Was the Lightning really THAT good ?

[Fonsini]

Now before you tar and feather me, just come back out of reheat for a moment and hear me out.

A little background is necessary to provide some frame of reference for the question.

I grew up worshiping the Lightning as a little kid in England, and in the years that followed the legend and folklore that built up around the aircraft has become even more entrenched with the passing of time. My book cabinet contains numerous tomes on the Lightning including Roland Beaumont's definitive work detailing his years testing the aircraft and then comparing it to the F-104, Mirage III, and the Delta Dart - all of which he judged to be significantly inferior. The photo that holds pride of place in my study here in this strange and exotic Arizonan desert hideaway that I now call home is an F.6 in flight at sunset, mounted in an Amazonian hardwood frame with museum quality non-reflective glass - that one photo cost me a small fortune partly because I had to track down the UK based photographer and purchase a unique single print directly from him after seeing the image published in a magazine article on the Lightning. It sits between a mounted and fully functional BSA Lee Enfield NoI MkIII dated 1917 and my personally signed photo of Julie Adams - but neither catch my eye like the photo of the Lightning, and Julie Adams is smiling at me while posing in a bathing suit.....

In short I have amassed as much information on the Frightening and its weapons systems as any reasonable person possibly could, even spending hours analyzing Airpass radar plots to see if I could figure out the position of the contact (bloody difficult at the best of times).

But I never flew it, and a trip to Thunder City would be pointless now, so I never will.

The more I researched, the more I tried to form some type of conclusion about the true capabilities of the Lightning in combat, that final decisive arbiter in any warplane's career, and of course unless you count the runaway Harrier shootdown the Lightning never really went into action in a real shooting war, so ultimately any such discussion can never be truly decisive.

So these are my personal observations and conclusions, I've structured them in a "good first / bad last" sort of way.

Handling - the aircraft has/had peerless handling, it was a true pilot's aircraft with astonishing levels of performance even by today's standards. A maximum speed well in excess of Mach 2, a zoom climb ceiling of anywhere up to 100,000 feet or more, all with perfect control feedback and no unpleasant surprises at anything other than very low speeds or excessive AoA.

Engines - powerful and reliable with just the one known flaw of some tail end fires that had unfortunate consequences due to the location of control runs.

Avionics - for its day the Ferranti Airpass was a perfectly acceptable fighter radar coupled with a surprisingly innovative and advanced FCS, it quickly became obsolete however and was one of the many areas that adequate RAF funding could have improved immensely.

Design - showed a tendency to an experimental design as opposed to an operational design. The staggered engines reduced drag but servicing of the upper engine usually required removal of the lower engine. Fuel, or rather the shortage thereof - which to be fair was the bane of most of the early jets but something that was so much more pronounced in the Lightning due to the inability to carry underwing tanks and the prodigious consumption of the Avons, 10 minutes from full to dry tanks if the pilot stayed in full reheat.

Weapons - the Firestreak and Redtop were large weapons with equally large warheads designed to bring down the largest bomber with a single hit. Redtop could perform head on attacks but really needed Mach sized leading edge heating, and that left the pilot needing to manouever into the frontal quadrant of an approaching supersonic aircraft, tricky to say the least. A far more interesting question for me was how those weapons would have fared against fighter type targets, something that they were not designed for. While there was talk of fitting more missiles I'm not aware of a Lightning flying with more than just 2, and in the case of the F.3 no guns to boot. Technically the F.2A could fly with a fit of 6 x 30mm ADEN, if faced with fighters I always imagined this to be the better option. But Redtop an Firestreak will always remain my biggest question marks in the entire Lightning equation - were they reliable, was the warm up time and cooling envelope restrictive, how well did they really cope with off boresight launches, bad weather, a small maneuvering target. Honestly I have never been able to get a clear picture, but I did read one comment from a Lightning pilot who simply said "we never had much faith in either of them".

Reliability - MHFBF and general maintenance hours appear to have been eye wateringly bad, Bill Gunston briefly commented on the subject once and said that the true number was well over 100 maintenance hours per single flight hour, but that as the aircraft was still in service he couldn't comment further as the actual number was classified. By comparison the Mirage III and MiG 21 were renowned by all operators as "push the starter and go" type aircraft. Losses on the type were also very high, I recall reading somewhere that Lightning losses were every bit as bad and even slightly worse than the F-104, but no one ever called referred to the Lightning as the "Widowmaker".

Pilots Opinion's - mixed to say the least. British pilots of course loved it, Beaumont called it the best jet fighter he ever flew in, and he flew them all. American exchange pilots were also highly complimentary, as were the Saudis, but the Kuwaitis hated theirs, possibly because they could never keep them flying. Hard to like an aircraft that won't go.

Sales - ahh a real hot button topic that positively invites the chorus of howls about "Yanks giving away free F-104s" and generally throwing their weight around. Well I'm afraid that's part of the game in all sales based environments, but if your product is good enough in my experience it will still succeed in the market place. As for actual sales the Europeans sniffed at it but opted en masse for Mirage IIIs, then the simpler Vs, and of course the lamentable but somewhat free of charge F-104. The Saudis bought it, but we now know that was because we heavily bribed them, and then there was of course the aforementioned Kuwaitis, who were not fans and offloaded them very quickly.

Simulated Combat - there is no one size fits all here. I know of many pilots who have defeated F-15s and their ilk, but then I also have an actual combat report somewhere in the mess on my desk that details the course of events when 2 F-15As went up against pretty much the entire population of Binbrook. The Eagles flew across the North Sea from their German base and waited for the first group of Lightning's which were all defeated in short order before they then ran out of fuel, the Eagles waited for the second batch to arrive, "shot" all those down and then watched the second wave RTB because of fuel at which point with no adversaries left they also went home (or possibly rejoined at Binbrook - I forget). I do however clearly recall this line from the lead Eagle pilot "they swarmed around us like flies, but at no time did they ever seem to be a real threat". But we are of course talking about aircraft designed 20 years apart, hardly fair as this is an eternity in the earlier days of second and third generation jet fighters. I never did find a Lightning versus Mirage III simcom report but I would dearly love to know of any encounters with our French friends.

So please feel free to express your grievances with any of my conclusions, or correct any factual errors I may have made. All this is not designed to provoke moral outrage, and in fact it shouldn't because I only fly armchairs for a living, but I have studied this aircraft as man and boy on and off for 40 years and if I have learned one thing for certain, it's that there is always so much more to learn about it.

Teach me.

[ShotOne]

You're very brave fonsini since posting anything negative about the lightning is regarded here rather like slagging off the Queen Mother. My father in law used to build them; in the early fifties it was an amazing technical achievement, resembling a spacecraft more than it did any contemporary type. That said, by the time I joined in the 80's its limitations in range, serviceability and weapons made it seem a bit irrelevant.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Lightning came in to its own as a manned missile. From ground alert to intercept it was peerless.

Compared with the F102/106 with a similar role there was no comparison.

I remember a Lightning pilot writing about a 1v1 with an F16. He held his own burning and turning and thought he was doing well. Then the F16 lit his burner, game over.

[BBadanov]

In Vietnam I discussed the abilities of various fighters with an F-100 pilot.
When I mentioned the Lightning, he said "you mean the P-38?".
However, he had heard of MiGs.

[Lima Juliet]

10 minutes from full to dry tanks if the pilot stayed in full reheat.

Tornado F3 could do that in 8 minutes and 12 seconds...:8

[JonnyT1978]

As a mere 'aviation enthusiast' who sadly never got to see a Lightning fly my opinion may be dismissed by some but here goes:

For its' intended mission; namely a collision-course interceptor against Russian bombers, protecting our own V-bomber bases, it was almost peerless. It was pretty much the ultimate expression of the 'scramble to intercept' model such as that used in the Battle of Britain, rather that performing standing Combat Air Patrols as the Tornado F3 could do.

That it was a very-good fighter as well as an interceptor (where it differs from the Tornado F3) stands it in good stead, but here the argument is less compelling...

The design was very-much "of its' time", that time being the early 1950s when the P1 emerged. As others have said, it suffered greatly for lack of internal fuel; a flaw shared by many British jets including the Hunter. Other flaws include:

The intake design, which inhibited the options to upgrade the radar
The main gear retracting into the wing, meaning that under-wing drop-tanks had to be carried in a cumbersome over-wing fashion, and limited payload carrying ability
The belly-tank, making no-gear landings hazardous.
The engine configuration, while a strength in terms of low-frontal area, a weakness in terms of maintenance.

In short, a wonderful technical achievement and perhaps the pilot's aeroplane, but not perhaps as flawless as it has been revered to be.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I've had a few colleagues over the years that had flown the Lightning, and got the distinct impression from them that the 'speed well in excess of Mach 2' bit was not really true in any practical sense. Comments, anyone?

[A A Gruntpuddock]

I think the limitations of the lightning stemmed from the fact that it started as a research aircraft which was then modified into a fighter once they realised just how fast it was.

Both the Spitfire & Lightning suffered from reduced range because they were true local defense interceptors.Once the threat is identified by radar you get up there pdq and deal with it. When the missiles/ bullets are expended you get back down for a reload. Any extra fuel just inhibits the climb rate.

Pity the Air ministry never looked past this scenario, even when the advantages of the US long range fighters were evident by the end of the war.

As a display plane, nothing could touch it for sheer spectacle. The Phantom pilots put up a good fight but the extra weight meant that they could never quite beat the Lightning as a display plane.

The Gnats were a similar breed, so light that the Red Arrows displays were incredibly compact and something was always happening.

[newt]

Firstly, the aircraft made it's first flight sixty years ago!

It was way ahead of anything else in its day!

You can bang on all day about its short range/lack of fuel but it did the job efficiently. (Seven minutes airborne in a Mk3 but ten minutes logged!)

Its role developed over its operational life and it would have undoubtedly benefited from a weapons upgrade but that never happened!

Redtop and Firestreak were large and when fired on the edge of their envelope, could be unreliable.

It never had a six gun fit! The F2/F2a had permanent upper Adens and could fit a gun pack to replace the missile pack so a total of four Adens!

I could bang on picking holes in your thesis Fonsini, however my concentration span is no more than three minutes these days! Suffice to say that for those of us who operated the aircraft, it was a huge adrenalin fix!:E

[BOAC]

Fonsini - an impressive and very thorough analysis of the beast. Yes, it was VERY good in its day but as you said its 'development' stopped while its tasks blossomed. With AAR it became a workable peacetime Air Defence platform, although the AI let it down badly.

Mach 2 and 100,000ft - a big pinch of salt. Both 'sales brochure' stuff and just not practical in a real environment and I doubt 100,000ft was 'practical' Yes most of us have 'the tie', but I never achieved M2 on a 'regular' sortie.

One of its great assets was reaction time - 2 minutes from cockpit readiness to airborne, and 10 from one's bed. Superb handling as long as you followed a few basic rules.

[Kluseau]

Technically the F.2A could fly with a fit of 6 x 30mm ADEN, if faced with fighters I always imagined this to be the better option.


It never had a six gun fit! The F2/F2A had permanent upper Adens and could fit a gun pack to replace the missile pack so a total of four Adens!


Forsini, I was wondering if you had in mind a theoretical possibility of adding the two Mk6 ventral tank Adens to the four F2/F2A Adens newt refers to? As another long term consumer of Lightning reading matter and an avid spotter of them at Binbrook and Gutersloh in the 1970s, I've never seen reference to this as a possibility, still less it being done.

But come to that, was the four Aden fit on the F2 and F2A ever more than a theoretical option? Was the lower gun pack ever actually fitted in preference to the two missiles? The only F2A I've ever seen with four Adens is the 92 Sqn aircraft on show at the Scottish National Museum of Flight at East Fortune. Irritatingly, it also has the missiles fitted, making it the best armed Lightning there (n)ever was...

[newt]

The gun packs were fitted and fired on the range at Leewarden!

I know that for fact as we did it on 92 Squadron on more than one occasion! On pressing the trigger the cockpit filled with smoke and in my case the MRG button jumped out and disintegrated leaving only standby instruments!

Great fun!:ok::ok:

[NutherA2]

Tornado F3 could do that in 8 minutes and 12 seconds.

In 1956 I was impressed by the 12min 47sec my Hunter F1 would take to reach dry tanks at low level & full power. We weren't reheat assisted of course, so perhaps Neville Duke could have done better with the F3?

[rolling20]

I also grew up as huge Lightning fan, having amassed many models. As a UAS member , we were treated to a viewing of the Tornado in early 82.
Mutterings among the members were that it didnt look as good as the Lightning, seem as fast or sound as good. A number of my fellow cadets were all eager to fly the beast, having heard tales of teenage Lightning drivers.
Later that year, I thought my prayers were about to be answered as I alighted from an Andover @ Binbrook and was eagerly awaiting my first glimpse of the beast. Alas we departed fairly promptly afterwards ( for reasons I have forgotten) and I never saw one in the flesh.

I know some have the Spitfire, some the Hunter, but for me (and I am sure many others), the Lightning is the ultimate British Fighter.

[manxexile]

Design - showed a tendency to an experimental design as opposed to an operational design. The staggered engines reduced drag but servicing of the upper engine usually required removal of the lower engine.

Not true, four years as an engine man on Lightnings and never removed one to service the other.

Fuel, or rather the shortage thereof - which to be fair was the bane of most of the early jets but something that was so much more pronounced in the Lightning due to the inability to carry underwing tanks and the prodigious consumption of the Avons, 10 minutes from full to dry tanks if the pilot stayed in full reheat.

It was short of fuel and I have had to refuel on the reheat pan whilst testing. No underwing tanks, but we did fit overwing tanks.

[newt]

So there you go Fosini! From the posts so far it is apparent that there are too many myths out there! Suggest you talk to the people who know about the Lightning ie those who flew and maintained it!:ugh:

[salad-dodger]

So there you go Fosini! From the posts so far it is apparent that there are too many myths out there! Suggest you talk to the people who know about the Lightning ie those who flew and maintained it!
You should read Fonsini's original post newt, that's what he is attempting to do.

S-D

[NutLoose]

July's issue of Flypast contained a spotlight on the Lightning including comparing it to its contemporaries


see back issues on

FlyPast: At the heart of aviation heritage (http://www.flypast.com/view_issue.asp?ID=5736)

Also don't forget the South African one is flying again. Also the one in the USA is nearly there, it has been rebuilt to airworthy standardss and ground run, it just needs funding help to get it in the air.

see
index (http://www.lightning422supporters.co.uk/)

[newt]

I did S-D and my point is that it's so full of misinformation and myth that he would be better talking to the experts! This forum is hardly ideal if he is really seeking to find the facts and not the myth!

[Courtney Mil]

Obviously there are no Lightning experts here then, Newt?

[newt]

There are Courtney but this forum is full of winkers who think they are Lightning experts!:ugh:

[ExRAFRadar]

Supersonic Spitfire - enough said.

[ExRAFRadar]

Oooo, hold on.

I've flown one in Flight Sim. What do you want to know ??

[Pontius Navigator]

The F4 was no slouch when it came to fuel burning - IIRC 2000lbs per minute and the ability to drain the fuselage leaving wings etc unusable.

The Lightning could also do touch down to take off in about 6 minutes. Once saw an F6 "miss" it's intercept through bomber evasion, get back, refuel, airborne, and then hack the target.

[Captain Boers]

As an RAFG WIWOL mid 70's (you know the Sqn - there was really only one!!!) my observations:

As a low level day fighter - unsurpassed until the 'computer jets' arrived on the scene.

As an all weather interceptor and weapons system - awful :sad:. Never developed, basic, fuel an issue, weapons rudimentary :ugh:.

As a legal 'high' doing illegal things - it was 'one hell of a hooligan machine' :rolleyes:

Honoured to have flown and operated it - grateful never went to war in it.

'Aut Pugna aut Morere' :ok:

[LowObservable]

I think it was Gunston who commented on the first flight of the Draken that the pilot had exactly half as much engine as the contemporary Lightning variant (P.1A, I think) but more fuel. That said, the Lightning yielded to no contemporary in terms of climb rate and service ceiling, the latter a factor of wing design; and the unswept ailerons seem to have been a big factor in handling. A Lightning/Crusader III fly-off would have been interesting.

When I was five years old I was frightened by a Lightning. When I was 50 I found Pprune and realized that I was not alone...

[1.3VStall]

Fonsini,

Stewart Scott's two volume thesis on the Lightning really is the definitive work. Not only is it crammed with technical data it is also enlivened by quotes from both operators and maintainers.

Yes, there really was only one Lightning squadron that counted in RAFG - their reunion is coming up on London in four weeks time.

[newt]

Just a shame about the venue but see you there guys! Been ordered to attend this year!:ok:

[safetypee]

Adding some context to Fonsi’s well-considered analysis and subsequent discussion.
The Lightning met the requirement for a point defence interceptor with the advent of nuclear armed long range bombers. With conventional warfare the defensive objective could be met via attrition by destroying 10% bomber force, whereas with nuclear, there might only be one chance against a mass bomber force, which only required 10% survival for their success, but the intercept kill rate had to be 100%.
The Lightning was the first truly integrated weapon system, radar and (analogue) computation, missiles with unique detection, guidance, and fusing capabilities. IIRC the war plan success rate per aircraft/missile system was less than 50% - engine start to kill, yet in-service testing demonstrated 60%+ throughout its lifetime.

The aerodynamics almost certainly originated from Germany, but this knowledge had to be applied by the EE designers. Either as an outright swept wing or a cut-out delta, requiring new understandings in tail plane position, power controls (higher pressure hydraulics), and structural materials and fabrication. The first aircraft, P1, were prototypes, proof of concept – the research was done by SB5 aircraft, etc.
Airframe systems also broke new ground, very high altitude pressurization, heating/cooling, fuel pumps, elect generation etc, etc, all used new technologies.

Engines – Rolls Royce. ... The Avon was the jet Merlin in design philosophy, ground breaking in many areas, and with reheat (latterly variable) which at that time was difficult to achieve. The materials technology might have restricted hours between servicing – but the extent of the engines capability was fantastic, no pops, bangs, squeaks, or buzzes – not a single failure in my 1000hrs, although two engines took several birds simultaneously.

The radar probably evolved from wartime work circa 1947. The monopulse scan and track system within the same dish, together with the waveguide design providing good ECM resistance, were all well in advance of contemporary technologies. The analogue computation and system control was sewing-machine standard compared with today’s capability, but it worked.

The missile technology was world beating (stories of a Firestreak homing head being ‘retained’ by the US). The warhead was a large 60lb mills bomb (FS) with intelligent fusing; vs contemporary 10lb frag devices depending on contact; Red Top had and an expanding ring with adaptive fusing according to launch angle and used the enhanced aircraft intercept computation, with even better ECM resistance (Computer Red / 60 way plug). The USA ‘invented ‘angle rate bombing’ circa 1970’s, the Lightning F3 had working Kinematic Ranging – intercept computing without range knowledge.

Handling – exceptional; the only trans /supersonic aircraft which did not depend on auto stabilisation. Yes there were quirks, but it wasn’t a Hunter, nor designed for the same job; the Lightning was fit for purpose.

Comparisons with latter day aircraft are meaningless; the Lightning excelled against contemporary designs, but with insufficient development, the new designs of interceptors were able to match some (most) of the Lightning’s characteristics.
A realistic comparison might be made with the potential of the Avro Arrow (how much of that came from the UK). The Arrow could have been as good, even better in the point defence role, and with greater development options; large nose section for updated radar; RR engines, more internal/external weapons, two crew, long range … even better than the P1121 (ahh Hawker), which like the Lightning suffered the constraints of narrow-minded and politically inward defence views.
The Lightning gave the politicians and planners exactly what they asked for, but not all of them saw it because the world moved on.

[Hammer Head Too]

No1 engine was lower and forward. No2 was on top and staggered towards the rear. No1 you lowered down on 4 hand operated winches. No2 you craned out with a single gib and a big crane. Both engines had separate bays but if you dropped anything whilst working on the No2 and you couldn't find it..... engine out again!!

The jet pipes were identical (more or less) with the top one being mounted 180 degrees off from the lower. Therefore all the working parts were between the pipes. As the engines were staggered there was also an inter pipe on the lower engine. These all shared a common bay and again if you dropped anything the lower (and sometimes both) had to be removed. Most of us used lots of string on our tools as you were not the flavour of the week if you were guilty of this heinous crime....

Fuel, fueldraulics, hydraulics were all a pig to work on and access was generally very very limited. Easily the hardest aircraft I worked on.

Easily the best aircraft I ever worked on as far as satisfaction was concerned as you got a real buzz seeing them fly. Last figure I heard quoted was over 125 to 1 .... and I left Binbrook 5 years before the end ;);)

[Haraka]

Hammer Head Too,

Many thanks for putting the facts in place re-engine replacement.

I had always blindly accepted the "got to take the top engine out to replace the bottom one" common belief in the Service.

I only ever had one Lighting trip, courtesy of 29 Sqn on detachment to Malta in 1969. ( Zebedee)

[Thud105]

Never flew it but met a guy who had on exchange, and then flew Phantoms later in his career. He compared the two to the Mustang and Spitfire - essentially, if you're displaying at an airshow, take a Spitfire or Lightning. If you're going into battle, a Mustang or Phantom.
His words, not mine.

[OK465]

If there was a great looking wench sitting alone at the Mess Lounge bar on Friday night....

and there was a guy wearing a Lightning patch, a guy wearing a Phantom patch, and a guy wearing a Tornado patch....

Who would get the girl??

a. Lightning driver

b. Phantom driver

c. Tornado driver

d. guy with the biggest watch

e. all of the above

[Courtney Mil]

Probably the Tornado driver. All the rest would have grey hair and forgetfulness. Mind you....

[Roadster280]

Depends on if there were any soldiers in the bar! Obviously none of the above if so. But if not, then the one that listened to her most. Quite a test for FJ geezers, so I hear.

[60024]

depending on the girl, maybe e would be the correct answer!

[Courtney Mil]

Roadster, the one that listened to her moist what? Shallow is the new deep.

[effortless]

xRAFRadar.
Oooo, hold on.

I've flown one in Flight Sim. What do you want to know ??



Ah but was it the big flying camera one at Colt? The one which had little houses you could knock down with the lens?

[Herod]

Who gets the girl? None of the above. The C130 pilot. He has the greatest length, and can stay up the longest without help from his mates. ;)

[Roadster280]

Courtney :D

[The Helpful Stacker]

Depends on if there were any soldiers in the bar! Obviously none of the above if so. But if not, then the one that listened to her most. Quite a test for FJ geezers, so I hear.

And that is the point where the nurse in the bar trumps the squaddie and collection of growbags.

Listening is in the job spec and (far more important when the chips are down so-to-speak) so to is extensive anatomical knowledge.

Whilst Mr Squaddie may be able to hammer his peg into any old dirt and growbags Masters at polling their own sticks, nurses have to routinely hit the spot with ladies. ;)

[safetypee]

Thud (#32), I recall similar comparisons, but consider the difference in time scales 1936 – 1940, not much, but a vital period of the war; and the P51 had RR.
Lightning vs F4 1954 – 1958, and as with the Mustang, the F4 was optimised for different roles.
A like-for-like evaluation of the Lightning vs the initial UK F4 indicated that the kill success rate, even with a greater number of missiles, more capable radar, and two crew, the new buy had an inferior kill success rate in the air defence role, although there were advantages of range/endurance and at low level. Note the subsequent missile developments.
The RAF made a promotional film which included a F4 shooting down a Meteor (shame, sacrilege), and on seeking advice on the shot, the recommendation was to fire two AIM 7; IIRC the film indicated that only the second one hit the target.

Lightnings - 'Just the one shot.'

http://www.lightningpilots.com/Fight_4.jpg

[BEagle]

NO!!


It was better. End of....

[P6 Driver]

A question for those who know...

How did the accident/attrition rate of the Lightning in service compare with that of the F-104?

[newt]

Another myth!
My point is? This forum is full of winkers!:ok:

[fantom]

Where to start...

Only two missiles; ran out of fuel in about ten minutes; no Nav (whom you could eat if you came down in the desert); thousands of wasted man-hours spent polishing it; my bro-in-law had to jump out of one - this one, in fact :


http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/minlgw/LightningF3XP742.jpg


and it will never, ever, look as good as these do:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/minlgw/31sqnechelon.jpg[/URL]

I rest my case.

[Roadster280]

Both of them are pig-ugly.

The Hawk and Hunter are lovely looking aircraft, but not in a particularly aggressive way. For malevolence, you need something like a Vulcan, B-52 or Bear.

[fantom]

Both of them are pig-ugly.

You, Sir, are a cad.

I challenge you to a duel.

Shall we say, Primrose Hill tomorrow at seven am?

Your choice of weapon, of course.

[Basil]

Who would get the girl??
The airline captain, when he told her he was on £150k and she could come with him on his next Bermuda ;)

[Mach Jump]

End of.... :eek:


BEagle! :ooh: REALLY!!!!



MJ:ok:

[blimey]

So there I was, sat on the clifftop on a dank spring afternoon with lowering cloud reading some academic tome pre-exams, and a couple of Lightnings came over probably at the behest of Staxton, decided they'd had enough sneebling, sat on their tails and disappeared upwards. Sod academia thought me, I want some of that.
Unfortunately, WIWOL was never my destiny .... bugger.

[Roadster280]

You, Sir, are a cad.

I challenge you to a duel.

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. I just don't think jet fighters are pretty beasts. Of course fighters are always at the forefront of technology, and so are somewhat novel n appearance of necessity. The long snout, fat flanks and angular arse of a Phantom just don't do it for me. I will say the Lightning looks like it means business, two enormous engines, a pair of stub wings and that's yer lot.

Now the Spitfires (early marks before they docked about with the wings, canopy etc) are beautiful. But piston machines aren't in scope on this thread.

It must have been a hell of a learning curve going from a piston fighter to a jet fighter, especially one that was 2 or 3 times as fast as say a Spit.

[ShyTorque]

Quote:
Who would get the girl??


Girl maybe. But real women prefer a nice chopper.

[JonnyT1978]

It must have been a hell of a learning curve going from a piston fighter to a jet fighter, especially one that was 2 or 3 times as fast as say a Spit.

Wasn't it in '63 that trials were performed - mock dogfights if you will - between a Lightning and a Spitfire (PR19 IIRC) to see how to shoot a piston-engined warbird down, as the Indonesians were using Mustangs against us?

As for the Phantom, I'm going to cop a lot of flak for this.. It was never a dogfighter; it didn't get slats until the F-4E (and never on the RAF Spey-engined F4-K or the J79'd F-4S) and no gun (yes I know the later Lightnings dispensed with them too). It just seemed to do a lot of things moderately well; the F-8 was a better 'pure' fighter, the A-7 a better bomber with CCIP etc.

Now the Lightning F-53 with gun pods... :)

[Fonsini]

As the fearless, make that foolish OP I have been reading all responses with great interest, thank you all - especially the pilots and techs. As an aside I find it very strange to think of Lightning pilots being old and gray, that has more to do with the "modern" capabilities of the aircraft as it has to do with me being in denial about my own mileage.

As with most harvests one has to separate the wheat from the chaff, some of which belonged to moi as it turned out - I stand humbled and embarrassed on the engine removal issue, but feel somewhat vindicated on the feasibility of an F2A being theoretically capable of packing 6 ADEN, even if the 4 gun forward fit blew out the instruments during testing......

Only a fool would wish for war, and I would die a happy man if not one more aviator ever had to perish in combat - even knowing that pilots are in combat as I type this. But if I could have that one terrible unforgivable wish, it would be for the Lightning to have experienced its test by fire - you see, I simply have to know.

Thanks all.

[pmills575]

For those who have never seen I offer you a short video made by the engineers at Gatwick Aviation Museum when they fitted the Avons to ZF579 recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upjs3kWpoi4

By the way the jet pipes are very different, no.1 is very long and no.2 is a short little runt, the reheat units are the same though!

[Rhino power]

*pedant mode: on*

The different length pipes are actually called the 'inter pipes', not 'jet pipes'... :O

*pedant mode: off*

-RP

[Finningley Boy]

A slightly different angle question here, given the well established short legs of the Lightning, why would it not have been more efficacious to base them at Lossiemouth or Kinloss rather than Leuchars during the 1960s and 70s? As the Typhoons are moving there now, one can only imagine that this location suits Northern Quick reaction requirements better!?:confused:

FB:)

[phil9560]

I remember a pair of Lightnings giving Woodvale a beat up in '83 when I was there for AEF.Like nothing I've seen before or since.Utterly awesome.

[goudie]

Utterly awesome.

It was late afternoon on our Canberra dispersal, Akrotiri '64. Two sqdns of Lightnings were leaving next day after their detachment. Suddenly we could see and hear them all burst in to life and very quickly taxi out for take-off.
Both sqdns did a stream take-off and in the clear blue sky there hung a silver column of them as they went vertically up from rotate. Needless to say the noise was deafening. Some things you never forget!

[phil9560]

Wasn't the Station Commander at Valley upset by something similar ?

[Pontius Navigator]

Wasn't it in '63 that trials were performed - mock dogfights if you will - between a Lightning and a Spitfire (PR19 IIRC) to see how to shoot a piston-engined warbird down, as the Indonesians were using Mustangs against us?

Not 'were' but 'might'.

I am not sure about the Lightning though I could be wrong, but in 1964 air defence of Malaysia rested on Javelins, F86, Hunters, and whatever was available on the carriers, such as Sea Vixen. The Lightning did not deploy until later.

[safetypee]

Finningly, QRA flights were generally against elint aircraft or naval tracking flights – occasionally a flight to Cuba or return (and USA every 4 years - 20 Jan), thus the Northern stations would have made sense.
However, the war threat was a more direct routing to the V bases / Cities over the N Sea. In later years aspects changed, some managed by tankers.

Phil, the Station Commander at Valley was always upset – regular MPCs. I recall a detachment to Valley to defend the RN with QRA / CAP. The staff and studes loved the spectacle of a scramble – more than 60 AOB in the circuit; Staich complained, the RN said it was for real – (Staish wasn’t a fighter pilot).

Lightning vs Hunter; very good sport, but when played for beers, always supersonic below 40K.
Lightning vs Buccaneer (RN) at low level (outside of the regs, but Boss said we were not to lose); turning and a large vertical component (yo-yo), about evens, particularly if the Buccs had Winders. But they never learnt about smoke trails or jet wake over water which made CAP easy.

[RedhillPhil]

"The Spitfire Story" by Alfred Price ISBN 1-85605-702X.
Page 221 has a photograph taken at CFE West Raynham in 1963 of Spitfire PR 19 PS 853 which was the last Spitfire to perform an operational flight when it was flown against an F3.

[1.3VStall]

fantom,

I know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but how can you put up a picture of those awful American "triumph of thrust over aerodynamics" lumps and say the Lightning will never look as good? Bolleaux!

Yes the Lightning had its limitations, both in the air and on the ground, but I have never met anyone who was involved with the aircraft - either operator or maintainer - who didn't have an immense affection for the beast.

And it was British - and it didn't have the unnecessary, expensive complication of a "Talking TACAN" (now, thankfully, a redundant occupation!).;)

[safetypee]

1.3Vs, “And it was British” :ok:
We should not overlook the contributions of the many research establishments in the development of the Lightning - Farnborough, Malvern, Pyestock, Westcott, etc. How many of these exist today, with similar capabilities.
Modern approaches to technology devolve responsibility to the manufacturers who have to bear the cost and risks in developing new systems, with long lead times, changing requirements and world situations. Manufacturers are often chided that these variables have not been managed (foreseen) or that costs are disproportionate – but forget the research costs. The management of the Lightning programme could be a lesson for today’s planners.
Hunt through the archives for Lightning development proposals; even a swing-wing. Rejections or failures are more often assumed to have no cost – they are expensive, but excellent learning.
I recall the most impressive Polish chief designer at DH Propellers (Firestreak) – ‘He who makes no mistakes, makes nothing” over the office door.

#55 ‘… experienced its test by fire’ thankfully it did not have to in the primary role, but there was excellent work in the deterrent sense arround the world.
Some Middle East owners did use the guns air-ground mode with good effect, even though inferior ammunition tended to cook-off when it was fired!

[Finningley Boy]

Safety,

That has cleared up a long running mystery. Then again, I doubt that 70 miles distance would have made much difference as goes the recent debate over whether the Typhoons would be better based at Lossiemouth or Leuchars. For somewhat different reasons to a Soviet air attack on the V-Bomber Bases, I'd have thought that Leuchars still remained the most all round advantageous base for the Northern Q!?

FB:)

[Boudreaux Bob]

Was the Lightning really THAT good ?

One got Yamamoto didn't it!

[ian16th]

One got Yamamoto didn't it!

Just think how good that Lightning would have been, if it was fitted with a couple of Merlin's!

But that's been the subject of another thread :8

[BEagle]

phil9560 wrote: Wasn't the Station Commander at Valley upset by something similar?

Ah yes.

I was a student on a Gnat course in 1975. The Stn Cdr, known for some reason as 'Tojo', could be somewhat irascible; the only time he ever spoke to me during my time at Valley was to chew me out for overstressing a Hunter - not unreasonably, I would have to say. The bollocking, that is.

Anyway, we would often have lectures from front-line crews who flew down to Valley for the purpose. One sunny day we were told to be in the ante-room at 16:00 for a brief on the Buccaneer. The WIWOLs, who made up most of the staff in those days, didn't think much of their students being told to attend a 'bomber' briefing, but Tojo had given his orders and we had to go.

The first part was fair enough, but then the navigator gave his spiel. Unusually for the Bucc force, this was dull in the extreme. He droned on about the various attack options and attempted to explain the difference between bunt retard and DSL attacks....the room was hot and stuffy....the chairs were comfy....and eyelids were definitely beginning to droop.

Suddenly there was an almighty 'whoomp' followed by 3 more which shook the mess and woke everyone. It was 4 x Lightning F2As 'saying good-bye' as they headed back to Germany after MPC. Tojo was up on his feet, purple-faced with anger as he stumped out of the room to find a phone - he got through to his oppo at Gutersloh and ensured that a suitable reception committee would be waiting for the Lightning mates.

I'm sure the beat-up was arranged by a phonecall to STCAAME by one of the QFI WIWOLs; we thought it was brilliant and it certainly livened up the dull brief we'd been enduring!

However, a couple of years later a similar Lightning stream departure had even more spectacular results when no.4 in the stream dropped a low-level boom on Caergolliwg...:eek:

[1.3VStall]

Ah yes Beags, the FMk2A - the best Lightning by far!:ok:

[newt]

Just for once I fully agree!!:ok:

[LowObservable]

All this prompted me to go back and look at old notes (not contemporary may I add) at the origins of the Lightning's unique shape.

Both the P.1 (F.23/49) and the Fairey FD.2 (ER.103) emerged from the 1948 Advanced Fighter Project Group at Farnborough, which was headed by Morien Morgan but influenced by the advanced aerodynamic technology found in Germany after WW2. As someone noted above, the goal was to achieve a near-certain kill against a Soviet V-bomber equivalent.

The loss of the second DH.108 had put tailless designs in bad odor, and the swept wing with separate tail, clear of the wing-wake, appeared lower-risk. However, at some point in the deliberations, it seems that the advantages of having unswept ailerons (like a delta) were appreciated.

The staggered engines (high fineness ratio, which resulted in the Lightning being easily supersonic in advance of the formulation of the Area Rule) were also apparently an RAE innovation.

The drawing on p.119 of the document linked below and the associated discussion is fascinating, because it links the P.1 to the sweetheart of all Luft1946 fans, the Focke-Wulf Ta183. The photo on p.122 of a 1951 wind-tunnel model is equally important. I am not aware of any contemporary design anywhere else in the world that was so close to a practical Mach 2+ aircraft that would also cope well with high altitudes and (with 1950s engine technology) even supercruise.

The document also suggests that the principal value of the Shorts SB.5 was to settle the RAE v.s EE catfight over the T-tail, indubitably in the right (EE) direction.

The author calls the Vulcan a similar "fusion of German theoretical work with British pragmatic technique". That observation truly makes the Typhoon the Lightning's heir.

http://www.artefactsconsortium.org/Publications/PDFfiles/Vol3Trans/3.05.Transport-Nahun,GermanAeroSciencePicsGrBlank5,6WEBF.pdf

[sarn1e]

Wasn't the Station Commander at Valley upset by something similar?

BEagle's story predates mine somewhat, but, from his Woodvale timing, I sense that Phil9560 is talking about a different incident...

September 1987, the last Lightning MPC (Firestreak). Valley Stn Cdr is an ex-Red Arrow leader and Harrier mate. We're in the middle of an MPC with 50 missiles to get rid of and, because we're like that, we've brought a two-seater to fly passengers on the firings. Strangely, we have no student takers because the word has got out from on high that we're "cowboys" (I presume that means that the students were advised against fraternizing - in the bar or in the air) so the only pax we get are WIWOL QFIs and exchange officers who all think it's a real hoot shooting big fireworks at targets various, especially in the dark and two at a time.

Anyway, come one Friday and it's a 4FTS graduation day. As the local fighter sqn in residence, the Mighty Maples are asked for a flypast, which we are delighted to provide. I'm running the MPC and we've got a gap in the firing programme so I'm on the desk when the boys set off for a 2v2 OpEx before coming back to do the Box 4 for mums and dads. Memory fades, but my recollection is that there were 3 ex-Valley QFIs in the formation - so they knew what was required.

4-ship flies past uneventfully and comes back in for the break, lands. So far, so dull. Until we get a call from the other side of the airfield to place the formation members in open arrest for illegal low-level aerobatics! We're all struggling a bit to recall what might constitute such an offense when the number 4 (I think, might have been 3, but it's not relevant) admits to a lag-pursuit roll to switch sides on the rejoin for the break.

Now, 11 Group Air Staff Orders were very clear on this manoeuvre - specifically taught as part of the LIMOP phase - which was required to get upward-pointing missiles to acquire low-level targets. So 4's manoeuvre was safe, legal and correctly authorized. We inform Stn Cdr accordingly, but there's no pacifying him. So the said chaps spend the weekend in Rhosneigr in slightly bemused open arrest...

Come the Monday morning, some of us are in the Stn met brief when the Stn Cdr decides to stand up and declare to the assembled staff and students that "last Friday we were treated to an amateurish display by the Lightnings of 5 Sqn". Well, the assembled Valley throng were embarrassed, we were furious, and things only got more amusing from there.

I forget the precise timing of phone calls to bosses et al, but as we got back across the airfield to STCAAME a T5 was breaking into the circuit. As I went out to greet it, Binbrook's Stn Cdr was climbing out asking "where's my car?" followed shortly afterwards with a word to the offending ex-creamie QFI (he of the lag-pursuit roll) along the lines of "now then xxx, that'll teach you for being a fighter pilot". Said Stn Cdr then disappeared across the airfield in a squeal of burning rubber...

I wasn't there in the room, so have no idea what was actually said, but am reliably informed from those who overheard that it went along the lines of "Who the xxxx do you think you are? Don't you ever bad-mouth my boys in public like that again, especially when you don't know WTF you're talking about, etc".

Fast black then reappears at high speed. Stn Cdr asks if his jet has been turned (it had), notes that we "should have no more problems" and climbs up the ladder.

Within about 30 minutes from touchdown there is a pleasing roar as the Binbrook Stn Cdr rotates right alongside the Valley Stn Cdr's office and disappears upwards.

I learnt about command and leadership from that.

[safetypee]

LowObs, thanks for such an enlightening reference which adds context to many aspects of this thread and relates to personal experiences.
I was fortunate to meet some of the expertise identified in the report and to visit the Bedford wind tunnels, confirming that those large electric motors were there. The tunnel supervisor was required to notify the local power station before a test run!

The document explains why the Lightning was the best, best for the role, but it could not remain best as the world situation changed. Also, the document explains why there was a reluctance to export the design in its early form; the aircraft and the technologies were too good.
IIRC the later export versions were not exactly the same as the RAF, either not buying the full range of equipment / missiles, or not being told of certain capabilities.

The Lighting was right, thus it looked right (the converse of normal assessment). Consider the lack of VGs (there was a wing notch), no bent tails or tips of the F4, fish fins of the F8-3, or wing strakes F102.

It looked right for the task and it sounded right, which together with the mystique of overall capability afforded great respect from potential adversaries, (int reports from Warsaw Pack), who did not relish an encounter with a Lightning.

[RAFEngO74to09]

I thought the WIWOLs, and those who would liked to have been one, might enjoy this. The model is even of the best version, Lightning F2A, and marked up like the best sqn !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odJGtLQNfi8

[The Helpful Stacker]

I'm not sure where I heard it but is it true that Lightnings were more maneuverable with missiles fitted than clean?

By my basic understanding of aerodynamics it sounds pretty implausible (more weight=more overall mass to haul about) but if I remember right the person who stated it said something about the missile winglets aiding maneuvering.

[Courtney Mil]

and it didn't have the unnecessary, expensive complication of a "Talking TACAN" (now, thankfully, a redundant occupation!)

Not nice, fella. Not necessary. Play nice.

[newt]

Lightning pilots playing nice!!!! I don't think so !:E

[safetypee]

THS, some truth in the ideas. F3/F6 era squadron aircraft were used for aeros, thus generally they would retain the missiles.
The older dedicated F1 areos aircraft (some with smoke mod) were reported easier to manoeuvre with missile pack pylon stubs (winglets), no missiles, particularly for inverted passes. There may also have been a cg effect without missiles, aft cg being more manoeuvrable, and less drag, but retaining lift from the pylons.

[tornadoken]

LO #75: splendid find, many thanks. Nahum presents MoS' 1947 assignment of the supersonic research job to EE as due to their "more sound management" than was then common in UK Aero (and to EE's possession of WEW Petter). He also presents selection of (to be) Lightning in 1957 in preference to mixed-powerplant SR.177 as due to Avon's evolving grunt, which, he suggests, had no benefit from German aero-engine technology.

Others have traced the IR sensors of Firestreak/Red Top to German work. Ferranti AI23 AIRPASS evolved in reciprocal partnership with Westinghouse. Very little in 1950s was wholly British: we shared RAE technical papers with US (and France).

LO's link has rapid climb-to-height as the defining attribute from Day 1: knock down incoming (Sov. V-craft equivalents) head-on, first pass is the last. US had Arctic depth, so F-102/F-106+BOMARC. UK did not, so...was Lightning that good: certainly, for the Specified job. That is why the reviled Sandys retained it, 4/57, when deleting so much else.

[ORAC]

US had Arctic depth, so F-102/F-106+BOMARC BOMARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIM-10_Bomarc) was a stand-alone SAM. More a case of F106/F101 + AIR-2 GENIE (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/mdc/genie.page).

1VZ7FQHTaR4

[1.3VStall]

CM,

Not nice, fella. Not necessary. Play nice.

Come on old chap, it was only a bit of banter!:ok:

[LowObservable]

Thanks, Ken...

Just to amplify a little: in 1951, contemporary with the P.1 windtunnel model in the Nahum paper, no practical Mach 2 fighter design existed in the US. The F-104 was as yet not conceived and the F-102 was being built in its pre-Area Rule and unsuccessful initial shape. The second-best supersonic design to have reached that stage by 1951 may have been the Draken!

[NorthernKestrel]

Another WIWOL tale here on the RAeS website today...

Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Bolt into the BLUE (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2443/Bolt-into-the-BLUE)

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, 1.3, I know. Just sticking up for the Navs. BTW, apart from flying the aircraft, what was the main thing that Phantom Navs didn't really do - despite their branch name? Should be a good opening for some interesting answers, I guess.

Ho hum.

[thing]

We're all struggling a bit to recall what might constitute such an offense when the number 4 (I think, might have been 3, but it's not relevant) admits to a lag-pursuit roll to switch sides on the rejoin for the break.Wasn't that Mr Ch** of the flaming engines off Cyprus? I was there, saw it, got the t-shirt :ok:.

Re the OP's question; as a missile chappie the Firestreak had the best performance but it wasn't all aspect so had 'less to do' as it were. There was some concern over the Red Top's performance. I think given a choice most WIWOLs would have gone with a couple of Firestreaks.

I was part of a team that did a feasibility study into fitting four 'winders in place of the two RT/Firestreaks. It was a bit late in the day though to be cost effective and as I remember there was no where to put the cooling bottles for the 'winders. They wouldn't fit where the ammonia bottles went in the pylons.

Pride of place in my office is my Firestreak nosecone with a model Lightning inside in a vertical climb (surprise, surprise), and just to show even handedness it has 11 Sqdn markings on one side, 5 on the other and a pair of Red Tops!

[1.3VStall]

CM,

what was the main thing that Phantom Navs didn't really do

Buy a round!;)

[nimbev]

Yeah, 1.3, I know. Just sticking up for the Navs.

Its ok CM, we all know that only the very thick pilots went onto the Frightning. :rolleyes:

[1.3VStall]

but not many Navs did...........!

[TyroPicard]

Courtney
ISTR that in RAFG F4 air defenders the pilot was responsible for navigation..... Or as someone else said "One small seat for navigators, one big step backwards for mankind".....

[Out Of Trim]

The Lightning was good enough to make a Massive Impression on me at a certain Biggin Hill Airshow!

As a youngster in the Air Training Corps, the all Silver star of the show, how can I say. Oh yes, all those vertical climbs with the chest reverberating sound of freedom; made my want to join the RAF. :ok:

[Shaft109]

Just a curiosity about area ruling on this era of aircraft. I know about the F102 redesign to get the perfomance back but did the Lightning / Draken / F104 design teams know about this quirk beforehand or did they stop and incorporate it?

[Rhino power]

Wasn't the T.4/5 the fastest mark of Lightning due to the 'area rule' effect of the bulged forward fuselage? Or did I just imagine it? I'm sure I read it somewhere...

-RP

p.s. I think the two seat Hunter variants enjoyed the same speed advantage too for the same reason, although I may have imagined that as well! :}

[lasernigel]

My first ATC camp was at Coltishall at 226 OCU. As a kid was so enthralled seeing them take off.

Best view I had was at school in Blackpool one day when the TSR 2 flew over with a Lightning either side.:ok:

[Boudreaux Bob]

A bit about the 102 and 106.

F-106 Delta Dart - Specifications (http://www.f-106deltadart.com/specs.htm)

The F-106 was quite a bit faster than the Lightning and did it on a single engine.....1535 mph with a climb rate of 29,000 fpm and a range of 2,700 miles.

The Lightning stats show 1300 mph, climb rate of 20,000 fpm, and a range of 855 miles.

[1.3VStall]

BB,

You have seriously underestimated the Lightning's climb rate!

[ORAC]

IIRC the Lightning ROC at sea level was 50,000 fpm....

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Read 'The Lightning Boys' by Richard Pike! A collection of 'war stories' by the pilots who flew it.

Chapter 1 - There I was at 30,000ft when I had a No1 Engine Fire!
Chapter 2 - There I was at 30,000ft when I had a No1 Engine Fire!
Chapter 3 - There I was at 30,000ft when I had a No1 Engine Fire!
Chapter 4 - There I was at 30,000ft when I had a No1 Engine Fire!
Chapter 5 - There I was at 30,000ft when I had a No1 Engine Fire!
Chapter 6 - There I was at 30,000ft when I had a No1 Engine Fire!

...and on and on and on!

Anyway, you get my drift and that tells you something about the Lightning's reliability!

Look here:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=207166215978956687052.0004e3c401f349fe26c92&msa=0&dg=feature

And you'll see a map of Lightning losses and just how far they got to/from base before they speared in!

Bloggs
Here to help!:ok:

PS. The entry for XR768: October 29th 1974 on the map is wrong. I was bombing on Wainfleet Range that afternoon when we heard the Mayday from Tex Jones just before he ejected. We cleared the range and, in a Buccaneer, assisted the rescue chopper (Whirlwind, if I recall) who had no Violet Picture with locating the survivor in tumultuous seas just before dusk. Tex Jones did survive because he rang me afterwards to thank me for 'raising his morale' as he sat being tossed around in his dinghy and we orbited overhead - he promised a crate of beer as a reward... ...it never arrived! That's Lightning pilots for you!:{

[EyesFront]

Best view I had was at school in Blackpool one day when the TSR 2 flew over
with a Lightning either side.


Drifting off thread, but that trumps my ATC cadet memory of seeing the Bristol type 188 land at Filton (with Canberra escort) while waiting for my Chipmunk flight...

A more relevant memory is a cadet camp at Geilenkirchen, where 3 Sqn had Canberras (with special weapons), 92 Sqn had Lightnings, 60 Sqn had Pembrokes and I started learning about German beer. I have a vague memory that we beat the Germans at some big football match that year, but soccer's never been my sport...

I particularly remember the Lightning in the hangar which had gone into the safeland barrier when the braking chute failed to deploy. Both engines were out so they could rewire the aircraft, so it certainly wasn't designed for ease of maintenance

[The Helpful Stacker]

The Lightning stats show 1300 mph, climb rate of 20,000 fpm, and a range of 855 miles.

Only one of those figures is near right with respect to the later, longer serving marks.

I try and avoid Wikipedia.

[Madbob]

The Lightning's best claim to fame was as a recruiting tool for the RAF!
At least it worked on me though sadly I never got to fly one.....closest I got was as an air cadet in 1977 in Malta courtesy of 5 Sqn. Sadly the X-wind was out of limits on the day.
Another chance came later back at Binbrook but this time a partially blocked eustachian tube got me so the closest I ever got to the pole was a ride in the sim!

MB

[LowObservable]

The F-106 was maxed at M=2.0 in service.

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/Standard%20Acft%20Charactoristics%20F-106A%201964.pdf

Shaft109 - The Area Rule had not been formulated when the Lightning was designed (and as the above-cited document shows, the Lightning as we know it was basically designed by 1951) but someone involved was clearly aware of the need to avoid a clash between peak body cross-section and the wing, and knew it would be beneficial to have a near-constant-section body and a swept wing.

It might have been Multhopp, who after his RAE days went to the USA and helped design a bomber with two engines in front of the wing and one behind it.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2663

(Seriously, you could paint the XB-51 blue and green with black crosses and fool anyone.)

However, once the Area Rule was defined, it was recognized that the cross-section could be adjusted and the Lightning grew its belly tank. I have no idea about the T.4/T.5 but it smells a bit of urban legend.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Stacks,

Why not add to the discussion by providing some facts or data.

I am quite sure if Wiki had shown the Lightning to be superior there would be no squawking from the Gallery.

Others had compared the Lightning to the 102 and 106......I was merely adding some information about them from sources found on the internet.

The Lightning may have been a fast, climbed like a raped ape, but so did a lot of other aircraft of its time and since.

I shall remind you that Brit isn't necessarily best always....sometimes other nations Air Forces and Aircraft builders get it right too.

The Soviets set a few records you might remember.

[lightningmate]

BB

I think we can all agree that the capabilities of most military aircraft are less than optimum for a whole range of reasons. No Nation of which I am aware has a particularly good record of producing 'acceptable' Military Aircraft. Of course, such an assessment requires knowledge of the problems that Contractors do not mention, which are often quite significant. Consequently, Military Aviators invariably need to compensate for platform deficiencies and, mainly, they do pretty well at coping.

With respect to Records, almost exclusively the 'high performance' records are gained by 'stripped down' specials that have little in common to the equivalent operational version.

lm

[54Phan]

Another vote for "Lightning Boys", a cracking good read.:ok:

[Boudreaux Bob]

The F-15 "Streak Eagle" on display at the USAF Museum set eight records before being retired.


http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2283

[Fg Off Bloggs]

54Phan,

Another vote for "Lightning Boys", a cracking good read

Oh really! I thought it was tedious (unless you think that story after story about a No1 Engine Fire is worth reading over and over again!). And the last chapter! Talk about self-congratulation!!!:mad:

Try 'Buccaneer Boys' - much more entertaining and written by real characters!

Bloggs:ok:

PS. I suspect that 'Lightning Boys 2' is just the same!

[Rhino power]

The Streak Eagle was indeed impressive but as, lightningmate alluded to in his post, it was a stripped out hotrod, and not representative of a production F-15A...

-RP

[54Phan]

Well, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). I enjoyed reading it, as well as LB2. I will look into Buccaneer Boys, thanks for the tip.

[Pontius Navigator]

The crash map is interesting but remember most pilots will try to get home rather than jump as soon as there is a problem, unless you are trying to say they couldn't get far from base.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I shall remind you that Brit isn't necessarily best always....

And that relates to my post how?

[langleybaston]

I was the Met. man at RAF Guetersloh in the heyday of 19 and 92. Our OMQ in Zeppelinstrasse was not much further from runway end than a good throw of a cricket ball.

I have to say I just loved it! The aircrew were super guys. Bryan Smith was my next-door neighbour. Laurie Jones a fine Wingco. I got on well with Pete Naz and Bob Barcilon.

My youngest of four was born there ........... slept through the sound of freedom rather well.

Never been so in love with the job as in those years.

[LowObservable]

Record-setters are often development or pre-production jets. (1) They're lighter and (2) they have reached the end of their usefulness, so nobody cares if you overrun a temperature limit.

[BOAC]

If I recall correctly the good 'ol USA achieved the time to height record with a 104 with a wicker chair replacing the bang seat - we Brits (being always best) would never stoop so low.

[Wander00]

LB - stirred memories: Peter Naz a QFI with whom I flew, Bob Barcilon was my second Stn Cdr at Binbrook, after the tragic loss of his new son-in-law at Hyde Park. Later in my second career he was ag reat help to me when he was at the RAFBF and I had a pretty serious welfare case.

[Above The Clouds]

phil9560
I remember a pair of Lightnings giving Woodvale a beat up in '83 when I was there for AEF.Like nothing I've seen before or since.Utterly awesome.


At first did they look inverted when they came round on to finals 04 at 200ft ? or was that because the over-wing external tanks were fitted.:ok:

[Lightning5]

FB
We did on occasions detach to Lossie with 4 lightnings from Leuchars ( "I fear no man") during the Russian exercise weeks, although it was strange operating from a naval base during those periods.We did one time join the "tot" queue but the disguises it not work !!

[Alber Ratman]

Jaguar boys.. At least one chapter is different from the previous one..

[OK465]

If I recall correctly the good 'ol USA achieved the time to height record with a 104 with a wicker chair replacing the bang seat

I may be wrong here, but I believe that seat was a Mandarin style wicker designed by Pier 1 Imports to subsequently be used operationally in the failed Century series 'Comfort Fighter'.

[LowObservable]

I don't know about the wicker chair, but more than a few F-4 records were set using pre-compressor cooling, which was entirely non-standard.

[Out Of Trim]

These quoted climb rate figures are not from Ground Level to Top of Climb, as the speed would not be constant.

I believe the Lightning's initial Climb Rate, that I've usually seen quoted; was 52,000 ft per minute, but that would obvisously decline at some point!

Anyone got a figure for Typhoon?

[Boudreaux Bob]

The F-104 set a few records as well.....but no mention of a Whicker Chair.

F-104 records - International F-104 Society (http://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-records/)

[RAFEngO74to09]

I thought some might like this video of the Lightning T5 at Cranfield:


'Lightning-cleared for the Run' on Vimeo


Very nice 92 Sqn paint scheme on the LHS - unfortunately the RHS is painted as 111 Sqn !

[BOAC]

but no mention of a Whicker Chair.


Alan Whicker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Whicker)

[1.3VStall]

The 92 Sqn colour scheme looks nice, but 92 never operated the TMk5!

[newt]

Glad to see we are getting back on topic 1.3 instead of being side tracked by navigators and wicker chairs!

Personally I like the idea of having the aircraft with two squadron colours especially as they are 111 and 92! Not a problem for me that 92 operated the T4 :ok:

[Treble one]

I have seen a signed certificate (from the TP who flew the aircraft) suggesting that a Lightning F1 went from brakes off to 36000 in approx. 3 min 30s.

Whilst regaling this tale to a party of visitors at a well known aviation museum, one of them piped up along the lines of 'yes, but that's in dry power, in full reheat its more like 90s'.

When acknowledging the gentleman's contribution to the tour, I asked him how he knew those figures.

'Because I did it myself in that aircraft'.

Horses mouth then.

[1.3VStall]

Newt,

I agree! It would be even nicer to see one in the air again - dream, dream.....

[topgas]

Clearing out the in-laws' attic, I came across a Telegraph Weekend magazine from 10th September 1965 with an article on the Lightning:

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab266/topgas28/Lighning%20100965%2001.jpg?

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab266/topgas28/Lighning%20100965%2002.jpg?

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab266/topgas28/Lighning%20100965%2003.jpg?

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab266/topgas28/Lighning%20100965%2004.jpg?

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab266/topgas28/Lighning%20100965%2005.jpg?

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab266/topgas28/Lighning%20100965%2006.jpg?

There were some other pictures in the article, but not great quality for copying. It was a 25th anniversary of the BoB edition and also had an article written by Oliver Stewart, a WW1 fighter pilot, about tactics in that war.

[Anotherday]

The Brits always wax lyrically about everything they've ever made. If it was good, then they rabbit on about how many decades ahead of the American stuff it was, if it was crap they rabbit on about how brave the crews were for flying into battle with so little chance of coming back.
And best of all if they re engined it, a la F4 Phantom, they wax on lyrically about what a complete dog it was before they got hold of it......................

Always makes for interesting discussion.

[Bob Viking]

Anotherday.
All I can add to your post is to say that America was a damn fine place...
...until we gave it away.
I'm assuming you're American of course.
BV

[Octane]

Who reengined the P-51?! Oh yes! It was the English, turned an average aircraft into something special....

[Wander00]

I still have a copy of that DT somewhere: came out as we were in our Senior Entry term at Cranditz

[MightyGem]

Who reengined the P-51?! Oh yes! It was the English
And the Apache. :)

[Harley Quinn]

Just out of interest, did Lightning ever participate in Red Flag or similar exercises?

If so, how did it perform?

[Mil-26Man]

It was the English

Or was it the British? There is a difference, you know?

[XV490]

topgas: Thank you for posting that article. I remember studying it for all its worth the weekend it was published (nigh on 50 years ago :bored:)

[Willard Whyte]

At least the Americans remember to build aircraft with fuel tanks.

[LowObservable]

A bit cranky today, Anotherday?

Two interesting things about the Lightning: it busts the popular myth that nobody could design a practical supersonic fighter before Whitcomb defined the area rule, and (combined with its missiles) it was designed to destroy its target before the bomber could release a nuke, without using a nuclear warhead of its own.

[Bollotom]

I agree with the Brits always waxing lyrical. We're that small we have to cos no other sod will. Always have at the back of my mind the definition of 'Engineer.' It's a person 'Who for half a crown will make something any b****r can make for a fiver.' I remember as a child seeing my first English Electric P1 which made its mark on me. The sheer power and noise was something else. Went to visit a pal on the other side of the fence at Binbrook about 18 years ago and it was so quiet and ghostly. :cool:

[Anotherday]

Low observable,

I'm amazed it even had missiles, in true British style the early prototype Lightning would have had a dozen .303 Brownings instead.

[Jetex_Jim]

Nobody has mentioned how the poor things were predisposed to pee fuel all over the hanger floor. An American exchange pilot, who also owned an MG, wondered why the Brit's couldn't make a machine that doesn't leak.

[BBadanov]

I'm amazed it even had missiles...


Frankly, with the capability and reliability of Firestreak and Red Top, it may have been better leaving them against the HAS wall to cut down the drag!


No-one would dispute Lightning's time to height ability, but its weapons and range let it down. I had always assumed it had been moved forward to Guttersloh because the Clutch bases were too distant from the action.


Surely equipped with the AIM-9 (even a -G x 4 ?) would have been an upping of capability.

[Rhino power]

Surely equipped with the AIM-9 (even a -G x 4 ?) would have been an upping of capability.

Re-equipping the Lightning with the AIM-9 was studied but, unsurprisingly, abandoned on (amongst other things) cost grounds...

-RP

[jindabyne]

BBad

Beware making such comments - you will incur the wrath of Newt!:ooh:

[Regulation 6]

I don't care how good or bad the Lightning was operationally - it was damn good to watch at airshows!

I am just green with envy at all you lucky b'stards who were good enough to fly it

6

[newt]

And here we go Jindy! The AIM 9 was not available when the Lightning was designed and certainly not made available by the U.S. until much later! The aircraft as designed was fantastic. A well balanced machine and a delight to fly! Radar limited but upgraded throughout its life.

As for the comment " I'm amazed it even had missiles......" What a load of tosh!

It was way ahead of everything else in its day! What's more it was BRITISH!

Did Bbad even ever see it fly?:ugh:

[BBadanov]

Here we go Jindy!


Newt, whether it could fly is not the point, but never did have one in my six.
When 74 were at Tengah, the "Tiger rag" - beat up and standing on its tail - was always worth seeing. So yes, a good airshow machine old chap, better than your Jaguar.


Jindy, announced yesterday, and Mel didn't get the gig. However, he is still young enough for next time around!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

It was way ahead of everything else in its day! What's more it was BRITISH!

Sadly I never had the opportunity to fly either in it or against, so I'm certainly not going to argue with you. But aside from the fact that it was Another British Worldbeater!, in what ways would you consider it to have been way ahead of contemporaries like the Mirage III, F-104, Mig-21 and F-4? Was there anything particular that made it a more advanced or useful weapon?

[WASALOADIE]

I was fortunate and privileged enough to be given a flight in a Lightning in the mid-80's courtesy of LTF at Binbrook (OC LTF at the time, went on to become OC CFS was my pilot), not long before the aircraft was retired.

It leaked like a sieve (drip trays everywhere in the hangar). The smell in the cockpit of hydraulic oil and fuel was very similar to being in the back of a Chinook.

But a 20 Min flight, seemed like 20 seconds at the time. The awesome feeling of the thrust pushing you back into your seat. I had control for a short time, so sensitive on the controls, very slight movements required. Got the Tie for supersonic flight. An experience I am unlikely to forget for the rest of my life.

There was a brilliant mural on the LTF crewroom wall of a Lightening depicted in cartoon form in antiquated/ Heath Robinson format, did that ever survive? Does anyone have a photo of it?

[SOSL]

Think I've posted this story before but years ago.


Guy on the same entry as me (99) at Cranners didn't seem to us to be a star but the QFIs obviously thought differently - he graduated from BFTS went to AFTS on the Folland Gnat. Then posted onto Lightnings - he was a good pilot.


Years later I bumped into him one evening in the bar at Leuchars when he was flying F4s. I asked him what he thought about having a Navigator in the back seat.


He replied "pound for pound - I'd rather have the fuel".


Best wishes SOS


P.S. Are you still out there Nige?

[jindabyne]

BBad

Shame. Boat missed though?

[XM147]

Wasaloaddie
I think that you will find the mural at Bruntingthorpe in the LPG hangar

[megan]

Not seen this prior, but thought it great. A missile with a cockpit.

https://scontent.fadl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12088512_1682197292013915_2330473261595381797_n.jpg?oh=c0497 7d262c32bc8d51478572873190f&oe=56D225EB

[soddim]

I flew the Mk2 and 2A between 1964 and 1968 and I too initially felt that it was a truly wonderful machine - well ahead of anything else at the time. However, in Germany we began to meet USAFE F4's and, even though they were severely handicapped by inflexible operating doctrine, I quickly realised that my truly wonderful machine lacked a decent weapons system as well as enough fuel to do something really useful. Yes, it was great to fly but not to win a war with.

[exuw]

Surely the only meaningful criterion to be applied in any assessment of the efficacy of the Lightning in all its variants is whether it had any significant impact on the will or ability of the enemy to kill people and break their stuff.

Not how it stacked up against Uncle Sam's hardware or that of the Luftwaffe in NATO.

So, go on. Ask the Russians or the Chinese (or the French) just whether the Lightning scared the willies off them and interfered with their dastardly plans for world domination.

[Haraka]

It gave Viktor Belenko ( Sept 6 '76 arrival in Japan "mit Foxbat")and his MiG 25 mates very serious concerns.......... allegedly.

[newt]

soddim, you may have been flying the Lighting in Germany before me but I can not accept your view that you realised the weapons system was limited and you were always short of gas! My experience was very different so maybe the tactics improved or you were on the wrong Squadron?:E

[Odanrot]

Never flew it as I was busy making holes in the ground but always remember it gave us muddies the best "fur balls." In my later days when I was flying the mighty Fin in defence of the realm it used to p... me off that it could turn with me when I was in 25 wing and it was in 62!!! I agree that the Mk2A was the best although it's weapons weren't that good but it had legs and guns. The Mk3 was too short range and the Mk6 normally caught fire before it could get a shot off.

All of that said it was way ahead of its time and for once in the history of the RAF we had a fighter with enough power.

A lot of my mates flew it and loved it so much that they never stop telling you about it. God bless them all even KM- the best fighter pilot ever to live, I know because he told me.

[Tankertrashnav]

I'm not qualified in any sense to comment on the Lightning's capabilities, suffice it to say that my screensaver is a lovely picture of a Lightning in company with with a Victor K1 over the Alps*, two of the most visually appealing aircraft ever built IMOH.

Lightnings were my "stock in trade" during my six years on tankers, and their renowned thirst meant frequent visits to the hose for replenishment, thus reducing the time till we got back down and off to the bar! A highlight of my time at Marham was when I got a ride in a T4 when the Lightning OCU was lodging with us while Coltishall's runway was renewed My experience was similar to WASALOADIE'S, although I was somewhat taken aback when the pilot slipped on a pair of specs as part of his pre takeoff checks. Steely-eyed fighter pilots indeed!

*Sent to me by Lightning Mate, who I haven't seen for a while - hello LM if you are still around!

[andyy]

Didnt the Saab Draken achieve roughly similar performance (difficult to compare different variants at different stages of development) using just one Avon?

I am surprised by the criticism of the Firestreak & Red Top. My memory from my training is that the seaker head on these was far more sophisticated and sensitive than the equivalent Sidewinder and it wasnt until later marks of the AIM-9 that the seaker performance caught up?

[27mm]

Andyy, IIRC the Draken was powered by a Volvo Flygmotor engine, built under licence and identical to the Avon in the Lightning.

[LowObservable]

I recall Gunston's comments on the first flights of the P.1 and the first Saab 35, to the effect that the Saab pilot may have been more relaxed, since he had 70 per cent as much internal fuel and half the engines...

[Arkroyal]

For those interested in the safety record of this brilliant aeroplane, have a look at 'Ligbtning Eject' by Peter Caygill.

It includes the story of bow Flt Lt Eric Steenson failed to get airborne in XR 711 and slid along Wattisham' s runway on his belly tank. Great bloke who signed me off as a 737 Skipper. Sadly passed away last month.

I can still feel my internal organs vibrating to the sound of a Lightning formation team at Farnborough '64.

[Minnie Burner]

http://www.ukserials.com/images/losses/xr711.jpg

[Monsun]

Hello newt. Still haven't found your old TVR I'm afraid (or my first one for that matter).

P.S. Sorry for thread drift

[newt]

Thought I had found it a couple of months ago but it was the same year but two numbers different!:{

[Willi B]

More years ago than I care to recount, I saw a photo of a Lightning that had taken station on the port side of a Russian 'Bear', somewhere over the North Sea. In the Bear's bomb aimer's 'bubble' was a crew member who was waving and smiling. Rumour had it that the Lightning pilot was displaying an open Playboy centrefold to said Russian crewman. Does anyone have a copy of this?

[nipva]

Willi B - I have sent you a PM.

From my experience, opening up a centrefold of Playboy within the confines of a Lightning's cockpit would have been a feat of extraordinary origami. I assume that it is a copy of the photo that you want - not the Playboy centrefold

[Pontius Navigator]

Willib, I thought it was the other way around with the Bear showing the centre fold.

[Willi B]

nipva


Please see your PMs

[BBadanov]

PN, I think your recollection is correct.
I remember seeing this pic in B&W (was it in "Air Clues" ?) with the rear crewman holding up the centrefold in the Bear aft (port?) bubble. Yes, the other way around, it would have been origami gymnastics by the WIWOL.

[Willi B]

As Shakespeare's Henry V said, 'Old men forget'.


Hopefully I'll be reminded shortly.

[soddim]

Well, Newt, considering that within 6 months of leaving Germany I was checked out on the F4 with Pulse Doppler radar, 4 genuine head-on missiles that did not need a target going fast enough for skin heat, 4 reliable IR missiles with better performance than Firestreak or Red Flop, a gun and enough fuel to loiter for more than a couple of hours - and it performed adequately for not only the AD role but Recce and GA too. Add nuclear strike to it's repertoire as well!
Yes, the Lightning was a superb sports machine and very impressive but not as good as people who did not operate a real war machine think.

I rest my case.

[newt]

" soddim" it took you so long to answer I thought you may have departed the fix! Yes the F4 had all those things! You forgot to mention it also had a navigator to operate the weapons system. Not required in a Lighning! And we still used to score plenty of kills against them!:ugh:

[ORAC]

Swanning around at 15K looking low with PD for the bad guys - because that's what it was best at. However....

Post-USSR inspections of the Backfire/Blackjack revealed no low-level kit. Why not? It seems they tactics were to have been to ingress supersonic at about 50K and loft AS-4/AS-6 under heavy ECM, with the Mx penetrating at 80K+.

So, a "real war machine" in Vietnam, but in Cold War WWIII?

Tomb drivers had a sense of superiority..... Lightning drivers had fun...... :p

[MACH2NUMBER]

I am not one to post generally, but read with interest this and other threads.

My thoughts after tours on Lightning, F15, F4 and Tornado F3.

F15 overall best of the lot for weapons and handling, Lightning best for handling and raw performance, F4 good for weapons. F3 best for information.

However; F4 worst for handling, only behaved like a real fighter when almost empty of fuel.

Lightning best 'feel'. Shame about the lack of fuel and weapons, but hey you can't, have everything. We certainly had fun!

[soddim]

Newt, every pilot has his memories of 'lots of kills' but those are personal victories and not often representative of true comparison or evaluation.
For example, within a few months of leaving the Lightning I went to Binbrook to pick up a diverted F4 with an exchange Marine Corps RIO with two Vietnam tours to his credit. He embarrassed me in the crewroom by shouting 'Any of you Lightning pilots want a fight?' We took off as a 1 v 2 and claimed kills on both repeatedly until they ran out of fuel. However, the cloudbase was around 400ft with tops over 30k and we were never VMC for any of the engagements so what would one expect?
I enjoyed the pleasure of flying the Lightning and the operational satisfaction of the F4.

[MPN11]

@ MACH2NUMBER ... some might defer to your background, but I wouldn't hold your breath on this Thread!! :cool:

Interesting insight, though :ok:

[Willi B]

nipva

Thanks for the photographs.


PN and BBadanov,


Your respective recollections of the photograph in question are correct.

[gopher01]

As one whose direct involvement with the Lighting was on the technical side, two and a half years of fixing fuel leaks and carrying out the fire mod programme on 56 Sqdns F6 aircraft at Akrotiri, whatever its capabilities as a weapon of war, as an aircraft to display the power of two Avons in and out of reheat surrounded by the minimum amount of aluminium possible there was and still is nothing to beat it! The massive effect that the Vulcan has had over the past few years has as much to do with the absolutely mind blowing noise of four Olympus working hard for a living as for its place in history as the last of its breed.
I was at Biggin for the last RAF organised battle of Britain display back in about 1976 on detachment from Lyneham, and the display that had the most effect on the public was the Lightning display where its arrival was via the valley at the Saltbox café end of the airfield followed by a pullup in the centre of the display line to the vertical with the engagement of double reheat, you could actually see the crowd jump as the noise hit them followed by max rate turns yet again with reheat engaged, just a stunning noise and display, nobody would allow it today but by God it was good!
Having seen the amount of work that had to be put into the aircraft to keep it flying and the antiquity of the systems used in it, we had to get a pipe bender from BAC come out to Akrotiri to bend a main fuel pipe for us as all the aircraft and the pipes were individually matched as they were all different, it was never going to be a major success as to the numbers built, the technology moved on so quickly but it was a lovely plane to watch displaying with such an impressive presence.

[Geordie_Expat]

Great comment from the pilot at Thunder City when interviewed by John Nicol some time ago:

"They only put wings on it to keep the nav lights separated" (or words to that effect).

love it.

[Mach Two]

It was an aircraft designed for a single purpose and later pressed into coping with something completely different. It was "that good" at what it was designed to do. It was always struggling against its heritage to do the job demanded of it as things changed.

BUT, the Lightning PILOTS were that good and they are why the aircraft continued to be respected. And the FC guys, AAR, engineers et al.

[1.3VStall]

Mach Two,

The Lightning had two overwhelming attributes; it had no navigator and it was BRITISH!:)

[Courtney Mil]

...a bit like the Austin Allegro then?

[charliegolf]

Courtney, you is a very norty boy.:ok:

CG

[Courtney Mil]

:E. :E

[nipva]

As an exuberant joy to its pilots - yes it was
For outright performance - yes it was
As a display crowd pleaser - yes it was
As a surprise to complacent U2 pilots - yes it was
As a weapons platform - probably not but it compared favourably with its pulse radar equipped contemporaries (F106/Mig21/MirageIII/Draken/F104) but, as we all know, its Achilles heel was fuel but this shortage did have the unintended benefit of providing an additional adrenalin charge for its pilots.
The fact that so many people are jealous of those that flew it speaks volumes and has to be a case for saying that it must have been 'that good'!

[Wessex Boy]

I went on cadet camp to Binbrook twice; '83 & '87, what a difference between the two years!
In '83 it was deafeningly busy with full flightlines for 5, 11 and LTF and constant activity. I spent a day with the firemen, who had to dash out for brake fires at least 3 times and then a day in 5 sqn maint where I got to help remove the top engine by sitting astride it as they lifted it winding the little wheel to move the CofG/pivot point for the crane attachment

On my second visit it was depressingly quiet, only 2 or 3 ships from each squadron were wheeled out each day and rarely anything from LTF. I spent the week as duty cadet strapping other cadets into the Chipmunks (and had my PPL by then so got some fun flying too) but at least I got to spend some quality time sat by the runway watching them.

Our camp was the week leading up to the last of the Lightning show, I remember standing near 11 sqn hangar watching the arrivals on the Friday afternoon and a Tornado F3 arrived just as one of the Lighnings was returning from a sortie....they did a slow pass side by side, then came back past a little faster....then it all went quiet....the Tonka appeared going quite quickly and pulled up hard...just as the Lighning came screaming past, stood on its tail and shot straight up, the whole station erupted into cheers!

My Swinderby passing out parade in May '88 was the last one to have a Lighning flypast, my Dad spent the whole thing with his back to the parade watching the Lighnings holding.

My last contact with Lightnings was whilst on Loadie ground school at Finningley, my Gatehouse housemate was a Binbrooke Brat and invited a couple of Binbrooke daughters over for the airshow weekend and asked me to help him 'take care of them' :E

[Wessex Boy]

Yes of course PN, I had forgotten there was an F2 at all!

[nipva]

PN,
Didn't 29 Sqn re-equip with the F3 in May 1987?

[sarn1e]

Wessex Boy, F2 in those days, hadn't got the F3 in 87

Oh yes we did...

I went from Binbrook to Coningsby in November that year - out of one cockpit into the other in just about a month. And, boy, what a disappointment that was!

I don't recall it being as quiet at BK in 1987 as Wessex Boy, other than we were ensuring that we had enough jets for Jon Spon's opposition Balbo before heading off on our last Firestreak MPC.

That last open-day 9-ship was quite something given the weather on the day - one of those better to remember in hindsight than to have been on at the time. A few of us returned to smoking for the day after that...

[Wessex Boy]

I watched most of the show on the CCTV screen on the VC10 whilst supping beers!
stayed mostly dry, it was a horrendous day!

[Wander00]

I was there too, it was horridly wet - I think it was IB who did a flypast at about .98M, and I have a photo somewhere of the shock waves

[MPN11]

I went on cadet camp to Binbrook twice; '83 & '87,
I went there in Summer 1959, and had 2 trips in Anson T20 WJ514 of the Stn Flt, flown by the distinguished [to us] persona of Fg Off Jeremy Ffoliant-Foster and his enormous handlebar moustache.

What a marvellous recruitment image that was for an impressionable 14-yo. :ok:

Later experiences as a detached ATCO (late 60's, in GCA), and as a visiting 11 Gp Staff Officer, had other dimensions of course.

[GeeRam]

That last open-day 9-ship was quite something given the weather on the day - one of those better to remember in hindsight than to have been on at the time. A few of us returned to smoking for the day after that...

But that stream take-off, tight right hand turns and reheat pull ups back over the crowd in that monsoon and eerie lighting was a sight to behold and something I'll remember for ever :ok::D

[Mach Two]

So, an amazing aeroplane, loads of thrust and no navigator, therefore a pilot's aircraft. Just what the tax payer wanted to pay for to defend the UK.

Again I say, a truly brilliant piece of design for its purpose. If you measure how "good" an aircraft is by how much its pilots enjoyed flying it, then yes, it was a great success. And at its specialised role it was supreme.

It continued to be a valuable asset to UKAD throughout its life. So, yes it was that great.

Cold War, night, IMC, long range (beyond the range of Soviet cruise missiles), sustained CAP, tanker support lost, comms jammed (no fighter control), base wx Red, nearest div 50+ miles away.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Mach Two, I like your UK summary below,

'Cold War, night, IMC, long range (beyond the range of Soviet cruise missiles), sustained CAP, tanker support lost, comms jammed (no fighter control), base wx Red, nearest div 50+ miles away'.

Yes, we did all that, but what about Germany? Low Caps, fighter sweeps over Wittmund/Jever, dial a Lightning etc etc.

Lightnings ruled for a brief, but very enjoyable time over Europe.

[kintyred]

BFTS, Linton '83. As studes we had to spend an 'hour in the tower' each month to familiarise ourselves with ATC. I duly 'plugged in' to an attractive WRAF on radar to hear what was going on.
She was passed a departing Lightning from tower.
Attractive WRAF "Morning Punchy One (I made up the cs coz I can't remember the real one any more) call passing FL 70"
Lightning "Passing FL 220, do you want me to descend?"
"Negative, state direction of departure"
"Straight up."
"Request destination."
"Binbrook."
"Would you like clearance through Blue 4?" (old airways nomenclature for younger readers)
"Negative, going over the top."
"Roger, request ETA for Binbrook."
"5 minutes. QSY Binbrook Approach."

And that was that. I think we both learned quite a lot about the performance of the Lightning in that 15 seconds!

[NutLoose]

Someone on the Flypasts forums is posting some photos he discovered amongst the possessions of his late relative, and there are some rather nice ones of 29 Sqn frightnings with crew shots included, see

Old Photos - 2 - Page 2 (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?136739-Old-Photos-2/page2)

[Rhino power]

Wessex Boy, F2 in those days, hadn't got the F3 in 87.

The F.3 entered service with 229 OCU in 1986...

-RP

[Minnie Burner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/546978-lightning-really-good-post9163131.html#post9163131)
Wessex Boy, F2 in those days, hadn't got the F3 in 87.

The F.3 entered service with 229 OCU in 1986...



THE F.3 was in service with 226OCU long before that

[Pontius Navigator]

I stand corrected. I know that during the air show, which I thought was 87, I collected as many Tornadoes as possible with TTTE contributing different national markings. 226 had F2.

Bae insisted on visiting in an F3 for whatever reason. Pleased to have one F3 we were less pleased when he demanded a take off slot. The show was tightly scheduled and we didn't have a free slot. He got away with some other departures.

RPE was OC 229 and the Smiling Knife was OC 29. The F4 OCU was there too.

[27mm]

I think you mean 229 OCU, or 65 Sqn, with R P-E as boss.

[Haraka]

I thought that I did a trip with 29 Sqn. in the Spring of 1969 out of Luqa in a T5 ( Zebedee) along with three F3's. Memory does play tricks (I know!) however according to John Rawlings 29 got their F.3's around May `67 and one in their markings is illustrated in his RAF Fighter Squadrons book published in 1969.

[ORAC]

We'ze is discussing Tornado F2/F3, including top secret Blue Circle radar......

[Haraka]

Sorry guys, internal Brain drift.

Best I just go and watch the Rugby...........

[newt]

We'ze is discussing Tornado F2/F3, including top secret Blue Circle radar......

On a Lightning thread!! Why?:ugh:

[ORAC]

Thread drift - smash it to the edge and follow it round.......

[WOTME?]

I worked on Lightnings in Saudi in the early 1980's.
As said before absolute pigs to work on.
Part of the Saudi pilots pre flight was to have a pray before climbing in,can't say I blamed them.
Saudi was the only place they were used in anger,bombing some rebels fort.
There used to be a link on the Airmech site to the SA CAA report into a fatal Thunder City Lightning crash,it did not make easy reading.

[ExRAFRadar]

Would the heat from the leading edges of a target doing high Mach give off enough heat for a Redtop/Firestreak to lock on?

From my old wargaming days the Redtop used to have a 90 degree aspect lock on at the rear of target, something the early Sidewinders could not achieve.

Plus the turning rates for the Lightning pi**ed all over the F4, even with slats according to SPI's AirWar

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1629/air-war-modern-tactical-air-combat

[ORAC]

Redtop yes, Firestreak no.

[nipva]

Wotme,
Saudi was the only place they were used in anger
Depends on what you mean by 'in anger' During the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 56 Sqn flew armed patrols for a month with 4 a/c either airborne or on RS10, 4 at RS30 and another 4 at RS60. Although no shots were fired, there were a couple of nearlies so I would argue that this episode is pretty close to being used 'in anger'.

ERR,
I did quite a lot of Lightning v F4 combat with 43 Sqn when they first got their F4Ks in 1970. In a BVR fight it was no contest - the Phantom's radar had twice the range of the Lightning and a viable all-aspect missile in the Sparrow. If, however, you could get past this initial encounter into a visual fight, then the Lightning generally had the upper hand. However below 10k a clean F4 (missiles only) was very much the match of the Lightning in a turning fight.

[ORAC]

However below 10k a clean F4 (missiles only) was very much the match of the Lightning in a turning fight. And not much greater endurance......

[Pontius Navigator]

I did quite a lot of Lightning v F4 combat with 43 Sqn when they first got their F4Ks in 1970. In a BVR fight it was no contest - the Phantom's radar had twice the range of the Lightning.

Twice? Even on the OCU we were limited to not calling Judy beyond 50 miles :)

[nipva]

PN,

It was just a figure of speech. I didn't want to come up with a specific order of magnitude only to be corrected by some armchair warrior. Let's just agree that the F4's radar had a huge increase in range over that of the Lightning at all levels and especially at low level where the Lightnings radar was virtually useless.

[MACH2NUMBER]

NIPVA,

Of course the F4 was the better BVR machine and a very potent multi-role fighter. The Lightning missiles were IR only hence the term Red Flop and Firewood.

Of the F4s, I much preferred the F4K, which I flew on 43 Sqn, better than the FGR2 for manoeuvrability.

As to WVR work, as you stated, the F4 was only useful below 10K and at very light weight, so was the Harrier! The Lightning performed very well at all levels until it ran out of fuel. The F4 and Harrier could not compete with the Lightning at higher levels.

I loved the F15 and even the Tornado F3! But all this is history now. They were horses for different courses.

[EAP86]

The Saudi Lightnings were fitted with bomb racks and they actually used them in anger in the Yemen in the 70s. I have a suspicion that the pilots were often Brits though...

EAP

[Rhino power]

Of the F4s, I much preferred the F4K, which I flew on 43 Sqn, better than the FGR2 for manoeuvrability.

How so? I thought, apart from the lack of INAS and the different nose gear leg, the FG.1 and FGR.2 were virtually identical, same wing, same thrust etc...
Was it the slotted stab that made the difference?

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

There is some irony that an iconic fighter like the Lightning is attributed with BOMBING as its "in anger" mission. :eek:

[FakePilot]

Can someone describe a typical scenario for the Lightning? In particular I'd like to know where the target is when the Lightning takes off, and how does it climb to get into position. Is it a head on or chase? I realize I'm asking for a simplification.

I wish to create a scenario for Flight Sim, so spout hatred if it makes you feel better and make references to my armchair :E

[Heathrow Harry]

Always thought it was specc'd by guys who were caught climbing to attack the Luftwaffe the Battle of Britain and swore that when they became SO's they'd have a fighter that got to altitude QUICKLY

No reason to have any range or endurance - it was all going to be fought over Kent amd Essex......................

[sitigeltfel]

Can someone describe a typical scenario for the Lightning? In particular I'd like to know where the target is when the Lightning takes off, and how does it climb to get into position. Is it a head on or chase? I realize I'm asking for a simplification.

I wish to create a scenario for Flight Sim, so spout hatred if it makes you feel better and make references to my armchair :E

Look here.....

Controlling The Lightning - Association of RAF Fighter Control Officers (http://www.raffca.org.uk/cms/lightningcontrol.html)

[effortless]

An ex ATC Prestwick told me this a while ago.


We had two TU 95s orbiting Machrihanish killing themselves laughing as the lightning from binbrook needed a tanker from Marham just to reach them in less than 45 minutes. Before all that could be laid on they had been intercepted by a comet flown by a captain who'd been a Mosquito night fighter pilot in 1945. Needless to say the whole thing was hushed up.


Not sure as to the vérité. He likes a good story but he likes his facts too.

[ExRAFRadar]

I was always told by the Boulmer chaps that the Binbrook Lightnings used to call Bingo abeam Cleethorpes. :)

[ORAC]

Scramble, shut down one engine top of climb, cruise to op area, restart, do intercept, repeat on recovery.

How do you think the Lightning managed to do QRA north of Saxa Vord out of LU?

[Wander00]

Is that not when the relight fires up a pool of fuel in the bottom of the fuselage and burns through the elevator push/pull rod?

[MPN11]

ORAC ... you omitted, from an ATCO's POV, recovering using a slightly high-pitched R/T voice with a faint hint of panic, whilst trying to sound ever so butch at the same time :cool: :E

[MPN11]

Is that not when the relight fires up a pool of fuel in the bottom of the fuselage and burns through the elevator push/pull rod?
Or even without relight, as Pete T******* sadly discovered in the circuit at Tengah.

I understand that the material on those control rods were changed subsequently, but too late for him.

[ORAC]

What was it again, 400lb a side at the top of the dive?

[smujsmith]

ISTR during my tour at Akrotiri 1973-75 a certain F/L Ploszek having a reheat zone hydraulic union leak, that ignited and became a welding torch that attached the tail plane to the fuselage. How I heard it, the fire was brought under control but the tailplanr remained immobilised. By a feat of superb airmanship, the whiskered one used differential throttle to control pitch, and safely landed the jet back on base. I believe that the SEM to wrap all hydraulic unions in the reheat and jet pipe zones was introduced as a direct result of that incident. Whatever, he could have opted for a direct heading to sea and a Martin Baker let down. Anyone have any knowledge of the incident, I'm sure I'm not imagining it.

Smudge :ok:

[EAP86]

I believe there was an STI to wrap all engine bay hydraulic unions in Viton tape. This followed an in-flight fire with a torching flame from a spraying high pressure hydraulic oil leak. The welded tailplane aspect of the story sounds slightly implausible as a fire was sufficient to 'freeze' the pitch controls in many cases. I'm happy to be proved wrong though.

EAP

[nipva]

Smuj,
In actual fact it was the boss, Martin Bee who had this, a major titanium fire. Also as a point of order, Ploz was one of the two Flt Cdrs and a Sqn Ldr not a Flt Lt.

[sarn1e]

There is some irony that an iconic fighter like the Lightning is attributed with BOMBING as its "in anger" mission.

Courtney, I entirely agree.

I joined (or at least was inspired to join) to fly F4s in the FGR role - specifically, II(AC) Sqn in Germany - which looked to 17-year old me to be the ultimate job. Sadly, by the time I got there someone had made the ludicrous decision to replace them with Jaguars. So, being fortunate in having the choice of which (single) role to pursue, I chose AD in the Lightning - as good a grounding in all things aviation as you could get, if time-limited in every sense.

I then tried to swap roles when Binbrook was closing for a) variety and b) to stay single-seat, but was "earmarked" as one of the few to transition to Tornado since all my mates had decided that they were off to Cathay or BA to avoid it. Not until 3 (very professionally fulfilling, I might add) years after that did I get to my dream posting - F/A-18s with the USMC.

Notwithstanding the single role expertise that a specialist outfit can bring to the party - as you would expect, I have the utmost respect for the Eagle dudes - I have never understood the RAF's obsession with it and the complete operational inflexibility that inevitably results. Indeed, I later spent my entire time in MOD trying to overturn the planning assumptions for single-role sqns, albeit that I was not naive enough not to understand that the arguments had been made largely to underpin desired front-line aircraft establishments and thus workshare numbers.

In my view, any tactical FJ aircraft that can't both drop bombs/PGMs and launch missiles is a complete waste of time and money. It follows that the crews should themselves be capable of (at least) multi-role operations. And, having done it in said spangly electric jets, it is perfectly manageable from both a skillset and currency/recency perspective. No doubt someone who's got closer ties to what's going on on the front line can confirm that they are now (all) finally doing so.

After all, and as the banter has always had it: if A-G was hard, A-A guys would do it! :E

[nipva]

Scramble, shut down one engine top of climb, cruise to op area, restart, do intercept, repeat on recovery.

How do you think the Lightning managed to do QRA north of Saxa Vord out of LU?

Well, almost. We never shut down an engine outbound as a failure to relight would compromise the intercept. Anyhow, shutting down an engine only succeeded in increasing range below 15000ft. Best range was at the tropopause on two so there was rarely a case for recovering on one. As to how we intercepted north of Saxa Vord as well as north of the Faeroes and Iceland - we cheated and used tankers.

[Courtney Mil]

As to how we intercepted north of Saxa Vord as well as north of the Faeroes and Iceland - we cheated and used tankers.

Wasn't it rather a long wait to get the tanker airborne, let alone all the way up to the northern end of the ADR? Maybe Northern Q Phantoms could fill in until everything was ready?

[ORAC]

Tankers at RS 2H at Marham, 1H transit to abeam LU, another to north of Saxa. So, 4 hours - minus however early they managed to get airborne (and to be honest they usually managed under 60 mins).

To manage to meet P-time the norm was to scramble Q1 to honour the threat, then Q2 in sequence etc. If you were lucky you could steal a tanker from a TTL as Tansor Mobile, and if activity was forecast preposition tankers at LU.

I can remember one exercise where the Bears kept coming and, after exhausting all the available F4s, the BK then WT jets were generated. IIRC they landed at LU to refuel before heading north. F4s, Ltgs, Victors and VC-10s ended up scattered all of the sky and the tankers were OTRing wherever they could find the fuel.....

[Monsun]

Smuj

You might be confusing two separate incidents at Akrotiri. The one involving Martin Bee occurred on 23/5/74 (XS928) and indeed was a titanium fire which led to the No.1 engine winding down rapidly. There was no fire warning as the fire detection system had been put out of action.

Another incident took place on 18/2/74 with a 56 Sqn F.6 (XR759) flown by John Ward from the OCU who was on a standardisation check. He had a control restriction where the stick could not be moved aft of neutral. He got the aircraft down by putting the No.1 engine into reheat to provide pitch control and was given an AFC for saving the aircraft.

[Wander00]

Dear Henry, SLOPS when I was at Binbrook and saw him at the Towers reunion weekend in July - chirpy as ever

[Ali Barber]

Did have to request a fuel priority to cross the runway and taxi back after diverting off a Q scramble and landing on one engine.

[Mach Two]

Tankers at RS 2H at Marham, 1H transit to abeam LU, another to north of Saxa. So, 4 hours - minus however early they managed to get airborne (and to be honest they usually managed under 60 mins).

To manage to meet P-time the norm was to scramble Q1 to honour the threat, then Q2 in sequence etc. If you were lucky you could steal a tanker from a TTL as Tansor Mobile, and if activity was forecast preposition tankers at LU.

That seems to be a lot of "maybes" for one of the UK's biggest peacetime ops. I'm interested in your maths there. Assuming the wait for the tanker to pitch up was the three to four hours you mention, how far behind Q1 would Q2 need to be?

I take your point about poaching tankers, but they weren't always there even in those days. Pre-positioning is always an option, but if activity could always be predicted we wouldn't have ended up having to do rush Q generations.

I suppose my question is, what happened when all those extra needs weren't available? Could the Southern Q Lightning base(s) really cover the northern area without all the extra lucky support?

[CharlieJuliet]

I believe that in the early days just after 5 got the interim 6s ('66) they were scrambled from Binbrook to Bears and wee dragged further north than the 3s from Leuchars usually went - in fact so far that one ended up in Lossie. This was the last time that they went so far. In my time - up to '68 - I don't recall any Tanker support for Q although someone may know differently?

[Canadian Break]

Penetration time to the UKADR (calculated with a little help from our Northern friends) was generally in the 2 hr 10 mins region so if you got cracking then it was absolutely possible to get the peices in play at the right time and place. As my learned friend ORAC has said, the tanker boys were always eager to get airborne well within their 2 hour limit. Depending on the situation, we could also reduce their RS - but my aging brain tells me that they were limited as to the time they could hold RS 10 (i.e. cockpit). Anyway, bottom line is that we didn't need the moon and stars to align to get the job done.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Rhino Power,
Sorry I did not get back. Yes, I believe the slatted tail did make a noticeable difference at lower speeds and certainly in the circuit.
M2N

[chiglet]

As an ADO in the "Diversion Cell" at Patrington in 1965-1967, I remember the Binbrook F6s "going North" and returning to Binbrook. I also remember "Bear Week" at Buchan, when we had a succession of Bears transiting Russia-Cuba and Takers were supporting the Leuchars Javelins

[Rhino power]

Rhino Power,
Sorry I did not get back. Yes, I believe the slatted tail did make a noticeable difference at lower speeds and certainly in the circuit.
M2N

Thanks, M2N, much appreciated.

-RP

[megan]

Nice pic

https://scontent.fadl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13782173_1785676871665956_4414343279876017819_n.jpg?oh=7efb6 9ea0bdb92f86d8e8201d36360bd&oe=582FCB98

[ACW342]

There I was, 3 years as a SAC AATC, 1st posting to Wattisham where, sadly, I witnessed the 23rd Canberra fatal practice asymmetric approach, then a course at North Luffenham and a posting to Northern Dairies, my favourite posting of all. ( I met the current Mrs. W there, 44 years ago last month)

One nightshift, I was manning the BBK CCA suite, and my controller, an Ulsterman like myself, was up on the bridge, having made up a four for Bridge.

All fine and well, until a call came from Patrington, requesting a handover for two pairs recovering. I took the details and gave the Patrington controller the usual caveat, "Wait for Controller" and shouted up to the bridge, " Sir, two pairs recovering" back came the reply, "you take them Mike, I'm playing 7 no trumps" No chance I thought, he'll never make 7 no trumps.

I took the first pair, descending them to 50 in the dive circle and then handed them to BBK approach just as Patrington called with the second and last pair of the night. Same again and when BBK called me back to say they had finished for the night, I closed the BBK CCA suite with the allocator.

I somehow feel that this wouldn't happen in this day and age. I mean 7 no trumps?, on the night shift?

[D120A]

It is a nice picture, Megan, thank you. We can see our married quarter!