BAE-Sepecat Jaguar, Mitsubushi F-1 and T-2

[elmayerle]

If you're converting a land-based jaguar kit, use the main gear from a Mitsubishi F-1/T-2 as it has the same basic geometry, but twin wheels like the Jaguar M used.

[Weaver]

If you're converting a land-based jaguar kit, use the main gear from a Mitsubishi F-1/T-2 as it has the same basic geometry, but twin wheels like the Jaguar M used.

Jaguar M had one small wheel per u/c leg, rather than the two big ones on the standard Jaguar. The F-1/T-2 also has one wheel per leg, but the shape of the leg is very different. Jaguar M's leg was dead straight and simple, with the wheel mounted directly to the end of the oleo, whereas the F-1/T-2 leg has a trailing arm setup, with a second shock behind the leg. Of course, for whiff purposes, you could always make up a story about the Japanese leg design being fed back into the Jag programme....

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Has to be asked. 

Variable geometry wing for the Jaguar?  Was it ever considered for any application with the Jaguar?  VG Jaguar for carrier operations?

[Daryl J.]

Wow!   This thread spans 5.5 years!

Been eyeing the T-2 for a whiff to go alongside the TSR.2.   



Daryl J.

[GTX]

Did someone mention a VG Jag?



Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

In all honesty, I can't see VG being applicable for the Jag.  She's supposed to be a fairly bare-bones striker and I have to think that the complexities of a VG system, along with the additional weight would move the aircraft away from it's initial design & role.  That said, I'd scale-o-rama the wings down a shade 'cause they look a bit 'big' for the airframe.

Regards,

Mav

[Weaver]

And yet, several of the studies in the broad Jaguar/Hawk story were for VG aircraft. The Folland F.148 was a VG trainer/fighter study that preceded the Jag, and the Anglo-Australian AA-107 study was involved as well. Of course, the fact that these lines of study wern't pursued further suggests that the conventional wisdom about VG re-asserted itself, namely that the weight penalty (about 4% if you're careful) eats any advantages below a certain aircraft size.

The Soviets broke this principle with both the MiG-23/27 and the Su-17, but then they wern't dealing in conventional economic cost-effectiveness measures. If the requirement was to get an aircraft of performance X onto a runway of length Y, then it cost what it cost to do the job. 

[Archibald]

The BAC P.45 was part of the Jaguar legacy.

A two-seat Jaguar / Mig-27 hybrid would be good.

[ElectrikBlue]

Did someone mention a VG Jag?

Regards,
Greg

I love the GTX VG Jag
Here is a little 3D preview of what it would look like with a Mig-23 wing.

Regards,

EB

[Archibald]

Excellent work! 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Did someone mention a VG Jag?

Greg, you were on the right track with that idea.  However, I think ElectrikBlue got it spot-on with his inclusion of the forward portion of the wing glove as depicted in his drawing.  It is surprising at how well that the variable wing from the MiG-23/27 adapts to fit on the Jaguar.  This would certainly warrant the destruction of an ESCI MiG-23/27 kit to get the desired results in 1/48th scale.  Anything smaller and you are on your own for the resources. 

[Thorvic]

Wont the tail surfaces need to be revised in line with the new VG wing on a Jag.

BTW the BAC P45 i built a couple of years ago was based opon a shortened Mitsubushi F1 with a new VG wing.

G

[Weaver]

I have acquired a Matchbox Jag and an Airfix Mirage F1, with the intention of doing a super-Jag with a "big-wing", However, on mating up the parts, the Mirage wing is so similar in size to the Jag one that you'd hardly notice the difference! 

I'm considering a Crusader wing, but I think it'll be too big....

[kitnut617]

I have acquired a Matchbox Jag and an Airfix Mirage F1, with the intention of doing a super-Jag with a "big-wing", However, on mating up the parts, the Mirage wing is so similar in size to the Jag one that you'd hardly notice the difference! 

I'm considering a Crusader wing, but I think it'll be too big....

IIRC, the F.1 was a direct competitor of the Jag to the same requirement.

[Weaver]

I have acquired a Matchbox Jag and an Airfix Mirage F1, with the intention of doing a super-Jag with a "big-wing", However, on mating up the parts, the Mirage wing is so similar in size to the Jag one that you'd hardly notice the difference! 

I'm considering a Crusader wing, but I think it'll be too big....

IIRC, the F.1 was a direct competitor of the Jag to the same requirement.

No, not really.

The Jag started off as a 2-seat supersonic trainer (inspired by the T-38) with single-seat attack as a minor variation (this was, in fact, the way that the Japanese actually used the T.2/F.1). Those priorities were only reversed when a) it became apparent that supersonic training was expensive and unnecessary, and b) that NATO's new Flexible Response strategy required a hell of a lot more attack aircraft to kill Soviet armour without nukes.

The F.1 started off as a Dassault private venture alternative to the series of big, twin-engined and/or swing-wing aircraft rewuested by the French Air Force in the 1960s. Basically, M.Dassault didn't think they'd turn out to be either affordable or exportable and the French government eventually came around (or was persuaded around) to the same point of view (never heard what the air forces real view on the matter was......). The F.1 was always a fighter first and an attack aircraft second. It moved away from the delta layout primarily because short take-off distances and rough-field operation were in vogue and a simple tailless delta flatly couldn't achieve that. As soon as fly-by-wire came along and made it possible to balance and fly a delta in completely different way, they went back to it with the Mirage 2000 (you could argue that the 2000 benefits more from it's FBW than the F-16 does).

So the Jaguar and the F.1 were built to different requirements and wern't originally direct competitors, although they often became such on the export market. Rather, they look alike because they both had the same configuration-dictating requirement (rough-field ops) written into their specs.