Comments by "Neil of Longbeck" (@neiloflongbeck5705) on "The Jaguar M; When the Big Cat Went to Sea" video.

It's so funny that Dassault was also pushing for the adoption of the single-engine Super Etandard because of the engine issue....
95
No, it was the lead ship of a 5 ship class of ships of which only the Enterprise was built.
4
The real reason for Dassailt not to support the Jaguar for the French Navy was that they had lost out on the programme that lead to the Jaguar.
3
@Tetemovies4 the Yak-38 didn't land on conventional carriers. The Kiev class carriers had no catapults or arrester gear, unlike the French carriers. The Yak-38 was a v/stol aircraft which needed to lift engines to allow it to fly vertically. If either lift engine failed then it took up the flight characteristics of a breeze block, just like F-35 would. This makes you analogy pointless. Doubling the number of engines whilst doubling the number of potential causes of failure doesn't increase the chances of total engine failure by double. There are very few occurrences of multiple engine failure and those are either caused by an external factor, such as volcanic ash, or non-engine related, such as ice in the fuel or running out of fuel. The chance of each engine failing remains the same and that means the chances of a double failure engine failure solely to mechanical failures is approximately half that of a single engine failure due to the way the maths work.
1
@Tetemovies4 don't be stupid. The Jaguar had 2 thrust engines whilst the Yak-38 only had one. You are comparing apples with granite. As your 100 engine aircraft then it depends on the use the engine is being put to. If the engine is a lift engine then it is conceivable that a single failure could result in a crash in a vertical landing.unlikely but possible. The shaft driven lift fan is useless if the engine it is attached to fails and is little better than the lift engines fitted to the Yak-38. If either gear box fails if can only land I the conventional manner.
1
@Tetemovies4 then why bring up the V/STOL Yak-38 and its problems, which according to the Aviaton Safrty Network were primarily due to the failure of a single lift engine during either take-off, landing or hovering during an airshow. That ONE engine out of THREE and always one of the lift engines. A lifting jet engine is identical to a thrust engine except for the direction the jet exhaust is pointing. Your 100 engine aircraft is nonsensical. The problem that the Mk101 engines of the earlier Jaguar had was it went from 100% dry thrust to afterburner. This was changed for the Mk102 engines to have the afferburners come on at IIRC 80% dry thrust.
1
@Tetemovies4 and by your illogical push of the idea of redundancy it makes it nonsensical. As for the engine issue on the Jaguar, that was solved long before the decision was made to buy the Super Etandard. The single-engine handling was also addressed. BUT the question still remains why did you chose to base your argument on the Yak-38 when it can quite easily be dismissed?
1
@Tetemovies4 more word salad.
1
@Tetemovies4 having 2 engines in the Jaguer makes them functionally redundant you muppet that's what redundancy means. The engine upgrades made them work better by smoothing out the thrust characteristics and had no impact on their redundancy, which was already assured by have 2. The Yak-38 needed a pair of lift engines as the Soviet Union, and all other nations to be fair, could not make a small enough engine with the required levels of thrust. The French with their Mirage III-V needed 8 lift engines, plus a thrust engine. Now, there's redundancy. Although a better western equivalent of the Yak-38 I'd the VFW VAK 191B with 2 lift engines and a thrust vectoring main engine (sound familiar because that's what the Yak-38 had). Again it had 2 lift engines because Rolls Royce couldn't make a turbojet any shorter and jet the required thrust. However, this aircraft remained a technology demonstrator. Nut it did have design advantage over the Yak-38 as the lift engines were placed at each end of the fuselage and were powerful enough to be landed on alone if needed or by using the main engine's vectored thrust. A very Germanic concept of redundancy.
1
@Tetemovies4 but it could still fly to an airfield on land if within range AND that makes it functionally and physically redundant because it could continue to fly. Your argument is spurious and facile. Just because this aircraft or that aircraft in a prototype form couldn't achieve one specific aspect doesn't mean that it could never do that with improvements, which is what prototypes are for. Improvements that, in the Jaguar M's case were not long in arriving, but arrived too late for that version of the Jaguar. At least the Jaguar M had the option to return to a land base on a single engine, whatbhope did the Super Etandard pilot have with a single engine failure? All he could do was hope that his ejection seat functioned as promised, his dinghy inflated and the rescue helicopter wasn't too long in getting to him. He had no redundancy at all.
1
@Tetemovies4 prototype testing. You just don't get it do you? As explained earlier the issues foundvduringnthe testing were all resolved. Unlike the major flaw with the Super Etendard. it Plus have you never heard of air to air refuelling. The French Navy had. But if the Jaguar M had gone into service the engine and engine out issues would have already been resolved. But you don't seem capable of getting that into your head.
1
@Tetemovies4 well as stated earlier the issue with the response to the throttle input was solved with the afferburners coming in earlier than originally intended. This is well know and resulted in the Adour Mk101 becoming the Adour Mk102. Also who said the Jaguar would be refuelling other aircraft, stop making piss-poor assumptions as they keep making an ass of you. I also never said anything about the wing loading being suitable, so stop shifting the goal posts. Well let's see, the F-4 Phantom had a wing loading of 567kg/m^2 against the Jaguars 649.3 kg/m^2. So a bit more, but not excessively so. But also a meaningless comparison.
1
@nigelsmith7366 I was commenting on what was said, notvrepeating it.
1