I once read a quote from someone or other that went along the lines of “The only thing colder than Westinghouse refrigerators are their jet engines”. The correct quote I was misremembering is listed below 👇
Essentially, Grumman's experience with the XF10F was the very reason why the F-111 actually had a _reliable_ wing sweeping mechanism (despite all the other problems the early F-111's had). And that F-111 experience was how Grumman got back into the Navy fighter business with the now-legendary F-14 _Tomcat_ .
@@cateclism316 I think the problem was that the XF10F, like the Bell X-5 before it, relied on a single pivot for the swinging of _both_ wings, which caused center-of-gravity stability issues. That's why on the F-111, Grumman designed each wing to have its own separate wing pivot mechanism, which means the center of gravity did not change regardless of wing position.
Yeah, the most I have heard of it usually came from documentaries for both the F-111 and F-14 talking about it being a forerunner to swinging concepts. Doesn't get too much time in the sun, but I'm glad it does here.
SEPECAT is just one of those singular French military companies that build a single thing like in this case the Jaguar its kinda odd but I love saying SEPECAT and Love the Jaguar as a plane so they get a pass LOL
@@mikepette4422 That's because SEPECAT was a joint venture of BAC and Breguet for the sole purpose of making the Jaguar. Which worked out well until Dassault bought out Breguet. Dassault as a company has always despised any designs that they didn't develop themselves, even if they own those designs.
My first squadron was an Advanced Jet Training outfit. At the time we were flying Grumman Cougars, both the single seat F9F-8 and the twin seat TAF-9J. Those were some extraordinarily tough aircraft.
Slick main gear design, though. For me, the best Jaguar story was when Corkey Meyer lost the canopy, made an emergency landing, then climbed out of the cockpit (while the plane was rolling at about 100mph) and rode the plane to a stop, because of damage to the ejection seat.
I very much appreciate your videos. The subjects are well chosen and always interesting; I have learned about aircraft here that I did not know existed. Your videos are *very* well researched, are especially detail rich, are well written, and are very well narrated. I especially appreciate your measured and careful analysis and assessments of the reviewed aircraft. This is the first channel I visit for this type of content. Please keep it coming!!
I have just found your channel, and so glad I have. Always been interested in early jets, and have never found anything as informative as your stuff. many thanks.
Great subject. Great assessment. Great video. The navy wanted all the fashionable stuff quickly but without asking how practical that was on a carrier. However: When STOVL offered itself they where suddenly afraid to loose their big carriers. Even then they came up with the Rockwell XVF12. Which begs for a comparable video. Please keep them coming!
The XFV-12 was another case of the Navy opting for exotic technology that turned out to not work. If it had instead been the Convair Model 200 that was funded for a prototype to be built, well there would've still been issues (auxiliary lift jets are inherently inefficient since they're dead weight during horizontal flight), at least the Convair 200 would've been *able* to take off since it relied on conventional, already-proven VTOL principles. And who knows, maybe they would've been able to develop it into a system like the F-35B uses now, where the lift fan is part of the main engine rather than being separate auxiliary jets. P&W started work on that system in 1986, which would've been just a few years after the Convair 200 would've entered service had it been chosen instead of the Rockwell design.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Test beds are lethal to test pilots and fixing bad design equals cost overruns. I'm struck by the MiG 15 debut beating so many American designs from the same time. Apparently "design it well from the start" is a thing when Taxpayers aren't padding your Quarterly earnings. Who knew?
Wow this was great! Never knew much about the jaguar until now. What an interesting pioneering design with the swing wings this early on! Thank you for the lovely weekly content! 🙂
It's kind of hard to believe that infernal contraption was in some way the predecessor to the glorious F-14 Tomcat. Failure is a better teacher than success, I guess...
@@RedTail1-1I mean that and both being Grumman fighters designed by the same company, probably the same exact designers, for the same reason and to fill the same role, yes, clearly no relationship between one and the other, at all. Did you even think about that for a moment before you posted it? That's how aircraft design works. The F-18 exists because of the studies that created the F-5 and T-38. You can follow the exact evolution through various iterations on paper and models from one to the other. At the very least they used the data they gained studying the swing wing for this when they designed the next attempt. You don't really think they just burned all their data and started over from scratch, do you? And just happened to eventually adopt the same solution of roll control via spoilers by coincidence, only they got it right this time by amazing coincidence?
Read “The Westinghouse Aviation Gas Turbine Division 1950-1960: A Case Study in the Role of Failure in Technology and Business” for why Westinghouse jet engines wentvto hell.
Love the early jet episodes might you be interested in looking at the FJ Fury series of jets, by far in my opinion the ultimate development of the basic f-86 design and based on all of your videos thus far you would give it a thorough investigation. Thanks for the fantastic videos and look forward to whatever you have planned
My first introduction to the "Jagyer" was in an issue of the magazine Air International back in 1976. Read it on my flight from home in Florida to Lackland AFB, Tx. on my way to USAF bootcamp.
Nice one. The Jaguar was just ahead of its time. In some ways I see it as a test bed for design ideas that ended up in the A-6 Intruder, a definite Grumman success story.
Hiya, really enjoy your research based yet entertaining videos. Please do continue. On that note, would you consider doing a video on the F-91 Fiat and its resemblance to the dog sabre? Cheers!
If you look at the size of the bullet on the tail, they had major issues with aero and deep T tail stall. Sending them to the ranges probably saved many lives 🤔
The F-14 *should* have still been going strong just like the F-15 is. But Dick Cheney had a bizarre pathological hatred of Grumman and cancelled the "Super Tomcat" program (what would've been the F-14E).
Wow, a Grumman Cat I haven't heard of! I like the hint at the end, even if it is a General Dynamics competitor, and not a much more famous member of the Cat family.
That plane had innovative features which were totally uncontrollable in pre fly by wire days. Lots of that stuff would have worked perfectly fine 20 years later
I was looking at old videos on the Macey Dean channel and saw a comment suggesting you might be the same person who made those videos. Can you confirm or deny the validity of this statement?
There was a Paper exercise called th F12 not to be confused with the Blackbird fighter very blocky never made it past the drafting table i saw it in a book called the history of the American Fighter thick book got every pic or notation of fighter concepts developed at any stage
This isn't the swing wing Jaguar i thought it would be when I clicked on this video. lol Wait that is the tornado I was thinking of. You think this thing looked like a mig clone and why they never got it to work is beyond me really. Nice review, I hadn't heard much about this. Thanks.
I am actually kinda impressed by this thing, but since nobody asked for it had no chance. Also odd until I started watching this channel I actually knew Westinghouse from (guess what) NUCLEAR REACTORS yep they have made most of those for all nuclear powered US navy ships and actually have decent records can't recall a single time the navy had a problem with them.
The more appendages the less aerodynamically efficient..cue the F-4..great plane only because the engine was able to overcome the shortcomings of the airframe.
Westinghouse jet engines were the cause of the demise or near cancelation of many early Navy aircraft designs. At a time when century series jets were breaking records, Westinghouse was keeping the Navy in the trans-sonic range and killing pilots.
Grumman were masters of the swing-wing right from the get-go. A shame the Jag had such a slackdog of an engine and engine control system and the tail wasn't replaced sooner. It could have been an excellent carrier CAP fighter. Certainly better then the Cutlass.
Ah so that is why I'd never seen an F-111B before in it's pale deco 'they got cancelled' before production. Interesting... I tend to have a gap in knowledge of planes post war and pre "modern era" I.e. all those ones that didn't last long.
They didn't have computer simulations back then. They expected the control surfaces to actually work. I'd like to know what the roll rate was after they stuck a Cougar tail on it.
I think all the experimental features of the Jaguar doomed it. It's too bad, because the Navy eventually went with a variable swept wing fighter 20 years later.
I once read a quote from someone or other that went along the lines of “The only thing colder than Westinghouse refrigerators are their jet engines”.
The correct quote I was misremembering is listed below 👇
I think your confusing a different quote that was actually about a different aircraft; the Vought F7U Cutlass.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 What was the actual quote?
@@thelandofnod123 "put out less heat than Westinghouse's toasters."
Westinghouse started making brakes for trains, they never understood why anyone would want to go.
@@joshuabessire9169 Westinghouse actually was a premire turbine manufacturer (and jets are turbines, gas turbines specifically).
Great video. Early US jet fighter development can pretty much be summed up as "It was a promising design...and then Westinghouse happened."
Explain summing up nonsense please
.
And Westinghouse Leftthehouse.
Essentially, Grumman's experience with the XF10F was the very reason why the F-111 actually had a _reliable_ wing sweeping mechanism (despite all the other problems the early F-111's had). And that F-111 experience was how Grumman got back into the Navy fighter business with the now-legendary F-14 _Tomcat_ .
One designer's failure is another's success.
We haven’t failed, we have discovered 100 potential solutions which don’t work 💪
@@cateclism316 I think the problem was that the XF10F, like the Bell X-5 before it, relied on a single pivot for the swinging of _both_ wings, which caused center-of-gravity stability issues. That's why on the F-111, Grumman designed each wing to have its own separate wing pivot mechanism, which means the center of gravity did not change regardless of wing position.
And then in the 1990s, Grumman as a company was murdered by Dick Cheney, who for some reason had a pathological hatred of them.
General Dynamics, no?
Yay, Grumman.. I was a Grumman sailor, I only worked on the F-14 Tomcat and A-6 I Intruder while in the U.S. Navy for 23 years.
I loved CVW-2, the "Grumman Air Wing" aboard Ranger during the late 80's and early 90's.
“Only” he says casually. I would have loved to have been on a carrier in the 80’s and 90’s. I had to be satisfied with the F-111 and Classic Hornet.
@@thelandofnod123 🇦🇺?
@@ArizonaAstraLLC Indeed Sir.
Never heard of this aircraft. What a great YT channel.
Yeah, the most I have heard of it usually came from documentaries for both the F-111 and F-14 talking about it being a forerunner to swinging concepts. Doesn't get too much time in the sun, but I'm glad it does here.
definitely stick around
Not a Pound is obsessed with those early cold war jets and he's introduced me to a ton of weird and unique concepts
The Sepecat Jaguar : Very well known trainer/attacker
The Grumman Jaguar : Underrated yet revolutionary for it's time.
The jaguar had the same bomb load capacity as a Lancaster with a span smaller than a spitfire. Makes you think.
SEPECAT is just one of those singular French military companies that build a single thing like in this case the Jaguar its kinda odd but I love saying SEPECAT and Love the Jaguar as a plane so they get a pass LOL
@@mikepette4422 That's because SEPECAT was a joint venture of BAC and Breguet for the sole purpose of making the Jaguar. Which worked out well until Dassault bought out Breguet. Dassault as a company has always despised any designs that they didn't develop themselves, even if they own those designs.
Terribly steep learning curve. Hats off to the test pilots of the time!
The 1947 mockup is an A4 with a high tail.
Amazing that they didn’t capitalize on that.
The 1949 ones wing bears a striking resemblance to the Folland Gnat
Thx for doing videos about planes I have never heard of. Great video. Again👏👏
My first squadron was an Advanced Jet Training outfit. At the time we were flying Grumman Cougars, both the single seat F9F-8 and the twin seat TAF-9J. Those were some extraordinarily tough aircraft.
Slick main gear design, though.
For me, the best Jaguar story was when Corkey Meyer lost the canopy, made an emergency landing, then climbed out of the cockpit (while the plane was rolling at about 100mph) and rode the plane to a stop, because of damage to the ejection seat.
I very much appreciate your videos. The subjects are well chosen and always interesting; I have learned about aircraft here that I did not know existed. Your videos are *very* well researched, are especially detail rich, are well written, and are very well narrated. I especially appreciate your measured and careful analysis and assessments of the reviewed aircraft. This is the first channel I visit for this type of content. Please keep it coming!!
Swing Wing Jaguar was one of the early nicknames for the Panavia Tornado.
Another great vid from one of my favorite channels!Love these early jet stories!
I have just found your channel, and so glad I have. Always been interested in early jets, and have never found anything as informative as your stuff. many thanks.
4:58 '1947' is a ringer for the A4...
I was thinking exactly the same thing when I saw that top view.
Great video presentation. It closely parallels the book I own authored by Corky Meyers.
Great subject. Great assessment. Great video. The navy wanted all the fashionable stuff quickly but without asking how practical that was on a carrier. However: When STOVL offered itself they where suddenly afraid to loose their big carriers. Even then they came up with the Rockwell XVF12. Which begs for a comparable video. Please keep them coming!
The XFV-12 was another case of the Navy opting for exotic technology that turned out to not work. If it had instead been the Convair Model 200 that was funded for a prototype to be built, well there would've still been issues (auxiliary lift jets are inherently inefficient since they're dead weight during horizontal flight), at least the Convair 200 would've been *able* to take off since it relied on conventional, already-proven VTOL principles.
And who knows, maybe they would've been able to develop it into a system like the F-35B uses now, where the lift fan is part of the main engine rather than being separate auxiliary jets. P&W started work on that system in 1986, which would've been just a few years after the Convair 200 would've entered service had it been chosen instead of the Rockwell design.
@@RedXlV A navalised Bell 188 maybe? 😁
problem aircraft being cancelled just as they are about to (POTENTIALLY) be fixed is a very common story in aircraft
99% of the egineers stop working on their aircrafts right before it starts working properly
I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Test beds are lethal to test pilots and fixing bad design equals cost overruns. I'm struck by the MiG 15 debut beating so many American designs from the same time. Apparently "design it well from the start" is a thing when Taxpayers aren't padding your Quarterly earnings. Who knew?
Wow this was great! Never knew much about the jaguar until now. What an interesting pioneering design with the swing wings this early on! Thank you for the lovely weekly content! 🙂
16:07 What a great picture!
Another entertainingly informative video on an obscure aircraft. It is certainly one of the more ungainly birds I've ever seen!
Are you planning on doing a video on the -111b? I sure do love that thing and think it gets a bad wrap.
It's kind of hard to believe that infernal contraption was in some way the predecessor to the glorious F-14 Tomcat.
Failure is a better teacher than success, I guess...
Swing-wing doesn't automatically mean precursor to the Tomcat. That's the only thing similar between them.
@@RedTail1-1
. . . there's also the fact that both aircraft were designed and built by the same company.
@@RedTail1-1pretty safe to assume at least some lessons or experience from this found their way Into the tomcat
@@RedTail1-1I mean that and both being Grumman fighters designed by the same company, probably the same exact designers, for the same reason and to fill the same role, yes, clearly no relationship between one and the other, at all. Did you even think about that for a moment before you posted it? That's how aircraft design works. The F-18 exists because of the studies that created the F-5 and T-38. You can follow the exact evolution through various iterations on paper and models from one to the other. At the very least they used the data they gained studying the swing wing for this when they designed the next attempt. You don't really think they just burned all their data and started over from scratch, do you? And just happened to eventually adopt the same solution of roll control via spoilers by coincidence, only they got it right this time by amazing coincidence?
@@RedTail1-1 At 1:32 when he said "four-hour patrols 450 miles out from the carrier", I immediately thought of the F-14.
Read “The Westinghouse Aviation Gas Turbine Division 1950-1960: A Case Study in the Role of Failure in Technology and Business” for why Westinghouse jet engines wentvto hell.
Nonsense. They didn't have the thrust to make it to hell.
At least if they went to hell they’d finally have some warmth to them.
Love the early jet episodes might you be interested in looking at the FJ Fury series of jets, by far in my opinion the ultimate development of the basic f-86 design and based on all of your videos thus far you would give it a thorough investigation. Thanks for the fantastic videos and look forward to whatever you have planned
This video's ending was great, the leadup, the sad jag let down but it came around for grumman's future success
My first introduction to the "Jagyer" was in an issue of the magazine Air International back in 1976. Read it on my flight from home in Florida to Lackland AFB, Tx. on my way to USAF bootcamp.
Air Enthusiast
Air Enthusiast International
Air International
Great Magazine! Had a subscription and all the back issues.
Should have kept them.
A thoughtful appreciation, thank you.
Never caught one this fresh!
A detour on the highway to the danger zone
The detour to The Danger Zone?
The lay-by to The Danger Zone?
. . . rest stop to The Danger Zone?
. . . roadworks and contraflow to The Danger Zone?
Out on the edges that is where I yearn to be...
But these Westinghouse engines thrust just a little stronger than my pee...
Perhaps an unfinished overpass, which one has neglected to notice and drove off the end, that crosses over the highway to the danger zone.
Nice one. The Jaguar was just ahead of its time. In some ways I see it as a test bed for design ideas that ended up in the A-6 Intruder, a definite Grumman success story.
Hiya, really enjoy your research based yet entertaining videos. Please do continue. On that note, would you consider doing a video on the F-91 Fiat and its resemblance to the dog sabre? Cheers!
Jaguar had a lot of issues, I never heard much about it, this was an interesting and a good analysis, thank you.
If you look at the size of the bullet on the tail, they had major issues with aero and deep T tail stall.
Sending them to the ranges probably saved many lives 🤔
Damn I want some of these early 50's planes in DCS
They got it right with the F-14 tomcat, unbeatable range plus the range of that missle system kept the fleet well protected.
The F-14 *should* have still been going strong just like the F-15 is. But Dick Cheney had a bizarre pathological hatred of Grumman and cancelled the "Super Tomcat" program (what would've been the F-14E).
"The tail looked like the future and it performed like a bag full of disasters" is a fantastic line and earned Not a Pound a subscription!
16:06
Crossing fingers you will do a video on the Demon.
Is the aircraft in the end frame an F-111 naval prototype?
so the only control mechanisms without unsatisfactory delay are the landing gear and brakes?
03:16 I swear the guy on the left was roller skating…
Wow, a Grumman Cat I haven't heard of! I like the hint at the end, even if it is a General Dynamics competitor, and not a much more famous member of the Cat family.
Grumman were heavily involved with the stillborn Navy F-111B. Their work on that project led directly to the iconic F-14.
You're documentary are drugs to me u have beautiful voice brother 🙏🤲 keep up the great work 👍👍
First, I love Not A Pound For Air To Ground!
That plane had innovative features which were totally uncontrollable in pre fly by wire days. Lots of that stuff would have worked perfectly fine 20 years later
Love the cliffhanger.
I actually thought we'd be talking about the better known Jaguar.
That was a shit naval aircraft as well. Jaguar M failed its carrier acceptance trials massive!!
@@richardvernon317it was originally intended to be a trainer, though.
@@wbertie2604 Yes it was.
A good lesson to keep in mind: Even the biggest failures offer stepping stones of R&D to better things.
Yeah it looks boss and I think I remember this one from my Model Aeroplane ✈️ gluey days and it looks as good as many current fighters.👍🏴⚽️
I was looking at old videos on the Macey Dean channel and saw a comment suggesting you might be the same person who made those videos. Can you confirm or deny the validity of this statement?
There was a Paper exercise called th F12 not to be confused with the Blackbird fighter very blocky never made it past the drafting table i saw it in a book called the history of the American Fighter thick book got every pic or notation of fighter concepts developed at any stage
F-19 too?
This isn't the swing wing Jaguar i thought it would be when I clicked on this video. lol Wait that is the tornado I was thinking of. You think this thing looked like a mig clone and why they never got it to work is beyond me really. Nice review, I hadn't heard much about this. Thanks.
What’s the airplane at the very end??
F-111...
@@dcerame Not the Mirage G?
@@patrickunderwood5662 Swing-wing...
@@dceramewhile it’s not the Mirage G, the Mirage G *is* a swing wing
@@oceanforth21 It also never entered production...
I am actually kinda impressed by this thing, but since nobody asked for it had no chance. Also odd until I started watching this channel I actually knew Westinghouse from (guess what) NUCLEAR REACTORS yep they have made most of those for all nuclear powered US navy ships and actually have decent records can't recall a single time the navy had a problem with them.
Meanwhile here in the Antipodes it’s just washing machines and fridges.
The more appendages the less aerodynamically efficient..cue the F-4..great plane only because the engine was able to overcome the shortcomings of the airframe.
Westinghouse jet engines were the cause of the demise or near cancelation of many early Navy aircraft designs. At a time when century series jets were breaking records, Westinghouse was keeping the Navy in the trans-sonic range and killing pilots.
A swing wing made sense with the thrust/weight ratios of 0.3 /1 - 0.4/1 but modern engines give ratios better than 1.6/1.
I have always loved the way Brits say ""jag-you-ah" and Yanks say "jag-wahr"
The Jaguar stumbled so that the Tomcat could fly.
Should have put a maytag engine instead.
Grumman were masters of the swing-wing right from the get-go. A shame the Jag had such a slackdog of an engine and engine control system and the tail wasn't replaced sooner. It could have been an excellent carrier CAP fighter. Certainly better then the Cutlass.
Ah so that is why I'd never seen an F-111B before in it's pale deco 'they got cancelled' before production.
Interesting... I tend to have a gap in knowledge of planes post war and pre "modern era" I.e. all those ones that didn't last long.
I hope a 1/72 kit manufacturer is watching this.
Macey Dean?
Trying a carrier approach with a 2 second delay in control response? Shudder!
I love it, looks cool
10° roll rate!? How did they ever think this dog could be a fighter?
They didn't have computer simulations back then. They expected the control surfaces to actually work. I'd like to know what the roll rate was after they stuck a Cougar tail on it.
Instead of throwing the kitchen sink of technological advances at this aircraft they should have just tried to make the sink fly!😵💫
The 50s repeated the 00s where everyone had a theory how their multi wing multi engine multi everything was a world beater "On Paper"
"Hey guys, let's do everything wrong in our design and see what happens. It'll be fun!"
""...it should have been made impossible." 😂
That front shot is very Intruderish.
Apart from the top of the tail, it is a pretty plane
Westinghouse could barely build a decent refrigerator, let alone a fighter jet!
Had one, ended up selling it for an F-14 and never looked back.
What was that; a 9,000' takeoff roll? I'd call that a failure before it even flew.
I think all the experimental features of the Jaguar doomed it. It's too bad, because the Navy eventually went with a variable swept wing fighter 20 years later.
The arch of the story feels like guy Ritchie made it
Flying for a year is great endurance.
Should have bought the Rolls Royce Avon or A.S. Sapphire
did a patridge, you started at the end and flashed back to the beginning
yeah thats a weird looking tail control surface alright
Tee Dub Zee, Bunker material.
For the Want of a Screw a plane was Almost Lost
Also Jaguar came out before fly by wire computer control and it was dogged by garbage Westinghouse engines a good 1st start but a bit before its time
She was a bit buff.
What a 🚉 wreck.
This is an example of engineers ignoring the K.I.S.S principle.
So honoured to be the first view..
I don’t know but it looks remarkably British
It is the *US Navy,* not the navy.
Another casualty of immature technology, including the infamous J-40, that doomed the Cutlass and Demon.
You keep mispronouncing the name of this aircraft. It’s pronounced Jag-Wire.
Who says?
Obvious Sepecat L
Test pilot who actually flew the crap can: It was pure garbo.
UA-camr: WELL AKSHUALLY...