Lightning & F-15 photo?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't certify the precision of the ADC, but the sky was a lot darker and the earth a lot rounder than I ever saw in a Tornado F3!
And talking of exceeding limits (in the same retro gung ho attitude), I used to fight the Tornado F3 in Mach in the HUD as it was always the limit for wing sweep and you couldn't have both IAS and mach displayed at the same time. During a bug out in Deci at base height at very high mach and with the wings fully back, I switched to IAS. I had to go back to mach as the IAS was 75 kts over the VNO.
I also had to bug out at Deci for fuel aganst an Italian F-104, and I was in the F3 (Tornado, not Lightning). It's amazing what you can do when you set your mind to burning HM's fuel as fast as possible.
And talking of exceeding limits (in the same retro gung ho attitude), I used to fight the Tornado F3 in Mach in the HUD as it was always the limit for wing sweep and you couldn't have both IAS and mach displayed at the same time. During a bug out in Deci at base height at very high mach and with the wings fully back, I switched to IAS. I had to go back to mach as the IAS was 75 kts over the VNO.
I also had to bug out at Deci for fuel aganst an Italian F-104, and I was in the F3 (Tornado, not Lightning). It's amazing what you can do when you set your mind to burning HM's fuel as fast as possible.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was also easy to exceed the Lightning max IAS limit but like all limits one was never really sure what the limit was predicated upon. Would damage result, or worse still, a major accident; or was the limit there because funding ran out to discover the realistic limit.
When I stopped flying there were usually two limits published - Ne for never exceed and No for normal operating. Foreign users tended to use Ne and the RAF No. Unfortunately, never exceed was not always the real limit.
A wise operator was one who knew his own limits for operational use.
When I stopped flying there were usually two limits published - Ne for never exceed and No for normal operating. Foreign users tended to use Ne and the RAF No. Unfortunately, never exceed was not always the real limit.
A wise operator was one who knew his own limits for operational use.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so come on - what the max ever seen on the guage?
someone MUST have broken VNE - just for ****s and giggles at some point. Who claims the max,
I was reading about the TSR-2 test where he pulled away from a lightning chase plane with one in reheat and the chase had both....
someone MUST have broken VNE - just for ****s and giggles at some point. Who claims the max,
I was reading about the TSR-2 test where he pulled away from a lightning chase plane with one in reheat and the chase had both....
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age before Beauty
Mike you look so young in that picture! I knew jaguar Pilots were strange creatures but i was unaware of the cross dressing that went on!
As to the Lightning max speed was 625Kts with probe and 650Kts without IAS- this is from memory so i stand to be corrected. Above 650kts the aircraft was a bit of a handful to fly straight with the ball often off to one side flying with a boot of rudder and cross controls. I guess the limit was a structural one for the big Fin. Often pilots would "trample" the rudders to slow down...well untell they started falling off. As an aside in a different fighter i managed 886Kts at 250feet- was i scared.......not at all.......much!
as to were she is i think i married her...
As to the Lightning max speed was 625Kts with probe and 650Kts without IAS- this is from memory so i stand to be corrected. Above 650kts the aircraft was a bit of a handful to fly straight with the ball often off to one side flying with a boot of rudder and cross controls. I guess the limit was a structural one for the big Fin. Often pilots would "trample" the rudders to slow down...well untell they started falling off. As an aside in a different fighter i managed 886Kts at 250feet- was i scared.......not at all.......much!
as to were she is i think i married her...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firestreak (ref your post #98)
Thanks for your helpful response. Please let us know from your logbook the serial number and the date of your zoom flight in this Lightning F3.
I too may have flown the very same 'hotrod' F3, but without being aware of the tuned pipes (mice?) & lighter weight. If you could add some detail …
A good description of the complexity in trying to intercept/identify a high flying target (as opposed to just zooming for fun) is provided at the link below by the RNoAF.
Note the advantage of a 'toboggan' from 0.9 to 1.4M, a technique that worked well on the Lightning in the Cyprus airspace and saved a few hundred pounds of fuel burn when accelerating.
At mach 1.5 the compressor changed mode, the turbine RPM increased by 4 % and acceleration increased further. What limited the engine and with that practical speed was compressor inlet temperature (CIT). That shouldn´t exceed 120 degrees.
High altitude flying with F-104
I too may have flown the very same 'hotrod' F3, but without being aware of the tuned pipes (mice?) & lighter weight. If you could add some detail …
Will “Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) please describe for us the profile that they used to reach a U-2 flying at it’s normal height of some 70,000’+?
Note the advantage of a 'toboggan' from 0.9 to 1.4M, a technique that worked well on the Lightning in the Cyprus airspace and saved a few hundred pounds of fuel burn when accelerating.
At mach 1.5 the compressor changed mode, the turbine RPM increased by 4 % and acceleration increased further. What limited the engine and with that practical speed was compressor inlet temperature (CIT). That shouldn´t exceed 120 degrees.
High altitude flying with F-104
Last edited by rubberband2; 6th Aug 2010 at 15:00. Reason: added 'suiting up 'picture as requested
The lady in question is the late Marjorie Stinson.
Before anyone posts any further smart ar$e comments about her, see Katherine & Marjorie Stinson, Pioneer Aviatrices
But who was the babe in the 'Lightning Farewell' picture? And yes, I've still got an original, as well as a 'Phantom Pharewell' logbook calendar which features another curvy little lady....
Before anyone posts any further smart ar$e comments about her, see Katherine & Marjorie Stinson, Pioneer Aviatrices
But who was the babe in the 'Lightning Farewell' picture? And yes, I've still got an original, as well as a 'Phantom Pharewell' logbook calendar which features another curvy little lady....
I thought she was known as Flight Safety Sue??? (Lightning chick)
The "Phantom Pharewell" was one of the Pilot's Pals - I gave one a very amusing "piggy back" ride at Coningsby once upon a time
The "Phantom Pharewell" was one of the Pilot's Pals - I gave one a very amusing "piggy back" ride at Coningsby once upon a time
Back to the thread...
Just to prove Ali Barber slightly wrong here's a picture of a Tornado F3 HUD coming down from above the height indicated (and speed!). The prior top out height was well into Block 5 and foolishly, with hingsight, without a pressure jerkin or pressure helmet!
It's still knowhere near Sid's or Dave Roome's efforts though
Just to prove Ali Barber slightly wrong here's a picture of a Tornado F3 HUD coming down from above the height indicated (and speed!). The prior top out height was well into Block 5 and foolishly, with hingsight, without a pressure jerkin or pressure helmet!
It's still knowhere near Sid's or Dave Roome's efforts though
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fin failure at 600 - 620 kts in low level close formation
Ref great posts: #81 & 107 - As to the Lightning max speed was 625Kts with probe and 650Kts without IAS- this is from memory so i stand to be corrected. Above 650kts the aircraft was a bit of a handful to fly straight with the ball often off to one side flying with a boot of rudder and cross controls. I guess the limit was a structural one for the big Fin. Often pilots would "trample" the rudders to slow down...well untell they started falling off.
The lucky pilot was Flt Lt Jim Burns.
He was one of 4 Lightning F1s in close formation keeping the crowd amused with a low altitude high IAS pass in front of the crowd while the other 5 Lightnings positioned for a formation loop. He thought that he had a radio failure and landed OK.
The event was a practice at RAF Coltishall for the 1961 Farnborough & Paris airshows.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Top floor, b@stards moved me. NO LONGER watchin the circuit
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When the blue/grey finish (or whatever colour it was) was being applied in the early 80's we (11F Sqn) received a jet back from paint. It was sent up on a 2 part airtest; first a general handling, quick "pilot in" OTR then the high speed run..... as it taxied in past LTF it just didn't look right.... as it turned into the slot we could see that nearly all the leading edge was back to etch primer.... great blisters of paint hung off the fuselage and the tail didn't fare much better. I forget who was flying it but as he got out he realised that maybe he had gone a tadge too fast..... on A/F it was noticed that the leading edge (it was an F3) nav light perspex had softened, drooped 2 or 3 mm and hardened again. He wouldn't comment on his top speed and wandered into the Line Hut muttering Boss, carpet... b0ll0x.... anybody add to this tale??
HH2
HH2
HH2; nav light Perspex, yes this would certainly soften, often thought to be due to extended reheat use.
As for high speed heat problems, a test flight from Leconfield (a gentleman of small stature) ‘recalled’ 93,000ft after a well timed zoom, but ran out of up elevator on the way down, and during the nose low recovery recorded M2.2(+?). The forward glass windshield was replaced as the view was slightly wavy.
IIRC the pitot probe also acquired a ‘tempered’ sheen aft of the heated section.
BAe reported that test flights achieved 700 KIAS at low altitude as part of the structural proof.
Re rudder / fin failure, wasn’t shockwave induced fatigue a contributor due to high speed in (very) close formation?
I recall being in a low level formation attempting M ~ 1 over The Irish Sea when the Irish ferry appeared over the horizon ….
Then there was the 4 ship which did similar (> M 1.0) near Papa Westray - with the Russian fleet in attendance.
As for high speed heat problems, a test flight from Leconfield (a gentleman of small stature) ‘recalled’ 93,000ft after a well timed zoom, but ran out of up elevator on the way down, and during the nose low recovery recorded M2.2(+?). The forward glass windshield was replaced as the view was slightly wavy.
IIRC the pitot probe also acquired a ‘tempered’ sheen aft of the heated section.
BAe reported that test flights achieved 700 KIAS at low altitude as part of the structural proof.
Re rudder / fin failure, wasn’t shockwave induced fatigue a contributor due to high speed in (very) close formation?
I recall being in a low level formation attempting M ~ 1 over The Irish Sea when the Irish ferry appeared over the horizon ….
Then there was the 4 ship which did similar (> M 1.0) near Papa Westray - with the Russian fleet in attendance.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are legends born or created? (3)
At post #84 an experienced USMC FJ aviator asked zoom Lightning pilots –
Hi, What IAS did you have at 87,800 ft.? (He noted: We wore full pressure suits (in the F4) and would get to around 80,000 ft. having to zero G it over the top at 5 units AOA…)
He asked because we have had zoom claims by Firestreak "till you've been up there, doing the job, don't mock it" (@#42), Hale (88K @#45), DR (good write up for 87.8K @ #65) and the DB story (93K @#117).
But none of these claimants has given us an IAS reading at the top of their zoom.
Yet it is a very important IAS value as it determines if the pilot can retain some aerodynamic control of his aircraft.
Was the speed low, say less than 120kts IAS with the aircraft in a zero g parabola for a few seconds? Did the aircraft depart, tumble, yaw, spin, make a tail slide, flame out the burners and/or engines, lose pressurisation and the air turbine electrics?
All these events would be quite exciting in a Lightning in a dark blue sky environment. "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark" is a quote.
So are there any IAS values at peak altitude in print? Or do we now await a claimant to exceed 100,000' in a Lightning?
Add to this melting perspex nav lights, a wavy windshield & a pitot probe with a tempered sheen (#117) + some M2.2 flight and the Guinness Book of Aviation Records will perhaps have to be reprinted for Xmas!
Hi, What IAS did you have at 87,800 ft.? (He noted: We wore full pressure suits (in the F4) and would get to around 80,000 ft. having to zero G it over the top at 5 units AOA…)
He asked because we have had zoom claims by Firestreak "till you've been up there, doing the job, don't mock it" (@#42), Hale (88K @#45), DR (good write up for 87.8K @ #65) and the DB story (93K @#117).
But none of these claimants has given us an IAS reading at the top of their zoom.
Yet it is a very important IAS value as it determines if the pilot can retain some aerodynamic control of his aircraft.
Was the speed low, say less than 120kts IAS with the aircraft in a zero g parabola for a few seconds? Did the aircraft depart, tumble, yaw, spin, make a tail slide, flame out the burners and/or engines, lose pressurisation and the air turbine electrics?
All these events would be quite exciting in a Lightning in a dark blue sky environment. "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark" is a quote.
So are there any IAS values at peak altitude in print? Or do we now await a claimant to exceed 100,000' in a Lightning?
Add to this melting perspex nav lights, a wavy windshield & a pitot probe with a tempered sheen (#117) + some M2.2 flight and the Guinness Book of Aviation Records will perhaps have to be reprinted for Xmas!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As relatively 'low' zoomer', I cannot recall the IAS, but it was low, and as I have posted previously I had almost no pitch response. As the crew-room chat had briefed me in the past, I eased the burners back to min and then to max cold (they kept running), tried to keep the 'normal' cruise pitch attitude and made sure I had no sideslip with appropriate rudder. No tumble, no spin, no flame-out, no press'n problems, just a 'float' over the top until passing back into the land of the living.
I was, of course, at the time, busy updating my Reynolds number and re-computing Prandtl-Glauert the whole time (using my trusty slide-rule) and this kept me safe.
I was, of course, at the time, busy updating my Reynolds number and re-computing Prandtl-Glauert the whole time (using my trusty slide-rule) and this kept me safe.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so the nay sayers still persist and moan about things. No-one claimed the jet would be able to do much when they got it up there but they got it up there
kudos to the 50k club in the F3, didn't know the 199 had the oomph - it must have had one of my gold seal module 8's in the arse end - my M12 wasn't bad either.
Back to topic, has enough proof been given that the lightning achieved 80K plus or do you still disbelieve??
CS
kudos to the 50k club in the F3, didn't know the 199 had the oomph - it must have had one of my gold seal module 8's in the arse end - my M12 wasn't bad either.
Back to topic, has enough proof been given that the lightning achieved 80K plus or do you still disbelieve??
CS