Jaguar to be restored to fly!

Oh yes I had forgotten. Bashing all the “Noddy Caps” back into shape was regular thing in those days…..

From a Rigger perspective, I found most jobs easy to accomplish, other than removing a tailplane C lever bolt and removing the taper cones from the bottom of the control column bellcrank. The former was a pain to get the split pin out the latter was just a pain:o

Column bearings on XX741 are shot, so will need replacing.. Not looking forward to that.. 🙁

From a Rigger perspective, I found most jobs easy to accomplish, other than removing a tailplane C lever bolt and removing the taper cones from the bottom of the control column bellcrank. The former was a pain to get the split pin out the latter was just a pain:o

Out of personal experience the Jag was a better and easier a/c to service compared to such things as Lightnings, Buccaneers, Hunters, Victors etc.

Sigh. At least it made for entertaining reading for a while!

The prospect of a flying Jaguar is an exciting one, although I’ve no knowledge about its complexity as a type it strikes me as a bit more work than a MiG or Aero. Jagfans: would maintenance be comparable to the Mig-21, F-4 etc?

Nothing new on dodgy paint schemes either . 😉

So, I’m guessing there’s no new news on the Jag restoration? :sleeping:

Remember to wear a mask! Repeat exposure to Isopon P38 dust will make you get increasingly obsessed with the colour BS381 101 Sky Blue whilst, conversely, letting your personal hygiene go to rack and ruin.

I knew it.

If anybody needs me I will be out the back filling in panel gaps on my 1/72 Jaguar project with Isopon P38.

Sides are splitting… :applause:

I have had more fun setting up slat carriage rollers with a set of swan neck pliers. Cheers Meddle, will need to get some P38 for my 1 to1 scale Jaguar 1200 litre Droppers..

No advertising means no interest in keeping the spotters happy.. Simples..

I knew it.

If anybody needs me I will be out the back filling in panel gaps on my 1/72 Jaguar project with Isopon P38.

:rolleyes:

I’m saying someone creating a new scheme isn’t reproducing anything. Pretty simple. It’s only reproduction if you try to recreate an existing scheme. I’m baffled why you don’t accept that.

I’m not arguing you have to get your own jaguar but I think you should and I think the forum would back you up. It would be good for your stress levels as it would be one less scheme to upset you.

Good luck with it.

Wings you’re doubting the definition of “reproduction”? Seriously?! Oh, and to use the old argument about saving-up to by my own Jaguar isn’t an argument at all, is it? 🙂

Perhaps we could have a separate thread pertaining to owners and their rights to paint aircraft in whatever colour they choose
Fair comment! Let’s not though… there’s no argument to be had. You can see from the above there are two views and that’s it! 🙂

Perhaps we could have a separate thread pertaining to owners and their rights to paint aircraft in whatever colour they choose, so that this one can be left for any news relating to said Jag XX832:sleeping:

Define ‘many’!
I was waiting for that line. Strangely, I don’t have figures to hand. Perhaps you might care to offer figures to support the opposing view? Let’s not waste time on this, I think you’ve clarified your position here: – If the last publicly viewable telephone box was painted blue then I would accept it in the wrong colour, because I would be glad that I got to see the damn thing at all.
Back to what I’ve already said twice before. There are two opposing views on this matter. You clearly fall into one and I fall into the other. I can’t even understand how anyone could regard ludicrous paint schemes as anything but awful. You can’t understand why anyone would care what colour an aeroplane is painted. Never the twain shall meet. It’s that simple! 🙂

You really do need to accept that comments like this – paintwork will have only upset a token few – is completely, utterly wrong. Just because it isn’t your view doesn’t mean that your view prevails. It doesn’t.

Oh, and as for the dismissive comments about modellers, I accept that a lot of the discussions on the forum you mention are nonsense but that forum doesn’t represent the wider hobby at all. Modellers do indeed obsess over what some people might think is trivia, but you have to understand that what interests one person doesn’t interest another. You might think discussing a colour hue or reference number is absurd but others do not. You might care to understand that “modelling” isn’t always about children sticking Airfix kits together with glue-covered fingers. Some extremely knowledgeable people are/were modellers and their knowledge of colour schemes and unit markings has been of great value, not least in preserving many aspects of aviation heritage. The late, great Alan Hall was an avid modeller, for example, and many other leading historians are/were too. A great deal of historical data is recorded precisely because of these strange individuals that you refer to. You might even care to note that more than a few preserved aircraft are painted/finished precisely the way they are because of material that has been supplied by modellers. Some flying examples have done likewise. So let’s not sneer at such matters just because you don’t happen to understand them. The pejorative tone of your comments is – to say the least – a little unfair! 🙂

Wings, I think you need to read very carefully what you said. You don’t seem to understand what “reproducing” actually means. Maybe you should look-up “semantics” ? 🙂

Explain it please as I’m lost to see how my definition of reproducing is wrong.

The point is WH904 that a paint scheme can be changed. It’s not as if these aircraft are wearing the original paint so no history is being damaged. If you want a jaguar in your exact authentic scheme then I wish you well on your quest to save up and purchase one. I’ll chip in a few quid once the project is underway.

All the best

85 posts in and we haven’t made much progress, have we?:(

Wings, I think you need to read very carefully what you said. You don’t seem to understand what “reproducing” actually means. Maybe you should look-up “semantics” ? 🙂

However, there are of course many people such as myself, who applaud the prospect of getting any aeroplane back into the air, but still find it extremely frustrating when a seemingly minor aspect of the restoration (the colours and markings) is wrongly reproduced. Like I said before, it’s rather like preserving a telephone box and pairing it blue. Okay, it is preserved, but somehow it isn’t quite as authentic as it could/should be.

Define ‘many’! How many of the thousands that saw XH558 during last year’s summer season felt robbed because the paintwork was a bit wrong? Would you be willing to venture a percentage of total spectators? If the CAA put their foot down about flying Jaguars then any other discussion is for the birds anyway. What would make the CAA change their tune?

Perhaps my comments were a little harsh, but this forum appears to get really excited about some ridiculously niche project that brings no money into the field of historic aviation (a partial reproduction of a cockpit in some chap’s garage to give one example) whilst creatively invents reasons to pour scorn on a project to get a Jaguar back in the air! The sort of thing that might maintain an interest in historic aviation over a longer period of time AND pay some of the bills along the way. As you confirm, nobody has suggested that the paintwork will be incorrect on the Jaguar anyway. Purely from a sustainability point of view I would back the latter project and ignore the former.

If the last publicly viewable telephone box was painted blue then I would accept it in the wrong colour, because I would be glad that I got to see the damn thing at all. I feel that a blue phone box would still convey most of the story of the phone box (in rural places they tend to turn pink, after all). For many, a phone box was the hub of the community, will be memories illicitly phoning their first girlfriend, will be the time they placed a call back home from a remote area whilst camping. For others the box will signify the stories of those that worked to install and maintain BT infrastructure. Giles Gilbert Scott’s marvelous design works well in any colour really. I’m not being glib here. XH558 will signify anything from ‘look at that big aeroplane up in the sky’ to ‘remember when we bashed the Argies’ to those that saw and heard her last year, and the paintwork will have only upset a token few.

Besides, in the case of some of the nit-pickers on this forum we are talking about this mythical phone box being merely a subtly wrong shade of red, or not glossy/matt enough. This is the sort of endless discussion you find on Britmodeller. Look up ‘Spitfire sky blue’ on Google when you have a spare day, and rake through all the Britmodeller threads on the subject. Guys get scarily emotional about the shade of blue Spitfires may, or may not, have been painted on the underside.

The phone box analogy doesn’t really work because of the sheer numbers of phone boxes in existence, and because they don’t fall neatly into ‘flyable’, ‘ground running’, ‘static’ and ‘relic’ categories. Besides, a blue phone box would not look out of place in a museum on Guernsey! :applause: