PDA

View Full Version : Lightning & F-15 photo?


Ewan Whosearmy
4th May 2010, 12:24
Any of you Lightning mates have a picture of the F-15 and the Lightning in formation, or at least in the same frame?

Ex-Eagle pilot needs said image to illustrate an article for Aviation Classics mag.

TIA.

Lightning Mate
4th May 2010, 13:08
Somewhat trick that one.

This is the best I can come up with:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/SaudiF53plusF15750.jpg

Ewan Whosearmy
4th May 2010, 14:43
Thanks, LM!

Do you know who owns the copyright to this image?

Also, did you ever BFM the Eagle? Any observations on how best to beat it?

barnstormer1968
4th May 2010, 14:54
EW

There was a thread a while back, where a dual between RAF Lightnings and USAF F15's was recounted. The story went along the lines of the RAF pilots being old and bold types, and totally thrashing the younger USAF pilots with skilled/underhand manoeuvres.

But, once the USAF pilots landed, they were given advice by more time served pilots, and the F15's never lost again.

It was close to that anyway.....Maybe you can search for it, or the OP can re post it here.

Lightning Mate
4th May 2010, 15:04
Do you know who owns the copyright to this image?

It's in the public domain as "courtesy BAe" and not "copyright BAe", so whilst it's possible that they own the copyright, I don't think so.

I'll check for you if you wish.

Ewan Whosearmy
4th May 2010, 15:04
Thanks, Barnstormer. Will do a search...

Ewan Whosearmy
4th May 2010, 15:06
LM

If you would, that would be great. It'll end up in print if it is PD, but if it's BAe, then permission must be sought.

Cheers

jonesy101
4th May 2010, 15:58
Fantastic Photo... but it generates a question.

My father (ex No1 PTS) once got a ride in a lightning says it was simply the most amazing thing he did in the RAF, although HALO jumps came aclose 2nd!...He always decribes the experience as gear up, nose up to vertical and accelerate whilst vertical.

I know this is a party trick the F-15 shares.....

...so now my question! .. Gear off to say 40000ft... who'd get there first !

Pontius Navigator
4th May 2010, 17:08
Try and contact Mike Sweeney BAE Systems who was their PR man (IIRC). Any attribution is always good publicity for them.

Canadian Break
4th May 2010, 17:44
IIRC there is an excellent sunset picture of 2 Lightnings and 2 F15s in the magazine that was sold at the Last Lightning Display at Binbrook. I'm sure someone here must have a copy - mine's in the UK so out of reach now I'm afraid.

Lightning Mate
4th May 2010, 17:53
He always decribes the experience as gear up, nose up to vertical and accelerate whilst vertical.

Sorry to shatter the myth 101 - it's simply not true. In order to accelerate vertically, an aircraft must have enough thrust to overcome weight and (increasing) drag. The Lightning simply couldn't achieve it.

The only non-propeller aeroplane that I know which can do that is the Shuttle.

OK guys, challenge open......


Great pic, as usual, but don't you have one of the Lightning in the cousin's six?

Sorry Charlie, I don't mate.

Speed Twelve
4th May 2010, 18:37
cough Harrier...cough ;)

EyesFront
4th May 2010, 19:21
When the brand new F15 was breaking climb to height records, I remember an advert in Flight pointing out that the F15 was faster from brakes off to 70,000' than a Saturn V moon-shot...

I believe the Saturn V drew ahead after that... !

Spiro
4th May 2010, 19:29
Lightning mate - Challenge accepted, from usaf website....

F-22

Power Plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners and two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles.
Thrust: 35,000-pound class (each engine) 70000 total

Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 83,500 pounds (38,000 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds

With max fuel it weighs 61340lbs vs thrust of 70000lbs, hey presto it has thrust/weight ratio of better than 1:1. Pretty sure F-15, Typhoon, su-27/31 etc will all accelerate in the vertical as well :ok:

GeeRam
4th May 2010, 21:21
IIRC there is an excellent sunset picture of 2 Lightnings and 2 F15s in the magazine that was sold at the Last Lightning Display at Binbrook. I'm sure someone here must have a copy - mine's in the UK so out of reach now I'm afraid.

And I no longer know where mine is either.....I did have a quick look around the bookshelf but to no avail.

Ewan Whosearmy,
Ian Black may have some unpublished Lightning and F-15 shots he took (he certainly has published some Lightning and F-16 shots in his Lightning books) and IB is on the directory here index (http://www.lightningpilots.com/) so you could try and contact him via Ed Durham.

MATELO
4th May 2010, 23:25
Courtesy of Wiki...

The Lightning possessed a remarkable climb rate, and its time to reach an altitude, or time-to-climb, was exceptional. To achieve this short time-to-climb, Lightnings employed a particular climb profile, which was more shallow in angle compared to that demonstrated at air shows. The Lightning was famous for its ability to rapidly rotate at the end of the runway and climb almost vertically away, but although this near-vertical climb was impressive, it did not yield the best time to altitude, nor was it a demonstration of the ability to sustain a vertical climb. When Lightning pilots performed their trademark tail-stand, they were actually trading airspeed for altitude. The Lightnings would seemingly zoom “out of sight,” accelerating away, when in fact they would slow to near stall before pushing over into level flight. During the optimum time-to-climb profile, the maximum climb angle never exceeded 30 deg.
The Lightning’s optimum climb profile began with an afterburner takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the landing gear would be retracted and the nose held down to allow rapid acceleration to 430 KIAS, then a climb initiated and stabilized at 450 KIAS. At this IAS, the climb rate would be constant at approximately 20,000 ft/min.,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-F.6_ODM-5)[nb 9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-29) The Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 at 13,000 ft.[nb 10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-30) The pilot would then maintain Mach 0.87 until the tropopause, 36,000 ft. on a standard day. The climb rate would decrease during the constant-Mach portion of the profile.[nb 11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-31) If further climb were required, the Lightning would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause prior to resuming the climb at supersonic speed.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-Pilot.27s_Notes.2C_F.6-7)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-F.6_ODM-5)
A Lighting flying its optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft less than 3 minutes after brake release.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-F.6_ODM-5) This was—and is—impressive performance. That the Lightning never reached the climb rates of some of its contemporaries during this profile was not important; that it reached altitude quickly, was.
The official ceiling was a secret to the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18 000+ m), although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights; the official maximum altitude mainly being determined by cockpit pressurisation reliability and safety. In September 1962 Fighter Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fighter_Command) organized a series of trial supersonic overland interceptions of Lockheed U-2As (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2), temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Upper_Heyford) to monitor resumed Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) nuclear tests, at heights of around 60,000-65,000 ft.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-32)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-33) The trials took place in two stages, the second series consisting of 14 interceptions, including four successful and four abortive ones at 65,000.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-34) The late Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26 600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark" but control-wise it was "on a knife edge".[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-35)
In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2) at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight, but in a ballistic climb or a zoom climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, trading speed for altitude. The normal service ceiling for this aircraft was 60,000 feet in level flight. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter) from Aalborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aalborg). He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-Lightning-36)
Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison of the Lightning and the F-15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15)C Eagle (which he also flew) that "acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500m]".
In British Airways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways) trials in April 1985, Concorde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde) was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15), F-16s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16), F-14s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14), Mirages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_(aircraft)), F-104s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104) - but only Lightning XR749, flown by Mike Hale and described by him as "a very hot ship, even for a Lightning", managed to overtake Concorde on a stern conversion intercept.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-Lightning-36) The XR749 now resides at the entrance of Score Group plc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Score_Group_plc)'s gas turbine testing and servicing facility in Peterhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhead), Scotland.
Despite its acceleration, altitude and top speed, the Lightning found itself outclassed by newer fighters in terms of radar, avionics, weapons load, range, and air-to-air capability. More of a problem was the obsolete avionics and weapons fit, particularly the 30 mile (very short) range 1950s radar sets: the avionics were never upgraded in RAF service since Lightnings were always supposedly just about to be replaced by something better.
Roland Beamont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Beamont) (Lightning development-programme chief test pilot), after flying most of the 2nd Generation Century series US fighters of that era, made it clear that in his opinion, nothing at that time had the inherent stability and control and docile handling characteristics of the P 1 series prototypes and Lightning derivatives throughout the full flight envelope. Its turn performance and buffet boundaries were well in advance of anything known to him, the Mirage III included.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#cite_note-37) This remained so right up until the next generation of fighter/interceptors was developed worldwide, with underbelly intakes and straked leading edges, or canards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_(aeronautics)).


English Electric Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning)

Tricorn
5th May 2010, 08:15
I remember chatting to a USAF chap (mid 70s?) shortly after the F16 started flying and he was boasting that it was the first jet where the thrust exceeded the weight of the aircraft. I pointed out the Harrier and he said, "Sure that's a good aircraft as well". I highlighted that as it could take off vertically, the thrust must exceed the weight of the aircraft. He paused for a second and then walked off. Didn't see him again!!

cornish-stormrider
5th May 2010, 10:37
88,000 feet. Damn that is one badass M**********r of a machine.

And I don't mind about swearing this one time.
88,000 feet. **** the bed, thats impressive.
Pop - I'll be taking a language ban then?? Cooler one week??

Bet that scared the U2 driver, but would the SR71 get there as well?

GeeRam
5th May 2010, 10:48
but would the SR71 get there as well?

:ok:

SR-71 holds a level flight altitude record of a bit over 85,000ft.

pmills575
5th May 2010, 11:00
Interesting to see the radar range quoted as 30 miles. When I worked on AI23B/C we had a 60 mile range and later D versions increased that to 80 miles. Still it is wiki, you can't expect it all to be right!

PM575

lightningmate
5th May 2010, 17:25
EW,

I have a Chris Allen piccie hung on my wall that has a single Lightning (me) with 2 Eagles in echelon port with a sunset background. Sortie flown 1 Dec 1986.

The last location I have for Chris was Training Captain with Cathay. My piccie is too large to scan with anything I have available.

lm

Unregisteredmaltair
5th May 2010, 17:27
Re your " Shattered Myth"...says who? The vertical climb was the Lightning's show stopper....I have vivid memories of Lightnings on APC detachments at RAF Luqa Malta..doing just that especially the T5 which was much lighter than the F6. As every aviation buff knows the only drawbacks the Lightning had was lack of endurance and armaments pack...power/speed were not.

As for Lightning versus F15 I did see a photo of an F!5 as seen through a Lightning gun sight .

GeeRam
5th May 2010, 18:31
I have a Chris Allen piccie hung on my wall that has a single Lightning (me) with 2 Eagles in echelon port with a sunset background. Sortie flown 1 Dec 1986.

The last location I have for Chris was Training Captain with Cathay.

That's appropiate LM, given our PM of last week :ok:

Lima Juliet
5th May 2010, 20:17
Lightning and F-15...easy...:ok:

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Dayton2003/Sampler/83ES9732.JPG

OFBSLF
5th May 2010, 20:59
Lovely pic, Leon.

Pontius Navigator
5th May 2010, 22:34
I seem to recall that the 'official' ceiling for the Lightning, based on its oxygen system, was 65,000 ft with the pilot wearing a Taylor partial pressure helmet. Unlike the full space suit for the SR71 etc, it only had a hard top and sealed front piece. The rear was only a soft leather (IIRC).

soddim
5th May 2010, 22:49
Wiki is not far off in quoting radar range - the range scale went further but a 30-mile pick-up was quite exceptional and had to be a large radar signature target.

Pontius is quite right - anybody taking a Lightning above 65000feet with a normal RAF safety equipment AEA was on a wing and a prayer in the event of loss of pressurisation.

safetypee
5th May 2010, 23:54
Wiki is a little unfair in the dismissal of the Lightning’s 1950’s radar etc.
Considering that the weapons system originated from late 1940s research (as did the aerodynamics) it had remarkable capability. There was not much room for a high-power radar, only a small radar dish, but the processing logic and anti-jam capabilities were first rate. Also, remember that all of the computing was analogue, resistors, capacitors and gear wheels – and they kept working at 6g!
The missiles similarly had exceptional capability considering their vintage. There are many stories of the US attempting to ‘keep’ a Firestreak homing head. The warhead was not a puny 9 lb hand grenade as in the early AIM 9s – it was a 65 lb version, and the fusing had brains to ‘seek-out’ the flight deck. Red Top and its advanced computing improved on this and provided a modest head-on capability – probably to address a specific threat from Blinder / Kitchen.
The aircraft / system kill-ratio, the overall reliability, was impressive and better than the early performance of Phantom / Sidewinder / AIM 7.

IIRC one of the U2 intercepts, 74,000 ft, involved the aircraft in a near miss; the Lightning radar failed (a pressurization weakness above 64,000 ?) thus the missile intercept was completed with the ‘gun’-sight. At a late stage, the pilot realized that this was a pure pursuit course – aiming directly at the target, which together with reduced pitch control effectiveness at very high altitude / speeds resulted in a close pass – Lightning inverted and pulling hard downwards.

Comparisons should be restricted to like v like in the era. After flying a French Mirage pilot on an ‘evaluation’ exchange – we flew the Mirage 3B in return, he asked why the Lightning required two engines as it in his opinion one engine provided most of the required low and medium level performance. In latter years, the Mirage was a better ‘system’, but this was 10 years after the Lightning had been in service and many years of failed support for developments – Oh for a T55 with 4 fuselage mounted missiles, two under wing AIM 9K, and guns.

Brian Abraham
6th May 2010, 02:18
My piccie is too large to scan with anything I have available
lightningmate, more than one way to skin a cat, take a snap of the photo with your digital camera and put up here. You will be surprised by the quality, and I'm sure others besides myself would love the opportunity to drool.

GreenKnight121
6th May 2010, 07:57
Indeed... my oldest brother & I went to my parents' in March for a couple of weeks (Father, 77, had had emergency heart surgery... 5 bypasses... and needed help the first little while - he is now walking nearly a kilometer, twice a day, better than he has in years).

While we were there, by brother decided to copy the old slide (transparency) pictures my father had taken in the 1950s/60s.

He had purchased a "slide scanner" for his computer, but it was bollocks... it turned all the pics blueish and dark.

So, we dug out the projector & screen, set them up in the basement, played with the settings on his $400 Canon digital camera, and started snapping shots of the projected film.

They came out perfectly... as if they were the originals!

I've used my $100 Nikon digital to snap shots of paintings & photo prints, and they come out fine... as long as you remove any glass/plastic covers and set up your lighting to avoid glare & reflections.

Ewan Whosearmy
6th May 2010, 09:11
Lightningmate, PN and CB, many thanks for your help. Will pursue these leads...

Lightning Mate
6th May 2010, 11:52
I have used the photography technique before with much success.
However, if I may offer further advice:

Use a long telephoto lens, take it in bright outdoor light, and with the lens orthogonal to the picture.

Lightning Mate (the upper case one!)

GeeRam
6th May 2010, 12:59
Ooops......

Just noticed my 'senior blonde' moment with contributer's id's and a bizarre co-incidence :oh:

Appologies to LM and lm :\

lightningmate
6th May 2010, 20:51
LM

Aha! Orthogonality eh - you must have been an IRE :)

lm

Lightning Mate
7th May 2010, 07:23
lightningmate,


Aha! Orthogonality eh - you must have been an IRE

Yep, but not on the Lightning, the Jaguar.

John Botwood
7th May 2010, 08:45
In 1983? the RAAF celebrated their 75th Anniversary with an airshow at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria.

The controlled airspace was a 3nm radius of Laverton - some 1.5nms northwest. Two Lightnings came from Adelaide with a Victor tanker. The Victor stayed 100nms to the West and the Lightnings joined for their display. On the run in, one lost a donk and decided to continue with the sortie.

They were issued onwards clearance as "Direct Edinburgh (Field) FL350 report leaving FL300". They called display complete and 30 secs late' reported left FL300' - they were within 2-3 nms from the field.

Pretty to watch.

JohnB

GeeRam
7th May 2010, 12:59
In 1983? the RAAF celebrated their 75th Anniversary with an airshow at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria.

The controlled airspace was a 3nm radius of Laverton - some 1.5nms northwest. Two Lightnings came from Adelaide with a Victor tanker. The Victor stayed 100nms to the West and the Lightnings joined for their display. On the run in, one lost a donk and decided to continue with the sortie.

I think you'll find it was a lot earlier than 1983 ;)

My guess it would have been the 50th Anniversary show on 18th April 1971, which I think was the last time RAF Lightnings were seen in Australia?
As by September 1971, 74 Sqn had disbanded and left RAF Tenagh, delivering it's Lightnings to 56 Sqn in Cyprus.

Link below to a photo of 3 x 74 Sqn F.6's and a Victor K.1 taken at the RAAF 50th Anniversary show on 18th April 1971.

MyAviation.net - Aviation Photo Gallery (http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00952234&size=large)

Trim Stab
8th May 2010, 03:56
Spiro:

F-22

Power Plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners and two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles.
Thrust: 35,000-pound class (each engine) 70000 total

Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 83,500 pounds (38,000 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds

With max fuel it weighs 61340lbs vs thrust of 70000lbs, hey presto it has thrust/weight ratio of better than 1:1. Pretty sure F-15, Typhoon, su-27/31 etc will all accelerate in the vertical as well http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

The calculation is not quite as simple as that. The aircraft would have to an airspeed sufficient for control authority, so there would be induced drag to add into the calculation. Also, the maximum thrust figure is likely to be at the airspeed where the compressor is at its most efficient - which might be quite a high airspeed, when the airframe drag would be significant.

Likewise, the Harrier can clearly accelerate vertically when in VTOL mode, but not necessarily when in conventional mode.

I am not saying categorically that either aircraft cannot do it - just that the simplistic arguments presented do not prove that they can.

John Botwood
11th May 2010, 01:22
Thank you for the date correction - I should have used a larger ?
I was in the RAAF(R) at the time and should have remembered better. Apart from that, the facts still stand. The Victor holding at FL250 came up as the Lightnings left him inbound with - "We're just just leaving 250 and dropping down lower to have a look at the countryside. His controller (ex RAAF pilot) just roared "Oh no you are not!!" and that seemed to correct the situation.

JohnB

curvedsky
15th Jul 2010, 15:37
RE #18 & earlier

88,000 feet.

Bet that scared the U2 driver..........

What a load of twaddle to write that the U-2 was intercepted at 88,000' by a BAC Lightning!

Check the aerodynamic possibilities for both aircraft.

Perhaps the Lightning pilot donned his 'anorak space suit' as he passed 50,000'? Then somehow he was able to convert the remnants of his energy climb from say Mach 2 at 36,000' into a plausible flying speed (IAS) at 88,000' for the Lightning? :D

ExCreamie
15th Jul 2010, 16:52
Ah but don't confuse range scales with detection range. My VW golf has a speedo marked up to 140mph.....My recollection of Lightning AI detection ranges was 60 miles on an oil tanker; 30-35 miles on a Victor Tanker (or Bear D) and a max of 20 on another Lightning. In behind and looking down on the target at low level and you struggled to break him out from background noise above 3 miles. But the BScope tube was agreat place to stack your sandwiches on a ferry flight.....

Firestreak
15th Jul 2010, 20:07
:mad:Curvedsky, got many hours in the Lightning? Thought not, till you've been up there, doing the job, don't mock it.

Mike7777777
15th Jul 2010, 21:07
XR749 could do a bit more than the "average" Lightning...

Ali Barber
15th Jul 2010, 22:02
Re Curvedsky's comment, the RAF was very different in those days. Rules were very much for guidance only. Although I personally didn't get that high, I got high enough to declare "VFR on top" and to verify that the world is in fact round. I also know several guys who claim to have got far higher than the U2 intercept - and seen photographs of their altimeter.

PICKS135
15th Jul 2010, 22:33
In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Royal Air Force Flight Lieutenant Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height of 66,000 feet (20,000 m), where the aircraft had previously been considered safe from interception. Hale climbed to 88,000 feet (27,000 m) in his Lightning F3.

From
Wapedia - Wiki: Lockheed U-2 (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Lockheed_U-2?t=4.#11).

curvedsky
16th Jul 2010, 09:57
“Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) Zoom climbs in a Lightning

Will “Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) please describe for us the profile that they used to reach a U-2 flying at it’s normal height of some 70,000’+?

On start up, the Lightning Mk3 (including XR749) had a maximum of 7,576 lbs of jet fuel in the tanks (2 x 2,496 AVTUR in the main and leading edge tanks, 2 x 264 in the flaps, 2 x40 in the recuperators & 1 x 1,976 in the ventral tank).

Frank Powers in his book “Operation Overflight” writes that he was in cruise climb when he was shot down over central Russia in 1960. He states that he told his Russian interrogators that he was at a lower altitude of 68,000’ so as to protect the true capability of the U-2C. Chris Pocock, the celebrated U-2 author writes in his 1989 U-2 book Dragon Lady:
“Maximum altitude continued to depend on weight, outside air temperature,and other variables, but was still around 75,000’ for all practical purposes.”

So, “Firestreak” & MH please give us the broad outline of the Mk3 climb profile that you used to zoom to great heights. It will help other aviators to understand and possibly believe these zoom claims. Credence will be added by including:


1 max IAS/Mach/altitude at the end of the acceleration (energy)?

2 IAS/Mach passing say 60,000’, 70,000’ & 88,000’?

3 IAS/Mach/altitude at your U-2/Concorde intercept?


At peak altitude, were the burners still alight, did the pilot throttle back, and was there severe banging in the air intake just under your feet? Did either of the engines flame out?

What fuel did you land with and where? After all it should be in your logbook.

A footnote: FAI certified time to height records were set by U-2C article 349 on 17 Apr 89 at Edwards AFB by NASA pilot Jerry Hoyt. (349 was built in the mid 1950s, ex CIA, donated to NASA).

U2C Time to Height Records recorded by FAI observers -
airframe ‘349’ on retirement to a museum, 34 years after the first flight of this airframe.


00 to 9,842 feet in 52 seconds

49,212 feet in 6 mins 15 secs

65,617 feet in 12 mins 13 secs

73,700 feet in 16 mins from brake release

barnstormer1968
16th Jul 2010, 10:12
Curvedsky

You said:
Will “Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) please describe for us the profile that they used to reach a U-2 flying at it’s normal height of some 70,000’+?

I am not asking for the info, and am not sure that everyone else is either. So, maybe it is you who wants the info rather than us!

You do quote a lot of figures in your post. Are they from the internet (so, likely to to be wrong), or are they 'in house' ones which which are correct?

I will await the results here, as lots and lots of researched material has quoted the above stories over the last few decades.

Ali Barber
16th Jul 2010, 10:47
I'd be surprised if Sid's had been in an F3, most likely an F6. My moon shot attempt was is in a full F6 coming straight off the tanker. My IAS was somewhere around touch down speed and control was limited to say the least! Boulmer's reply to my "VFR on top" call was "Roger ceasing radar service, you're clear en route"!:ok:

barnstormer1968
16th Jul 2010, 11:14
Ali Barber

You are now ruining well thought out theories to destroy height claims, by stating obvious facts, such as aircraft can acquire extra fuel after take off:}

I mean, who would have factored in lightnings needing to be refuelled after take off.....Unheard of:E

sitigeltfel
16th Jul 2010, 14:34
The U2 interceptions (Exercise Trumpet) were carried out by AFDS using two F1As out of Middleton St George (now Teeside airport). Special clearance was given for supersonic flight over land as long as it was outwith 25 miles of built up areas.
Rules of engagement were strict; interceptions were limited to visual ident passes, and if visual contact was not made by 5 nm the attack had to be broken off. The interceptors were not to approach closer than 5000ft astern and under no circumstances were they to pass in front. The pilots wore the Mk5 anti-g suit, a Taylor-Baxter pressure helmet and long sleeved partial pressure jerkin.
Intercepts were initially carried out at 60,000ft then at 65,000ft. Further trials were then carried out above that, the highest being at 68,700ft.
On 7th Aug 1979 Brian Carroll managed an indicated 87,300ft in an F53 over Saudi Arabia. Flt Dave Roome of 74 Squadron saw just short of 88,000ft in an F6 while carrying out a PI on a USAF RB-57F in the late 60s while performing high altitude trials out of Tengah.

Source; Lightning from the Cockpit by Peter Caygill.
An interesting book with one glaring ommission. None of the pictures or diagrams show the interior of a Lightning cockpit!

sera
16th Jul 2010, 17:43
curvedsky - a zoom climb will have enabled a Lightning to get suitably high enough to pounce on the U2.

Mike7777777
16th Jul 2010, 19:55
Having met the late Brian Carroll on several occasions, I see no reason to doubt his reports or the ability of English Electric's finest.

soddim
16th Jul 2010, 22:28
The idea that a Lightning could do anything useful at 88,000 feet is preposterous!

At that height it was merely following a ballistic path at the apex of its' trajectory and the only thing that it was able to do was follow the curve earthwords.

An amazing machine for a prototype turned into a front line fighter but it had severe limitations in its' weapons system and I for one was pleased to move on to the Phantom with a much more capable weapons system and not dissimilar performance clean wing.

Just to put the Lightnings' high altitude capability into perspective, the safety equipment fit for the Phantom included a partial pressure suit to go with the rest of the ensemble used for high altitude in the Lightning. This gave an increased survival capability and raised the service ceiling well above that of the Lightning - but not to anything like 88,000 feet.

Reminiscing is one thing but exaggeration is the job of politicians not professional aviators.

rubberband2
18th Jul 2010, 17:08
(soddim #53)
“The idea that a Lightning could do anything useful at 88,000 feet is preposterous!”

Well said Sir. I agree 100%.

The Lightning was a great aviator’s aircraft & fun to fly. It had consummate handling with a 60 degree swept wing. But when the IAS drops below 200 knots, even though the indicated Mach is high at 60,000’+, the Lightning quickly ends up behind the drag curve and will decelerate or descend, or both, unless the wing is unloaded!

The higher it zooms, the more likely it is to follow a ballistic arc. And the Avon engines have to keep going in the thinner air to provide pressurisation to keep the pilot alive.

The comments by ‘soddim’ are spot on. Thank you.
-----------------------------------

(barnstormer1968 #49)
“aircraft can acquire extra fuel after take off....

....I mean, who would have factored in Lightnings needing to be refuelled after take off.....Unheard of”

Barnstormer – flying an intercept on a very high altitude target is not like driving your VW to the minimart.

There are no BP or Esso fill up options open all hours located at a convenient place en route.

The RAF has never had more than a handful of tankers at any one time and they are heavily tasked for many roles. So the chances of finding a tanker trailing hoses at the top of your climb to top off your tanks before you accelerate to head off or intercept the ‘hostile’ are probably 1 in a million. Which is why many comments by ppruners refer to the Mk6 which has more fuel tank capacity than the Mk3.

Old hands in earlier posts have asked for fuel figures and profiles flown to reach 88,000’. They, like me, probably wish to sit back in their armchairs – or in front of X-Plane 9.55 on a computer – and reflect on how they failed to do as well as Hale & “Firestreak” and get to 88,000’ alive and in control – and then send details to Wiki!

Wikipedia has some tall stories on board and sometimes they need to be challenged.

ORAC
18th Jul 2010, 20:41
Speaking as an FC during the Lightning era, high level intercepts were frequently scripted to ensure AAR support. I frequently intercepted U2, SR71 and Mirage IV during exercises, but alweays with a bit of pre-notice.

To give an example, during the 70s and for WT Tacevals, the French woud send Mirage IV up the North Sea to fly back down top France at FL650+ and M2.0.

LATCC would give a heads-up as they headed north and an F3 would be scrambled to plug into a tanker at the tropopause on track (the FIR boundary) and wait, staying plugged in. When the Mirage broke cover the F3 would be pulled off the tanker at about 150nm and do the intercept with full tanks.

On one occasion the F3 only had Firestreak and was rolled out on a U16A (180x26 converting to a 90 crossing leg) at 6nm. He (the Wandering Milliamp) closed to 1nm, called Fox 2, and then diverted into CS because he couldn't make WT 30nm south!!

I was at Boulmer during the last few months of the Lightning when several pilots tried to see how high they could get. They'd tank on TTL 8 or 4 and be dropped off about abeam Newcastle and then parallel the coast heading home, aiming for the top of the dive arc, 35nm off the coast.

At least one ended up flamed-out tumbling end over end ballistic until he recovered control and relit as he passed overhead the Aggressor Area. Heights as tracked by height finder (HF200) wase in excess of FL850.

The official ceiling was FL560 because they only had standard flight suits/oxygen etc. So if the canopy had gone, they'd have had no chance. But since when did fighter pilots care about that?

Not here-say. Been there, done it, got the T-shirt, as they say.

Ali Barber
18th Jul 2010, 20:53
ORAC has it exactly right! Tried a stern conversion on Concorde for a guns shot once, but that's another story - gotta love pre-positioned Victor tankers!

barnstormer1968
18th Jul 2010, 21:09
Ali Barber....Are you sure about the pre positioned tankers...Apparently we have very few, and you had very little chance of finding one. I won't even go into the chance of finding one AT THE TOP OF A CLIMB, as that would be just stupid, which is why no one has suggested they would even be there!

Rubberband 2

You said:
"Barnstormer – flying an intercept on a very high altitude target is not like driving your VW to the minimart.

There are no BP or Esso fill up options open all hours located at a convenient place en route.

The RAF has never had more than a handful of tankers at any one time and they are heavily tasked for many roles. So the chances of finding a tanker trailing hoses at the top of your climb to top off your tanks before you accelerate to head off or intercept the ‘hostile’ are probably 1 in a million. Which is why many comments by ppruners refer to the Mk6 which has more fuel tank capacity than the Mk3".

I have never owned a VW and live in the wrong continent to be able to visit a minimart, so can't pass comment on your theory:E

On the other hand, I do know that lightnings and tankers often met, due to the stupidly low amount of fuel carried internally on most lightnings.

I also don't see where I have mentioned any particular MK of lightning!

I must say that IMHO you come across as someone who is not just typing their first ever post on PPRuNE.......But very much like an American poster who sent me a PM in the last 24 hours on this very same subject!


At this rate I will be off to check your IP address:}

Mike7777777
18th Jul 2010, 21:43
I wonder if there is any lottery money available to ship XR749 down to SA for restoration with a view to settling this once and for all? ;)

moosemaster
19th Jul 2010, 10:11
Soddim, I don't recall anyone saying that the aircraft in question actually did anything at the altitudes mentiones, although I'm certain it wouldn't have been too difficult to launch a missile while up there, and as the tests were conducted to assess if and how a satellite could be intercepted, I'm not sure they would need to do much while up there.

Last I heard, satellites weren't very agile.

Although I have no proof, this is a story I have heard several times over the years, the first time being from my wife who served, for a time, at RAF Binbrook, then seperately from various different sources, all who had served for much longer than myself.

Even if it IS an exaggeration (which I doubt), then it is one which find most enjoyable.

I'm sure you'll find lots of examples of aircrew doing things with their aircraft that designers say is impossible, especially with older, "designed" aircraft, rather than the new "computer generated" aircraft we see today.

soddim
19th Jul 2010, 11:02
Interesting theories, moosemaster, but even a missile needs to be sent in roughly the right direction - even if that coincided with the direction of the pointy end of the aircraft at some stage in its' ballistic trajectory, the pilot would have been most unwise to fire at an altitude where any missile efflux would have upset the delicate state of the airflow through engines already operating well above their normal breathing limits. A double flameout at that altitude and the conseqent loss of pressurisation well above the limit of protection offered by the safety equipment would have almost certainly led to a very short life for the adventurous pilot.

Whilst I know from experience that some limitations are set well below the real limits, I also know that it takes a wise pilot to understand the consequences of ignoring them.

ORAC
19th Jul 2010, 12:40
Anyone remember the "saturn profile" with the 525 knot climb?

Feathers McGraw
19th Jul 2010, 12:44
So, just what was it about XR749 that made it such a high performing aircraft. I can believe that maybe it was a bit lighter, but aerodynamically and in terms of engine performance it should be very similar to other Lightning F3s.

What's the reason?

fltlt
19th Jul 2010, 15:04
It was probably one of the straightest Lightning's around. Everything breathed on for optimum performance. And one of those aircraft that come along every now and again, that with TLC from the erks, coupled with a very capable driver, just wants to run.

safetypee
19th Jul 2010, 18:33
Re "saturn profile" #61
I recall that the "saturn profile" differed from the ‘525’ profile.
The "saturn" made use of the Lightning’s look-up, go-up capabilities and was designed to intercept a high-flying target (circa FL480/0.8) from low level CAP.
From a 180 x ‘wide’, a turning reheat climb at 0.9 aimed for a long rollout astern (14nm?) at FL360, then a diving acceleration to max scanner angle to achieve about M 1.3 before climbing for the intercept – the back end of the normal high-flyer profile.

IIRC the ‘525’ profile and the ‘625’ (flown without probe) were computerised ‘ground environment’ intercepts based on a FL 250 CAP. My experience indicated that these profiles were unnecessarily fuel hungry and half of the intercept information was ‘time to intercept’, which was of little value to the pilot (other than for fuel planning), who required range/bearing.
Both the computerised profiles and ‘saturn’ used aspects of Specific Excess Energy management which provided optimum acceleration profiles and instantaneous manoeuvre capability.

Re ‘a high performing aircraft’. There was strong rumour that one of the OCU’s T5s had a small manufacturing discrepancy in the intake shape. Thus, at supersonic speed the inlet efficiency (shockwave formation) was much less than designed, this restricted the acceleration and max speed. Even so most T5s struggled to make M1.5 for a ‘ten ton’ ride (fuel limit).
An aerodynamically clean aircraft with two top spec, new engines would always out perform older, 'bent' models.

Dave Roome
30th Jul 2010, 14:50
I apologise for the length of this thread, but it is an honest, first-hand account of attaining nearly 88000ft! While on 74 Sqn at Tengah 1968-71 I had an urge to try to find the maximum altitude a Mark 6 Lightning could reach in the tropical air just north of the Equator. At these latitudes, the Tropopause is at its highest, regularly around 55,000ft and this would give the F6, with its Rolls-Royce Avon 302s, their best chance.

Eventually everything fell into place. A Victor tanker returning to Singapore from Hong Kong was offering 17,000lb fuel to giveaway as it entered Malaysian airspace on the northeast coast, which was coincidentally the area in which we were permitted to fly supersonic. I was allocated the trip and flew up to the Malaysia-Thailand border to rendezvous with the tanker before ‘filling to full’. I was now some 300 miles north of base with a clear line down the east coast of Malaysia and no restrictions.

I climbed to 50,000ft, which was the subsonic service ceiling of the Lightning and then accelerated to Mach 2 before flying a zoom climb at the best climb angle (as we understood it to be) of 16 degrees. Before I lost all performance I levelled off at 65,000ft and accelerated once more, amazed at the speed at which this occurred and this time let the aircraft have its head to 2.2M before easing the nose up to reach 70,000ft with no loss of speed and once again pulled back the stick to set 16 degrees of climb. Up we went, though as the altitude – and speed – reduced, the lack of downwash over the tail plane meant that the stick came further and further aft to hold the climb attitude. Eventually, the nose slowly dropped and I levelled off 200ft short of 88,000ft. From this vantage point I could see Singapore as a very small island ahead (and well below) and could convince myself that I could see Vietnam over my left shoulder, Borneo to my left and the coastline of Sumatra beyond the western Malaysian coast. Above me the sky was pitch black and the curvature of the earth clearly visible. Nowadays we are very familiar with how the earth looks from way above, but then it was not at all a common sight and I relished the opportunity to see it for myself. Although the stick was firmly on the backstops, the ailerons were still very responsive and until I touched the throttles, the reheats had remained lit. However, rolling the aircraft over and looking vertically downward I suddenly had the feeling that I was balanced on the ferrule of an extremely long umbrella and I suddenly realised that I did not belong up here. Setting idle/idle gave me my only fearful moment as the warning bells went off in my headset for a major warning on the Central Warning Panel; the CPR warning was illuminated, telling me that the pressurisation was outside the aircraft’s limits. At 50,000ft the cabin altitude was maintained at 27,000 – the easy way to remember what it should read was ‘half the height plus 2’, so at 80,000 I should have been at 42,000 in the cockpit. The lack of air form the engine bleed had allowed the cockpit altitude to rise above this and the warning was the result. I was wearing my pressure jerkin and, of course, my anti-g suit, but the pressurised Taylor helmet initially issued to the Lightning Force had been taken out of service. There was some oxygen overpressure fed to my mask though I do not remember it being very much, so once I realised that the reason for the CPR warning was not the major problem I had at first thought, I went back to enjoying the view and started an extremely long glide back to Tengah. A final bit of fun was making my RT call to Singapore Radar (a unit manned by RAF personnel) for recovery to Tengah: to their question asking my height I responded that I was above 45,000 or Flight Level 450. In those days almost all controlled airspace stopped at this altitude and you did not have to give away your actual altitude. I was, however, approaching the airways that radiated from Singapore and they became persistent, so it was nice to hear their reaction to my admission that I was “Passing Flight Level 720!”

Although this sortie was a marvellous example of the Lightning’s performance, though despite my pressure jerkin and G-suit, I was hardly well equipped for safe flight at such heights. Nevertheless, I can lay claim to the world altitude record for the Lightning of 87,800ft!

BEagle
30th Jul 2010, 15:23
And I'd bet that you'd jump at the chance of having another crack at that record, eh Dave?

Excellent account :ok: - I did like the throwaway line: I climbed to 50,000ft, which was the subsonic service ceiling of the Lightning and then accelerated to Mach 2...

:\

I've just been watching Test Pilot and all the TP students clearly considered the Lightning to be the best aircraft in the ETPS fleet at the time!

LowObservable
30th Jul 2010, 18:00
Good luck doing that in a Lightning II...

1.3VStall
30th Jul 2010, 18:39
Gus Crockett once volunteered to me that he'd got a Mk6 above 80,000' using a similar technique to that described by Dave Roome. He also confessed that he was frightened f@rtless!

Mike7777777
31st Jul 2010, 12:36
Thanks Dave Roome, that probably finishes the thread on a real high... :ok:

I'm sure there must be an aviator somewhere who flew Gladiators in WW2 and Lightnings in the early 1960s

barnstormer1968
31st Jul 2010, 13:21
Hmmmmmm. Finishes the thread eh?

And there was I thinking that was the job of the moderators, or the OP.
Not, only that, I thought this was still a Lightning and F15 photo thread!

Mike7777777
31st Jul 2010, 14:35
:confused: Finishes the thread as in "top that" ... but you knew that is what I meant ... didn't you?

Lightning Mate
31st Jul 2010, 14:53
Oh hello Mr. D. Roome.

Not seen you for a very very very long time.........

I have been following this thread and enjoying some comments from some very well-informed people (I include myself after two Lightning tours)

However, the comments from those who have not a single clue, most of whom have not been near a Lightning, let alone flown one, are very sad indeed.

Bye bye.

Lightning Mate

newt
31st Jul 2010, 16:15
Ah LM I thought you spent all your time in the history section these days!! I too have been well above the published ceiling but not as high as D Roome! When I did it the No2 engine flamed out so life got a bit hectic until I managed a relight at a lower altitude!

Cheers

Newt:ok:

EyesFront
31st Jul 2010, 18:42
Coming full circle, I've just seen, bought and read the Aviation Classics publication that kicked off the thread...

Very well worth a trip to WH Smith and £7 - even without any pictures of a Lightning with an F15...

forget
2nd Aug 2010, 08:07
I thought this may be of interest, from AvWeb.

Near-Finished Historic Restoration Stalled.

Late in the Oshkosh week we found a group of dedicated volunteers passionately involved in the restoration of a very rare and historic aircraft; the 10-year project is just months from completion, and they've run out of funds. The British Aerospace Lightning was the first Mach 2 British interceptor and the last all-British-made aircraft of its kind (all subsequent fighter/interceptors have been born of coalition efforts involving multiple nations). As such, the Lightning has earned a precious place in the hearts of many British aviation enthusiasts and often evokes the same admiration, respect, and sense of awe earned by the Spitfire. Today, there are three airworthy Lightnings in the world. None are currently flying. The Anglo-American Lightning Organization says it's potentially 12 to 16 weeks from first flight -- here in the U.S. -- but now they'll need help. And if your pockets are deep, that may mean a special opportunity.

The Anglo American Lightning Organization is offering six $100,000 shares in the aircraft, which would provide privileges including "full rights for aircraft flight in the right-hand seat." The dedicated restoration team will retain a 40% share. The all-volunteer group made up of RAF, ex-RAF and ex Royal Saudi Air Force servicemen who all have experience with the type. Their project is based here in the U.S. at Stennis International Airport, Miss. They estimate they're about $600,000 short of the finish line and then they hope to go one essential step further. Returning the aircraft to airworthy condition is just part of the group's overall goal of returning it to the air, which will require cooperation with the FAA. The aircraft are not permitted to fly in Britain, though they may perform high-speed taxi runs with their twin-stacked engines thrown into afterburner. For more information about the program, or to contribute, visit the group's web site or contact nholman AT globalnet.co.uk.

madscientist
2nd Aug 2010, 14:59
View from the other side of the counter in the line hut.

Hey Less of the "erks"
I have been a CIVI erk since 1968 with 10 years at 30 MU Three years at RASF Tabuk and the rest of my time in atmospheric research with Met Office MRF (Snoopy) at Farnborough. working at Post doc level on instrument development.
Now that is challenging work and you have to be pretty bright to qualify.
Well I have to admit the lightning is as much a challenge as leading science research.
I am currently OC elect / Avionics XS422 Anglo American Lightning Organisation.
Gatwick Aviation Museum electronics / avionics
XS422 Cranfield T bird Electrical / Avionics consultant.
So fully up to speed with this awsome bit of kit.
In Saudi, at the end of the contract, they returned 35 ish airframes with 2000Hrs ish on them and to my mind there was only one case of a lightning reverting to agriculture due to a thehnical failure.
So thats 70K Hrs with one failure. OK 35,000 hrs MTBF thats not bad not bad at all.
If any one out ther has more info on the RSAF case would love to here from you.

A Lightning T Bird flying SAFELY in the US now that is worth rooting for.
The Tech sorry "grunts" team has more Lightning experience than enough to operate it safely.
Was only talking to an Ex CAA bod the other day and suprise suprise,, acording to this bod, the only reason Lightnings were banned in the UK was not on engineering grounds but they felt they could not trust the drivers to be sensible!!!!

Now that suprised me quite a lot.

Won't go into the S.A. issue but it won't happen in the USA.

Any ex lightning engineers sparkies you are still needed providing you can cut it.

There are arm chairs but only in the crew room.

RB

GeeRam
2nd Aug 2010, 22:31
And I'd bet that you'd jump at the chance of having another crack at that record, eh Dave?

Assuming Dave did that flight in his usual mount at the time - XR773 - he could even do it in the same aircraft as '773 is one of the 2 x airworthy F.6's at Thunder City in South Africa.... :ok:

Scruffy Fanny
2nd Aug 2010, 23:19
A question that has always puzzled me..... Super hero mike h flew xr749 to infinity and beyond and tells us that the night before he spent the evening polishing his trusty steed just to get a few more kts out of her..... Can you explainl how you polish an aircraft that is painted with a roller brush in Matt grey and green thick paint???? Also the fighter controller who says pilots flew up to fl850 at the end of the lightning force is talking rubbish most flights were up to a maximum of fl 400 perhaps fl 450 as everyone was doing combat at 10.000 feet trying to use up the little fatigue that was left. Having flown the SR-71 and the Ltg I know very well what the difference between fact and fiction is. Please let's not destroy the truth which was pretty awesome with utter BS rgds Scruffy Fanny

andrewmcharlton
2nd Aug 2010, 23:26
I'm no frightening driver, just an admirer of such things but it seems your arrival on thread needs some explanation if you are set to de-bunk the comments of other seasoned and respected posters.

I assume you didn't just get all of this banter from a bloke in a pub and can add some authenticity?

Impressive that you have flown both the SR-71 and Lightning...



ps. Wasn't XR749 a nice shiny metallic finish at some time?

Scruffy Fanny
3rd Aug 2010, 06:32
XR749 was silver until circa 1976 - as far as I'm aware "Buzz Lightyear" didn't join the RAF till 1978-79 so he would have been flying said airframe in 1982-83 long after it was painted. Although for reasons of national security I can't reveal my identity I'm merely trying to dispel some of the exaggerated stories of high flight. To fly the SR-71 one needed approximate 3 hours of prep just to put the Flt suit on and sit breathing 100% 02 for 2 hours to suggest UK pilots did the same profile in a Flt suit and mlk3 helmet with Q mask is laughable. If you look at the Lightning canopy all that prevents a rapid decompression is a small grey rubber seal that inflated with bleed air once shut. I know during an airiest in 1984 a seal deflated due to age which was certainly a scary experience. Yes the Lightning was brilliant - superb but no it wasn't Saturn 5 and nor could it beat the F15/16 in combat - unless they were flown by aggressively below average pilots.

Ali Barber
3rd Aug 2010, 10:49
I can confirm that all the Lightnings were camouflaged when Sid was there, we only wore standard flying equipment, we didn't pre-breathe oxygen (unless we were working off a serious hangover, and we just went for it.

We knew the regulator could blow us inside out without pressure jerkins but, if you didn't toggle the mask down, enough of the pressure would leak out the side. You'd be coming down pretty damn fast by then as well, so you didn't have to survive for long!:ok:

GeeRam
3rd Aug 2010, 12:46
XR749 was silver until circa 1976 - as far as I'm aware "Buzz Lightyear" didn't join the RAF till 1978-79 so he would have been flying said airframe in 1982-83 long after it was painted.

Indeed.
'749 was painted twice in fact, first into green/grey camo in the mid 70's as mentioned and a re-paint into the two-tone air defence grey scheme in 1982.

Here it is at Binbrook on Aug 28th 1982, fresh out of the paint shop.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/6/4/1540461.jpg

rubberband2
3rd Aug 2010, 13:36
In another thread Barnstormer1968 wrote that he had never been in the services - yet he kindly urges us on to create more Lightning legends...

Hmmmmmm. Finishes the thread eh?

Lightning and F15 photo thread!

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/f1a_lightnings___u-2a.jpg

(Two Lightning F1As intercept a U-2, caption to a painting by Michael Turner)

So let's keep going to resolve some of these altitude claims –

Post #65 by Dave Roome has considerable substance with location, speeds and fuel insights. Whereas the posts by Firestreak (#42) & Hale (#16) flying UK based F3s to the stratosphere are at this stage legends; they lack any detail of supersonic flight route, speeds and fuel insights or indeed technique.


A retired USMC aviator who flew the F4 & USMC Harrier amongst his many types emailed me last night ...

Hi, What IAS did he (Roome et al) have at 87,800 ft.? In the F4 it was a 45 degree climb from about 40,000 ft. at Mach 2 or a little faster till the nose started falling through...Burners blew out around 66,000 ft...We wore full pressure suits and would get to around 80,000 ft. having to zero G it over the top at 5 units AOA...
The world record the F4 held was for 98,000+ ft. and my old F4 squadron CO held the record. He was in full AB with a carrier holdback fitting keeping him from moving. When he got down to the proper fuel weight they fired the holdback and off he went. They were up at Dow AFB in Maine in the winter with the outside air temp around minus 20 deg F...

Lots of fiddling is done to set world records!... Semper Fi

Load Toad
3rd Aug 2010, 14:48
First one to claim they touched the face of the man in the moon wins (at this rate).

BEagle
3rd Aug 2010, 15:32
If newt and Dave Roome say they did it, then they certainly would have done so!

It would be a very brave person who would query the word of such experienced WIWOLs to their face!

The RAF's oxygen masks, regulators and partial pressure jerkin / g-suits were held in high esteem by the USAF - particularly by those who had to wear the earlier 'space suit' full pressure suits.

How to pi$$ off a U-2 pilot during pre-oxygenation wearing his space suit and space helmet in the ground prep facility? Stand in front of him and start scratching an imaginary itch on your cheek....:E

There's also a good Lightning high-flyer article here (written by Porky page): English Electric Lightning Site - Story of the Month (http://www.lightning.org.uk/archive/0311.php)

For true high-flying excitement, barring the X-15, the NF-104A must have been the ultimate! See A personal history of the NF-104 AST by its main test pilot, Robert W. Smith (http://www.nf104.com/index.html) - although Yeager hardly covered himself in glory, it would seem....:hmm:

soddim
3rd Aug 2010, 16:04
The Porky Page article looks to me to be totally accurate and realistic. I also concur with his thoughts about going higher.

I never wished to melt my wings going too close to the sun!

Ewan Whosearmy
3rd Aug 2010, 16:15
I think Soddim owes DR an apology: :=

Making stuff up is the job of politicians not professional aviators.

rubberband2
3rd Aug 2010, 17:33
Are legends born or created? (2)

Making stuff up is the job of politicians not professional aviators.

The idea that a Lightning could do anything useful at 88,000 feet is preposterous!

At that height it was merely following a ballistic path at the apex of its' trajectory and the only thing that it was able to do was follow the curve earthwords.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/LightningF3sU-2A.png

Painting by Michael Turner – two Lightning F1As intercepting a Lockheed U-2A

The text box attached by the artist reads:

"Surprise, Surprise"
Top secret ballistic interception trials were carried out by the RAF in 1962/3 using two Lightning F1As. The 'target' was an unsuspecting U-2, flying at 72,000' over the Arctic.

Soddim's comments remain apposite whether the interceptor is a Lightning or a Phantom.

One Lightning zoomer states that he brought the throttles to idle/idle at peak height. Now that would have plenty of exciting implications as the 'air turbine' dropped off line and pressurisation became jeopardized .......
:=:(:ugh:

soddim
3rd Aug 2010, 19:22
For the record, Ewan Whosearmy, I have the highest respect for said DR - you might wish to read more carefully what I posted and I stand by every word.

Ewan Whosearmy
3rd Aug 2010, 20:27
I am confused. Who was making stuff up, then?

The B Word
3rd Aug 2010, 20:51
This is my fondest memory of the Lightning - had this in my logbook for years...

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/photoplog/file.php?n=242&w=l

The B Word
3rd Aug 2010, 20:58
Back to the original thread - how about this?

http://home.eblcom.ch/f5enthusiast/Pictures/Saudi%20Arabia/F-15F-5Lightning.JPG

Trumpet_trousers
3rd Aug 2010, 21:07
Here it is at Binbrook on Aug 28th 1982, fresh out of the paint shop.
Slight thread creep... looks like it was taken at the Open Day, where, from my vantage point under the Tin Triangle during the (inevitable) downpour, I watched as 2 little old ladies scurried heads down with their brollies from the LTF hangar to 5's hangar... unfortunately, they didn't see the Noddy Train on its intercept course, and one of the old dears headbutted it - didn't look too good, but I think she survived. Not sure about the train tho'... :)

D120A
3rd Aug 2010, 21:35
TT I am afraid you may have the wrong open day. That one was CAVOK all day long, a clear blue sky in which the Red Arrows did their full show, and no, my Noddy Train didn't encounter any pedestrians.

The only strange met. phenomenon that weekend was that overnight, after the open day, the south west wind got up and blew all the litter off the airfield until it impaled Missile City's chain-link fence. Clearing up the litter then became a linear rather than area job and took, IIRC, about 45 minutes just to walk along and pick the rubbish out of the fence and bag it.

Happy days.

BOAC
4th Aug 2010, 07:54
Thanks to 'The B Word' for the piccy of an 11Sqn pilot in Friday night attire. :sad:

Despite having never been near to the 'Roome upstairs' environment, a post by Centaurus I think (which I cannot now locate) brought a wry smile to my face by quoting someone trying to avoid a collision with a ?U2? at 80+ by rolling inverted and 'pulling hard' - having been 'semi-ballistic' a couple of times at 65+ on MK6 airtests I'm not sure I could have pulled an elastoplast off my arm at the sort of IAS I saw!

pma 32dd
4th Aug 2010, 09:02
Gentlemen thanks for posting some amazing memories - esp DR! Quite fantastic. Incidentally I had the same Lightning bookmark for years too until my too PC boss removed it. I'd love to know what she look like now!

Firestreak
4th Aug 2010, 15:24
OK Rubberband2, you want some details, here goes.

No doubt you are well aware that in the early 70s the Mk3 could have either a 301 or a 302 series Avon, the 302s were known locally as the 'GT'. At the same time, there were what were known as 'tuned' jet pipes. A Mk3 with 302 series engines and tuned pipes (the 'GTS') could be very a slippery a/c, lighter and with less dag than the Mk6.

So, my opportunity came by chance, nothing planned. The brief was for a pair to do some PIs against a jammer then individual AAR and back to the jammer.

The No2 failed to get airborne, the never to beforgotten WHEEEEEEE-PHUT.

I did some PIs and then filled to full on the Victor, literally just as I left the tanker the Canberra broke and had to go home. What would you do with a Lightning full of fuel and nothing to do?

My initial plan was just to get to Mach 2 which I did, then what do you do---like anyone else I pointed it up and just held it. Didn't get as high as Dave R or Brian C, even with a full Mk3 I simply didn't have the gas but I wasn't all that far off.

As an aside, I've seen a photo taken in a Mk3 cockpit with 85 grand on the altimeter so on the right day, anything's possible.

cornish-stormrider
4th Aug 2010, 17:02
Firestreak - I call for Custard proof, I don't disbelieve per se - butI wanted to call before the naysayers all get here!

The EE frightening - now them were the days.

lightningmate
4th Aug 2010, 17:12
All of these claims for extreme altitude attainment are quoting indicated altimeter/mach figures. I am not aware of the Lightning Air Data Computer calibration figures but I doubt that it extended to such levels.

Just a thought :)

lm

newt
4th Aug 2010, 21:45
Calibrated or not lm we all knew we had been a lot higher than the published figures. The aircraft could easily out perform the envelope dictated by the safety margins.:ok:

Ali Barber
4th Aug 2010, 22:02
Can't certify the precision of the ADC, but the sky was a lot darker and the earth a lot rounder than I ever saw in a Tornado F3!

And talking of exceeding limits (in the same retro gung ho attitude), I used to fight the Tornado F3 in Mach in the HUD as it was always the limit for wing sweep and you couldn't have both IAS and mach displayed at the same time. During a bug out in Deci at base height at very high mach and with the wings fully back, I switched to IAS. I had to go back to mach as the IAS was 75 kts over the VNO.

I also had to bug out at Deci for fuel aganst an Italian F-104, and I was in the F3 (Tornado, not Lightning). It's amazing what you can do when you set your mind to burning HM's fuel as fast as possible.

soddim
4th Aug 2010, 22:14
It was also easy to exceed the Lightning max IAS limit but like all limits one was never really sure what the limit was predicated upon. Would damage result, or worse still, a major accident; or was the limit there because funding ran out to discover the realistic limit.

When I stopped flying there were usually two limits published - Ne for never exceed and No for normal operating. Foreign users tended to use Ne and the RAF No. Unfortunately, never exceed was not always the real limit.

A wise operator was one who knew his own limits for operational use.

cornish-stormrider
5th Aug 2010, 07:13
so come on - what the max ever seen on the guage?

someone MUST have broken VNE - just for ****s and giggles at some point. Who claims the max,

I was reading about the TSR-2 test where he pulled away from a lightning chase plane with one in reheat and the chase had both....

The Oberon
5th Aug 2010, 09:38
I heard about the Lightning chase plane being more than able to keep up with a Blue Steel during live drops in the late 60s.

mike rondot
5th Aug 2010, 09:38
Updated PC-friendly log book blotter.

http://0.tqn.com/d/womenshistory/1/0/1/6/1917_marjorie_stinson_pilot.jpg

Scruffy Fanny
5th Aug 2010, 12:34
Mike you look so young in that picture! I knew jaguar Pilots were strange creatures but i was unaware of the cross dressing that went on!
As to the Lightning max speed was 625Kts with probe and 650Kts without IAS- this is from memory so i stand to be corrected. Above 650kts the aircraft was a bit of a handful to fly straight with the ball often off to one side flying with a boot of rudder and cross controls. I guess the limit was a structural one for the big Fin. Often pilots would "trample" the rudders to slow down...well untell they started falling off. As an aside in a different fighter i managed 886Kts at 250feet- was i scared.......not at all.......much!
as to were she is i think i married her...

rubberband2
5th Aug 2010, 13:24
Thanks for your helpful response. Please let us know from your logbook the serial number and the date of your zoom flight in this Lightning F3.

I too may have flown the very same 'hotrod' F3, but without being aware of the tuned pipes (mice?) & lighter weight. If you could add some detail …

Will “Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) please describe for us the profile that they used to reach a U-2 flying at it’s normal height of some 70,000’+?

A good description of the complexity in trying to intercept/identify a high flying target (as opposed to just zooming for fun) is provided at the link below by the RNoAF.
Note the advantage of a 'toboggan' from 0.9 to 1.4M, a technique that worked well on the Lightning in the Cyprus airspace and saved a few hundred pounds of fuel burn when accelerating.

At mach 1.5 the compressor changed mode, the turbine RPM increased by 4 % and acceleration increased further. What limited the engine and with that practical speed was compressor inlet temperature (CIT). That shouldn´t exceed 120 degrees.

High altitude flying with F-104 (http://www.starfighter.no/web/hi-alt.html)

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/pakled1.jpg

:rolleyes:

BOAC
5th Aug 2010, 16:06
Are you sure that is a woman in #106 and not another 11Sqn drag artist?

BEagle
5th Aug 2010, 19:34
The lady in question is the late Marjorie Stinson.

Before anyone posts any further smart ar$e comments about her, see Katherine & Marjorie Stinson, Pioneer Aviatrices (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/stinson_bio.html)

But who was the babe in the 'Lightning Farewell' picture? And yes, I've still got an original, as well as a 'Phantom Pharewell' logbook calendar which features another curvy little lady....:ok:

Lima Juliet
5th Aug 2010, 19:45
I thought she was known as Flight Safety Sue??? (Lightning chick)

The "Phantom Pharewell" was one of the Pilot's Pals - I gave one a very amusing "piggy back" ride at Coningsby once upon a time :ok:

BOAC
5th Aug 2010, 20:22
Sorry Beags - it's just that she - well - looked like one of the 11 Sqn cross-dressers, you see.

The B Word
5th Aug 2010, 20:37
Back to the thread...

Just to prove Ali Barber slightly wrong here's a picture of a Tornado F3 HUD coming down from above the height indicated (and speed!). The prior top out height was well into Block 5 and foolishly, with hingsight, without a pressure jerkin or pressure helmet!

It's still knowhere near Sid's or Dave Roome's efforts though :D

http://s10.directupload.net/images/100805/o9k4dgja.jpg

rubberband2
8th Aug 2010, 17:41
Ref great posts: #81 & 107 - As to the Lightning max speed was 625Kts with probe and 650Kts without IAS- this is from memory so i stand to be corrected. Above 650kts the aircraft was a bit of a handful to fly straight with the ball often off to one side flying with a boot of rudder and cross controls. I guess the limit was a structural one for the big Fin. Often pilots would "trample" the rudders to slow down...well untell they started falling off.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/CIMG3453.jpg

The lucky pilot was Flt Lt Jim Burns.
He was one of 4 Lightning F1s in close formation keeping the crowd amused with a low altitude high IAS pass in front of the crowd while the other 5 Lightnings positioned for a formation loop. He thought that he had a radio failure and landed OK.
The event was a practice at RAF Coltishall for the 1961 Farnborough & Paris airshows.
:}

lightningmate
9th Aug 2010, 15:39
Original thread - Binbrook 11 Sqn 1 Dec 1986 (Acknowledging Chris Allan)

lm

http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz338/lightningmate/Aircraft/LightningEaglesPrune.jpg

Hammer Head Too
9th Aug 2010, 19:20
When the blue/grey finish (or whatever colour it was) was being applied in the early 80's we (11F Sqn) received a jet back from paint. It was sent up on a 2 part airtest; first a general handling, quick "pilot in" OTR then the high speed run..... as it taxied in past LTF it just didn't look right.... as it turned into the slot we could see that nearly all the leading edge was back to etch primer.... great blisters of paint hung off the fuselage and the tail didn't fare much better. I forget who was flying it but as he got out he realised that maybe he had gone a tadge too fast..... on A/F it was noticed that the leading edge (it was an F3) nav light perspex had softened, drooped 2 or 3 mm and hardened again. He wouldn't comment on his top speed and wandered into the Line Hut muttering Boss, carpet... b0ll0x.... anybody add to this tale??

HH2

safetypee
9th Aug 2010, 20:25
HH2; nav light Perspex, yes this would certainly soften, often thought to be due to extended reheat use.
As for high speed heat problems, a test flight from Leconfield (a gentleman of small stature) ‘recalled’ 93,000ft after a well timed zoom, but ran out of up elevator on the way down, and during the nose low recovery recorded M2.2(+?). The forward glass windshield was replaced as the view was slightly wavy.
IIRC the pitot probe also acquired a ‘tempered’ sheen aft of the heated section.

BAe reported that test flights achieved 700 KIAS at low altitude as part of the structural proof.

Re rudder / fin failure, wasn’t shockwave induced fatigue a contributor due to high speed in (very) close formation?

I recall being in a low level formation attempting M ~ 1 over The Irish Sea when the Irish ferry appeared over the horizon ….
Then there was the 4 ship which did similar (> M 1.0) near Papa Westray - with the Russian fleet in attendance.

BOAC
10th Aug 2010, 08:20
a gentleman of small stature- would that have been ''nearer my God to thee" with ginger hair?

rubberband2
14th Aug 2010, 14:08
At post #84 an experienced USMC FJ aviator asked zoom Lightning pilots –

Hi, What IAS did you have at 87,800 ft.? (He noted: We wore full pressure suits (in the F4) and would get to around 80,000 ft. having to zero G it over the top at 5 units AOA…)

He asked because we have had zoom claims by Firestreak "till you've been up there, doing the job, don't mock it" (@#42), Hale (88K @#45), DR (good write up for 87.8K @ #65) and the DB story (93K @#117).

But none of these claimants has given us an IAS reading at the top of their zoom.

Yet it is a very important IAS value as it determines if the pilot can retain some aerodynamic control of his aircraft.

Was the speed low, say less than 120kts IAS with the aircraft in a zero g parabola for a few seconds? Did the aircraft depart, tumble, yaw, spin, make a tail slide, flame out the burners and/or engines, lose pressurisation and the air turbine electrics?

All these events would be quite exciting in a Lightning in a dark blue sky environment. "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark" is a quote.

So are there any IAS values at peak altitude in print? Or do we now await a claimant to exceed 100,000' in a Lightning?

Add to this melting perspex nav lights, a wavy windshield & a pitot probe with a tempered sheen (#117) + some M2.2 flight and the Guinness Book of Aviation Records will perhaps have to be reprinted for Xmas!
:rolleyes::(

BOAC
14th Aug 2010, 15:27
As relatively 'low' zoomer', I cannot recall the IAS, but it was low, and as I have posted previously I had almost no pitch response. As the crew-room chat had briefed me in the past, I eased the burners back to min and then to max cold (they kept running), tried to keep the 'normal' cruise pitch attitude and made sure I had no sideslip with appropriate rudder. No tumble, no spin, no flame-out, no press'n problems, just a 'float' over the top until passing back into the land of the living.

I was, of course, at the time, busy updating my Reynolds number and re-computing Prandtl-Glauert the whole time (using my trusty slide-rule) and this kept me safe.:rolleyes:

cornish-stormrider
14th Aug 2010, 16:55
so the nay sayers still persist and moan about things. No-one claimed the jet would be able to do much when they got it up there but they got it up there

kudos to the 50k club in the F3, didn't know the 199 had the oomph - it must have had one of my gold seal module 8's in the arse end - my M12 wasn't bad either.

Back to topic, has enough proof been given that the lightning achieved 80K plus or do you still disbelieve??

CS

soddim
14th Aug 2010, 17:06
Well, I certainly don't believe M12 in an F3!

It took me a lot of gas to achieve M2.

nipva
23rd Aug 2010, 12:45
But none of these claimants has given us an IAS reading at the top of their zoom

In my case I recall 140kts at 84k. It was October 1969 and I was in F1A XM215. Can't say that I recall the Mach - the F1A did not have the combined Mach/IAS strip speed of the F3/T5/F6 and my attention was firmly on the decreasing IAS! My intention, like the others, had been to see how high this fighter pilots dream would go. Whilst going through the mid 70's discretion took over but I ran out of forward stick and so continued on upwards without daring to cancel the reheat for fear of engine surge or to roll and pull - too little IAS. To my relief, gravity and the full forward stick eventually won the day and I peaked at 84000'.

Petrolhead
27th Aug 2010, 09:23
For a bit of fun, go down to Tangmere Museum and try it! ok, the software is only generic fighter ( speed does not wash off with g) but the performance is pretty close to an F3.

There is no fuel burn so you can leave it in full burner all the way up :D

Lightning Mate
27th Aug 2010, 10:14
There is no fuel burn so you can leave it in full burner all the way up

But that's cheating. :\

cornish-stormrider
27th Aug 2010, 11:46
Soddim,

M8 = module 8 = High Pressure Turbine

M12 = module 12 = Low Pressure Turbine

Mod Rep - we built them all, just some were nicer than others

soddim
27th Aug 2010, 16:07
Thankyou for that clarification.

Those modules were certainly well-built - I managed to split a whole flock of seagulls on take-off - at least a dozen divided between the two engines and they both kept turning at more than 90% all the way round the circuit to land. Not a lot of thrust though.

On another occasion we had an aircraft that lost its' radome and scanner plus waveguides - again more or less equally divided between the two engines and, once again, your modules all kept turning and produced enough thrust to get the jet on the ground.

Not a lot of modern engines would cope with that.

rubberband2
30th Aug 2010, 11:56
Nipva – ref #123 - Thank you. It is nice to see some IAS numbers quoted from a true aviator rather than a 'wannabe' .....

Realism and records are getting closer together.

Earlier: But we really need some more IAS readings at the top of their ballistic zooms (or controlled flight?) from the likes of those who claim 80K+ Lightning height records such as ...

Will “Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) please describe for us the profile that they used with IAS & Mach (...probe limits?) to reach a U-2 flying at it’s normal height of some 70,000’+?
PS "...and 80K?"
PPS "... and IAS at 88K in post #65 by Roome?

On a similar subject, an airtest ended with a 'joie de vivre' much lower zoom. The Lightning Mk6 was homebound at the end of the high Mach run: there were concerns for a quickly reducing fuel reserve.
As the throttles were eased back there was a 'banging' in the intake below. A careful inspection after the flight revealed nothing untoward. The local R-R rep just shrugged his shoulders and said the Avons were 'real tough - don't worry'.
But the intake choking feeling on power reduction was an uncomfortable moment.

The Lightning remains a real hot-rod to this day. Let us hope that the 3 flyable Cape Town based Lightnings will return to the display circuit soon.

nrl1965
4th Mar 2011, 14:33
I only worked on them but all these stories ring the same bells today as in the 80s.
Lets face it it was a rocket that only had wings on it to make the pilot feel like it was in fact an aircraft and not a ballistic missile.
I fly these days my self and wish I had their luck to be sat in the fastest thing out of binbrook, next to my old escort mexico.

Top speed was never declared (its a Secret)

:):O:}

sturb199
6th Mar 2011, 03:47
it must have had one of my gold seal module 8's in the arse end - my M12 wasn't bad either.

Nah it must have been the boys in the M15 bay that were doing all the work!!!
;)

GeeRam
6th Mar 2011, 10:37
I fly these days my self and wish I had their luck to be sat in the fastest thing out of binbrook, next to my old escort mexico.

Top speed was never declared (its a Secret)

Top speed was bang on 100mph, although I managed 110mph indicated in the Mex I owned ;):E

Wander00
6th Mar 2011, 11:58
Must have been a thing at Binbrook - I remember B-P had an RS 2000 - that was stinking quick!

nrl1965
6th Mar 2011, 23:10
Think I reversed in to that one? oopshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif

Lightning Mate
7th Mar 2011, 12:43
In my case I recall 140kts at 84k. It was October 1969 and I was in F1A XM215. Can't say that I recall the Mach - the F1A did not have the combined Mach/IAS strip speed of the F3/T5/F6 and my attention was firmly on the decreasing IAS! My intention, like the others, had been to see how high this fighter pilots dream would go. Whilst going through the mid 70's discretion took over but I ran out of forward stick and so continued on upwards without daring to cancel the reheat for fear of engine surge or to roll and pull - too little IAS. To my relief, gravity and the full forward stick eventually won the day and I peaked at 84000'.

Since the Lightning was cleared to 60,000 ft. may I suggest that was very silly and I don't believe a word you say.

Even with a pressure suit, do you know how long it would take for your blood to boil at that altitude if the pressurisation failed?

You, Sir, are a Troll!!

Please feel free to PM me......

nrl1965
7th Mar 2011, 19:08
you could do it in a glider with a pressure suit over the Andes, well 50,699ft so 60,000ft + in a lightning, EASY.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif
If your pressure suit fails in any flight in or above that Level then the result would be the same or similar regardless to the vehicle your in, also look at the fact that the human race always seems to be pushing the envelope, not all but their not the ones we tend to remember.
Now that doesn't make it right to push past limits, but the temptation to do so is too strong for some who still have the frontier pushing way of thinking.
Sorry to say I play safe so you will never know of me past this site.

bigglesbrother
14th Jun 2015, 17:04
barnstormer1968 AND cornish-stormrider appear to be the same wannabe pilot. Some of the comments are childish.

None of his comments so far have any merit in discussing aerodynamic or high performance flight.

But these pprune columns and news bites do exist for all aviation buffs.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/eusa_clap.gif