Jaguar High Incidence - Loss of Control - Recovery Procedures

1976 Includes in-cockpit footage, recovery from a spin.
For more info about Farnborough Air Sciences Trust visit:
airsciences.org.uk/

[@dorsetdumpling5387]

Love the carefully worded “we have never been able to recover from a spin in a two seater using conventional controls..”

[@gregmarchegiani6656]

“Failed to produce a recovery”, to be exact 🙃

[@californiadreamin8423]

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 .

[@alanwright3172]

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]

Wonderfully understated as only a Brit can.

[@tonyf9076]

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 😁

[@SkinPeeleR]

Nowadays they do this on airshows for fun.

[@jamesgraham6122]

Comforting for them to know that they're sitting on a 'Bang' seat :>)

[@per_scep_tivegamer879]

looks fun.

[@Milkmans_Son]

Can't say she didn't warn you...

[@billb7876]

I remember watching this in training in the late 70s, later on I had 2 Jollies in Jags at Lossiemouth great fun

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Excellent.

[@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab]

Hope they didn't have a big breakfast first! 🤢

[@mline250]

Jet fuel coming out the engine inlets AND exhausts!! Yikes.

[@SimonWallwork]

Slightly knickermoistening.....

[@millimetreperfect]

That doesn’t look like fun

[@johnnolan8980]

Yeah……. No!

[@nickbarsby3378]

Not incidence. Angle of attack.

[@nightjarflying]

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]

Attack/incidence - same thing.

[@nightjarflying]

@@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]

@@nightjarflying Sure, but in common use they're equivalent - as I learned at ETPS.