Ай бұрын
Ай бұрын
2 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
5 ай бұрын
6 ай бұрын
6 ай бұрын
7 ай бұрын
7 ай бұрын
7 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@well-blazeredman6187 4 күн бұрын
Yes, but apart from that miniscule barrier problem, it looked easier to land than a ....... Seafire.
@abagatelle 13 күн бұрын
I remember it well....! Pressure breathing with G in conjunction with flight trials in a Hunter T7. Had to give blood after each trip - arm was like a junkies at the end! (mid 80s)
@adamvinnicombe4086 18 күн бұрын
The highest I fly in a striker aircraft in warthunder
@bobcastro9386 22 күн бұрын
Thank you, quite informative.
@kimziffer7259 25 күн бұрын
Chuck was from my hometown. The disrespectful comments are sickening.
@FASTAviationArchive 24 күн бұрын
Have removed the disrespectful comments.
@dkoz8321 27 күн бұрын
MY grandpa, dad, and uncleas , directly contributed to this program. There were ejection dummies. I did not live up to their standards. I ended being an ejection idiot.
@ianbell5611 Ай бұрын
Very good. Great video
@tajupilakeel5674 Ай бұрын
Varigud❤
@robertkeddie Ай бұрын
Is Eric Brown doing the narration? It sounds like him.
@FatherExo Ай бұрын
See this would have been a neat premium for france rank 7 instead of the F1C, i like my naval aircraft man
@mikelynn4754 Ай бұрын
Ahh Buccaneer, a real aircraft.
@rich3124 Ай бұрын
Very nice! 👍🙂
@BrianSanders-tn7pi Ай бұрын
Hi. I must admit probably my most favourite jet fighter. Sleek yet tough. Good looking too.
@EP65 Ай бұрын
Still got the looks. Nice.
@clangerbasher Ай бұрын
I didn't know the UK did some of the trials work for Jaguar (N). I thought it was a wholly French venture.
@davidbell3016 Ай бұрын
Alton towers prototype 😅 seriously a very interesting video
@hens_ledan Ай бұрын
Well, I never knew they'd got a carrier version going!
@SubCapt Ай бұрын
Yup, but it never went into production, as it was unltimately found underpowered for actual carrier use.
@shawnc5188 Ай бұрын
Dassault had a hand in killing the Jaguar M, in favour of the Super Entenard.
@edsutherland8266 Ай бұрын
Though the underpowered nature of it could have been improved. With modifications, it could have been quite successful. Ultimately though, as others have pointed out, Dassault used its influence to kill the project. The irony is that a more powerful Jaguar M with radar could have allowed the Marine Nationale to retire their Crusaders decades earlier. Though the Crusader was a good fighter, it would have allowed the MN to focus their entire air wing on just Jaguar Ms (plus the usual Alizés and helicopters).
@hens_ledan Ай бұрын
@@edsutherland8266 Thanks Ed for the reply. It seems to be a 'thing' by the RAF to get rid of designs early on rather than cash the benefits of lessons learned, often leaving silly gaps in capacity: The Sea Harrier being the obvious example (a gap still not filled by the F35). A re-engined, fly-by-wire Jaguar w would have been an excellent development.
@hens_ledan Ай бұрын
@@shawnc5188 Politics again, I suppose.
@olivierdurandberenguer5455 Ай бұрын
stunning.
@keithattwood59 Ай бұрын
The French versions had uprated engines from the start, compared to the RAF kites.
@Sleepysod Ай бұрын
Is this true? They used the same engine: Turbomecor adour French had Mk 101 as they entered service first but the RAF planes had the upgrades Mk 102, 104 and 106.
@keithattwood59 Ай бұрын
@@Sleepysod To be honest, it is only hearsay from aircrew I am going on. In Germany, the Jag was always being joked about for its lack of thrust. The French fixed the problem with the afterburners, vital for the carrier kites. We used extending nose gear and emergency afterburners on our FG1, F4 Phantoms on the Ark Royal.
@gerardphillips7507 Ай бұрын
In truth, if we had proper Catobar carriers we would be buying French Dassault Rafale jets today!
@1chish Ай бұрын
'proper CAATOBAR carriers'? Why 'proper'? The UK F-35Bs go off the QE carriers with 22,000Ib of weapons, the 'C' variant goes of a CATOBAR with 18,000Ibs. STOVL carriers can launch in far worse weather conditions than CATOBAR. As we proved in 1982. Even without SRVL retrievals a QE can launch aircraft at 30 second intervals. As they proved during CSG21. ANd initial sorties are faster than CATOBAR. 'proper carriers' launch aircraft. Nothing to do with catapults.
@epikmanthe3rd Ай бұрын
If the UK operated CATOBARs still, they'd still be flying F-35s. Only the C model, not the B model. The Rafale is a very capable aircraft (and could probably beat the 35 in a knife fight), but it loses out in stealth, sensor fusion, and electronic capabilities.
@bikesfrench8524 Ай бұрын
C'est la société française Bréguet concurrent de Dassault le jaguar a été fait par la société Breguet😊😊
@briancavanagh7048 Ай бұрын
Underpowered?
@DaveSCameron Ай бұрын
I’ll have a goo
@dmo0 Ай бұрын
So easy to take off and winter 🙂💪👍
@nnoddy8161 Ай бұрын
The greatest piston engined plane in history.
@alan-sk7ky Ай бұрын
Always good to see a Derry reversal...
@alexdrennan6185 Ай бұрын
wonderful film , just imagine it though great aircraft anyway shame these beauties are lovely and missed
@ianbell5611 Ай бұрын
Very cool 👍👍
@randlerobbertson8792 Ай бұрын
An Anglo French aeroplane. But competed against Dassault export models so never that popular with the French even though it was an excellent aeroplane.
@patelrohan5083 Ай бұрын
The french sacked the project on purpose so that it could push its own models to its client nations....
@randlerobbertson8792 Ай бұрын
@patelrohan5083 yes. That is true.
@bikesfrench8524 Ай бұрын
@@patelrohan5083LA SOCIÉTÉ BREGUET SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE ET CONCURRENT DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DASSAULT C'ÉTAIT UNE ASSOCIATION AVEC LA SOCIÉTÉ QUI ÉTAIT EN FRANCE CAR IL Y AVAIT PLUSIEURS CONSTRUCTEURS D'AVION DONC C'EST LA CONCURRENCE DASSAULT QUI ÉTAIT CONTRE LA CONCURRENCE BRÉGUET C'EST UN PROBLÈME FRANCO-FRANÇAIS😊
@user-cp3yt2hp9i Ай бұрын
Lovely bird, indeed, in all it's versions! May be could be actual to this time.
@mikelynn4754 Ай бұрын
It just looked so very smart in those colours.
@tonystevens9278 Ай бұрын
Sadly never ordered into production as the FN preferred the all French, Super Etendard.
@tonystevens9278 Ай бұрын
@@christopherneufelt8971 - Agreed!
@sebv1086 Ай бұрын
@@jehuty1a - French Navy (Marine nationale).
@bikesfrench8524 Ай бұрын
Non c'est un problème franco-français c'est la société Breguet qui a travaillé sur le jaguar il était en concurrence avec la société Dassault😊😊
@Milkmans_Son Ай бұрын
Can't say she didn't warn you...
@SkinPeeleR Ай бұрын
Nowadays they do this on airshows for fun.
@trijetaviator Ай бұрын
what aircraft was the one in the first clip?
@blackchallis Ай бұрын
Maybe a de Havilland Vampire
@tonystevens9278 Ай бұрын
An excellent upload thank you. It is extraordinary to think that HMS Victorious was prematurely retired nearly sixty years ago now.
@Volcano-Man 2 ай бұрын
Hope the crew were on Oxygen!
@per_scep_tivegamer879 2 ай бұрын
looks fun.
@MaxPlankton 2 ай бұрын
Why the a/c pack deselection?
@billb7876 2 ай бұрын
A good book to read is Front Line and experimental flying with the fleet air arm by Geoff Higgs, he was probably flying in a lot of the trials on these videos.
@billb7876 2 ай бұрын
I remember watching this in training in the late 70s, later on I had 2 Jollies in Jags at Lossiemouth great fun
@abuyalatip7590 2 ай бұрын
They wave flags on top of the cockpit as similar acknowledgement to the sea ships. 😂
@mline250 2 ай бұрын
Jet fuel coming out the engine inlets AND exhausts!! Yikes.
@nickbarsby3378 2 ай бұрын
Not incidence. Angle of attack.
@nightjarflying Ай бұрын
The chief pilot uses the term "high incidence" multiple times - he knows what he's talking about I'm sure. Often of course "high incidence" equates to a high AoC. The term "high incidence" is used for a low speed stall at high altitude.
@abagatelle 24 күн бұрын
Attack/incidence - same thing.
@nightjarflying 24 күн бұрын
@@abagatelle The angle of incidence should not be confused with the AoA. AoA is the angle the wing chord presents to the airflow in flight. Whereas AoI is a fixed angle on most fixed-wing aircraft - it's the manufactured mounting angle between the wing chord line & a reference line [often the direction of minimum drag, or where applicable, the longitudinal axis]. I repeat: The angle of incidence is fixed in the design of the aircraft, and with rare exceptions, cannot be varied in flight. nb some engineering texts that focus solely on airfoils may use either term, but practical aviation recognises a distinction.
@abagatelle 24 күн бұрын
@@nightjarflying Sure, but in common use they're equivalent - as I learned at ETPS.
@californiadreamin8423 2 ай бұрын
Very interesting. During my undergraduate apprenticeship at Warton , in about 1970, I spent 3 months in the Flight Test department. The Lightning spinning trials were over, and I helped prepare graphs from the telemetry tapes. A number of Lightnings had been lost during medium level high g tail chase manoeuvres. Recovery was achieved by “letting go” of the control column…..that’s how it was put to me, but it was probably by centralising the column, and not by trying to recover by pilot input. The A/C would roll and when unloaded, control was regained. If mishandled, then the ensuing spin , had such a high rate of descent that from medium level….15,000 ft…that recovery was impossible in the available height. The test aircraft was fitted with a tail chute .
@user-en9zo2ol4z 2 ай бұрын
Excellent.
@alanwright3172 2 ай бұрын
My instructor on my Airborne Forward air controllers course had the most amazingly perfect set of teeth. His Jaguar , in a quote "controversial" configuration had departed low level and he was obliged to remove himself from the situation courtesy of Messers Martin and Baker unfortunately leaving part of his Jaw and teeth behind!😱 His recovery was a tribute to both the aforementioned designers and the NHS.
@mline250 2 ай бұрын
Wonderfully understated as only a Brit can.
@tonyf9076 2 ай бұрын
Was ground crew at Lossie 84 and nabbed a jolly in the backseat of 226OCU Jaguar, loved every second of low level flying through Scotland. Awesome memories 😁
@dorsetdumpling5387 2 ай бұрын
Love the carefully worded “we have never been able to recover from a spin in a two seater using conventional controls..”
@gregmarchegiani6656 2 ай бұрын
“Failed to produce a recovery”, to be exact 🙃
@jamesgraham6122 2 ай бұрын
Comforting for them to know that they're sitting on a 'Bang' seat :>)
@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab 2 ай бұрын
Hope they didn't have a big breakfast first! 🤢
@johnnolan8980 2 ай бұрын
Yeah……. No!