squezzer

I agree with you about the evolution of the technology between the initial design and during the operationnal life but nowadays, it is mainly true in the avionics and systems. We are not in the 50's, when almost nothing was known about flying above the soeed of sound, when calculation were handmade and simulation of aerodynamics phenomenons was just a dream. Here, we are talking about aerodynamics which evolves much slower than electronics. I was involved in aeronautics for the last 25 years or so, mainly in jet engines and airframe. Whenever you see an extra aerodynamic feature such as a strake, a fin, a vortex generator and so on added, it means that there is a local flow problem to solve. The earlier you solve it in the design process, the cheapest it is because of the amount of induced modification in the aircraft itself, in the supply line and in the production tooling. Here, we are talking about a strake, an apex, nothing that has been involved in a major technological improvement that could explain why these modifications were not made from the start.

Such a huge improvment of the aerodynamics so long after the 1st flight makes wonder about the efficency of the original design. Usually, when you have to add fences, strakes and other aerodynamic devices like this, it means that you a problem to solve. it happened to the Jaguar wich needed ventral fins to improve lateral stability. It is even more true nowadays when mathematical models, computers and test facilities allow you to make an accurate calculation which describes the behaviour of the real thing very closely.

You are right. The black coatings are not the same on the nose cone and on the anti glare panel. The nose was coated with a kind of rubber paint while the anti glare was a regular airframe epoxy paint.

Some really nice work here! Just a little mistake: the demarcation line between the radome and the fuselage should be almost vertical and the anti glare black should run under the winshield to the front end of the canopy.

Regarding the prod and export number, it has not a lot to see with the aircraft capabilities. It is more a political matter. For instance, the Mig 21 was an export success mainly because the russian block air forces had to by it. It's similar with US jets nowadays. Buying US jets is mandatory if a country wants US support even if, in some case, the US jet is not operationnally sumerior to its counterparts (I m not saying here that US jet are crap, just the political matter has very often the upper hand on the operationnal matter when talking about combat jet purchase). Even the kill ratio is not enough: what about a Sea Harrier without all aspect IR missile in the Falklands? Some aircraft were crap in some pilote hands annvery good in other hands ( P-39 were bad aircraft in the view of the US but were quite efficient for the Russians). Just my 2 cents on a longstanding and endless debate. ;-)

If you want to build a twin seater which saw action, you can build a Jaguar E from the french air force as they were engaged against Polisario rebels in Mauritannia in 77-78

Mirage III of course!

I think the hasegawa kit is better than the italeri one but it lacks the french underwing pylons which differ from the brit ones. I don't know about the accuracy of the pylons in the italeri boxing

The 2 toned Mirage deployed to Chad were F1 CR, the recce variant. There were no brown F1 involved in Mali. The only F1C in brown camo were based in Djibouti in the end of the 80's and the beginning of the 90's, before they were feplaced by Mirage 2000s, just like the one Tez built. Some of them kept this camo when they were back to France and reassigned to squadrons there, mainly 3/33 Lorraine FS. Regarding the loadout, F1Cs were air defense fighter, so: Magic II at the wing tip, Super 530 inner wings, centerline 1200l fuel tank, sometime a barracuda jammer left external and a Phimat chaff dispenser external right.

Really very nicely done Jaguar However, the loadout is totally fictional. No offense here, everybody is free to model the way he likes. ;-))

My advice would be to try to contact Heller and to try to get a replacement part. Their website is translated into English. Usually, they do not answer but send the part within 3 to 4 weeks.

Aircraft fly mainly because of the overwing airflow, then anything that disturbs this airflow is a bad idea.

I'm very happy with this one. It is an opportunity to build something different from the grey F-xx. To model ocmpanies: WE DO NOT NEED A NEW TOOL KIT OF THE F-16 EVERYTIME THERE A NEW SWITCH IN THE COCKPIT UNTIL WE HAVE A DECENT KIT OF EVERY IMPORTANT AIRCRAFT!!! I am not British I am not particularily fond of the Swift But I am a 1/72 builder I love the jet golden age of the 50s/60s I love nice little kits not too expensive that let you add the amount of detail you want but wich is still pretty nice oob such as the old F-100, F-5, Harriers or F-104 by Esci, back in the years. Therefore, my hat off to Airfix. I really like the way they do their business since a year or two. I have a dream that some days, Heller... (copyright: Martin Luther King...) ;-))

The french Jag were equipped with RP36 external fuel tanks. The Mirage F1 use the RP35. t They are both 1200 liters and look very similar if not externally identical. Yes, the twin carrier Alkan AU F1 can accomodate 2 BLGs.

You are right, they are the 2 main frames. The front one supports the main landing gear, the rear one supports the fin and the engine (actually, the front of the engine, the rear was hung in the airframe). Their color has nothing to see with the heat of the engine.They can be light gray or of a metallic shade, usually different from the surrouding panels because the panels were made of aluminium alloy whereas the frames were made of steel. Just google mirage III C (with that case) and you'll find some interesting pictures. ;-)

What do you mean by older generation of misiles, the white ones? Anyway, for the late 90's, the missiles were grey. AIM 9L/M Sidewinders and AIM 120 AMRAAMs were in use.

Sorry, I didn't have a look to this thread since a while. There is definitely no yellow circle around the roundel. This circle disappeared from french air force's fighters in the end of the 70's/beginning of the 80's. They disappeared a little later on the transport aircraft. They are still in use on the trainers, including the Alphajets. What seems to be a yellow circle around the roundel on the picture above is probably the remain of the area cleaned before a new roundel was applied.

Thanks a lot!

Hi everybody, I guess that the question had been asked a gazillion times but I can t find the answer. According to your experience, what could be a good match for sky and dark grey for FAA aircraft post war. I m about to start a Sea Hawk and I wonder which colors should be ok within the Gunze, Tamiya or Prince August air ranges. Thx

That is because Heller had to design a new fuselage mold for the N. The wing is from the original boxing of the C model which is raised al the way.

The 2 desert 2-tones camos (one was of high constrast, called vanilla-chocolate, in use in Chad from the beginning of the 80's, one was of lower contrast introduced at the beginning of the gulf ops) pattern was EXACTLY the same as the regular camo pattern There is also a 3 tones, called Red Flag, introduced for Red Flag in the end of the 80's, just like the one you can see on A124, the aircraft you refer to, which was specially repainted to be placed on a pedestal to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Jag in 2003. During the gulf war, there was a mix of camos. The demarcation line between the underside metallic grey and the camouflaged areas was officially the same on all the birds, whatever the camo was but, as some aircraft were painted in a hurry some variation may happenened. There fore, you have to find a picture of the specific bird you want to paint to be sure thet the pattern has been followed or not!

0h, I forgot to mention training rounds. They were mainly dummy missiles (Magic Il with active seeker or full inert , AS 30, AS 37), Rafaut LBF2 wich is a practice bomb dispenser with 4 rounds (could be one under centerline or inboards)

Sorry for the late answer but there is some troubles with my account, Mike is sorting them. So, French Jags ordnance 92-94: At first, I think that 94 is maybe the year we introduced the GBU 12 in our ordnance (or maybe 95-96, I am not sure) Air to Air (the easy bit!): MAGIC II, generally a single one at the extreme right (because the jag weapon systems fires the missile from the right pylon first, it is the opther side for the bombs, don't ask why, I just remind you that we build this aicraft in a joint venture with the Brits... ). And that's all. Air to ground: French dumb bombs Low drag: 125 kg DFR, SAMP 250 kg and 400kg (Qualified for Mk82, M117, never saw them loaded) High drag: 250 kg BL EU2 Clusters: BLG 66 Belouga (Mk 20 Rockeye qualified but I never saw them loaded) Antirunway: BAP 100 (parachute+rocket to penetrate concrete, loaded by 18 rounds, centerline or inboard underwing) Tactical support bomb (a french speciality, similar to BAP 100, loaded by 18 rounds, centerline or inboard underwing), used again vehicles columns... AN52 nuke (up to 93, 7th wing only) Laser guide bombs: Matra BGL 400 kg Matra BGL 1000 kg A single bomb under inboard leftt wing GBU 12 is usually loaded by pair under centerline (but around 95 only) Rockets: LRF1 (36 rounds of 68mm), up to 4 pods (144 rockets!!!) LRF2 (6x68 mm, mainly for training) LRF3 (4 rounds of 100mm, usually inboard pylons but fitted outboard for training purpose as they tend to burn the horizontal tail plans...) Some US rocket launchers (mainly used for training purpose) LAU 3/A LAU 10/A LAU 32B/A LAU 51/A Missiles: AS30L (laser), single missile under inboard right, specific pylon with nose clipped (can be scratched from the pointy pylon of the box) AS37 Martel (antiradar): single missile, centerline, mainly used by 2/11 "Vosges" squadron in 92-94 ECM Self protection: LLP5020 Alkan (chaff and flare dispenser, under wing roots) from 90 (before we had Lacroix in place of the drag chute, only 18 flares) BARAX and BARRACUDA jammers, extreme left PHIMAT, chaff dispenser, extreme right, often replce by a MAGIC II when LLP5020 were loaded Offensive ECM, specific load of 2/11 "Vosges" fighter squadron BOZ 103 jammer (inboard pylons) CT51 Calamar (inboard pylons) Recce pod: RP36P made from a regular RP36 gas bag with fins deleted, centerline Laser pod: ATLIS II, centerline, aircraft's serial number from 130 to 160 I checked the types of ordnance in the excellent book (in French) by a former french Jaguar pilot: Le felin franco-anglais en action by Alain Vezin The squadrons were assigned a primary and a secondary role: 7th wing squadrons: 1/7: nuke/BAI/strike (no laser before 96) 2/7: OCU/assault 3/7: nuke/BAI/strike (no laser before 96) 4/7: nuke/BAI/strike (no laser, disbanded in 1988, became 3/4, Mirage 2000N) 11th wing squadrons 1/11: BAI/Strike/rapid deploiement, all type of weapons 2/11: electronic warfare/strike 3/11: BAI/Strike/rapid deploiement, all type of weapons 4/11: BAI/Strike/rapid deploiement, all type of weapons (disbanded 92) I should fill an excel form... These are only the more common weapons, the jag was qualified to carry some other from the US and also "bidons speciaux" (spacial tanks aka napalm) You can google the designation, you'll find a picture of most of these items. The best way to proceed is to tell me which load you are intersted in and I'll tell you if it is OK