancaster has had new wing spars manufactured and fitted at great cost to extend it's life. There is a reason why there's only two Lancasters in the whole world currently airworthy you know....

yes, you are right, there is a reason,  they where all broken up for pans, way inside their service life some of them as well,    my fahter worked on lancs,   they where still making them after the war, out the door, round the back, and broken up,     i also remember the very last beufighter being blown up at, i think, farnborough,   in a hunter dummy attack

details don't mean nowt, i'm pretty sure if you asked someone in the RAF if there would be spitfires and mustangs flying past their service life they'd laugh too.

 

a) most WW2 aircraft are not past their design lives

b)

The reason extensions for these aircraft is easy compared to our Jaguar relates to how the process of designing and making aircraft has changed over the years.

c) Details not only 'don't mean nowt', details are the very center of the problem..

Sheesh, you can't just keep asking the same question into the answer you want drops out.

Also, with WWII aircraft such as Spitfires there's usually a fair amount of re-building/re-manufacturing.  Had a trip round Historic Aviation at Audley-End a few years back - fascinating the amount of work and craftsmanship that went into restoring a Spit.  Even then it typically cost £1M to restore a Spitfire.

Even the BBMF Lancaster has had new wing spars manufactured and fitted at great cost to extend it's life.

It nearly had a new centre section lower rear spar several years earlier, (1980), when I had to blend some corrosion out of it, when I'd finished, (my instructions were to take the last bit out during the polishing stage), we put a DTI on it and nearly sh@t ourselves, it was 0.0015" within limits   They even looked at removing the spar from the Scampton Gate Guard, just in case, but that one was even worse.

That was very nearly my 'claim to fame' 


Mark.

ok, when i say service life i mean service life, not design life.
the time when the forces are done with them hours or no hours.

the amount of things being buried or broken at the end of WW2 no one would expect them to have what we do now.
what about if i asked you 10 years ago if we'd have Fw190's and ME262's, you'd laugh silly, yet here they are, brand new yer, but they exist as does Glacier girl.

bet you didn't expect a Vulcan to fly again either.