PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 4th May 2010, 13:24   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 430
Lightning & F-15 photo?

Any of you Lightning mates have a picture of the F-15 and the Lightning in formation, or at least in the same frame?

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

TIA.
Ewan Whosearmy is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 14:08   #2 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: down south
Age: 67
Posts: 13,242
Somewhat trick that one.

This is the best I can come up with:

Lightning Mate is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 15:43   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 430
Thanks, LM!

Do you know who owns the copyright to this image?

Also, did you ever BFM the Eagle? Any observations on how best to beat it?
Ewan Whosearmy is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 15:54   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 46
Posts: 876
EW

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

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

It was close to that anyway.....Maybe you can search for it, or the OP can re post it here.
barnstormer1968 is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 16:04   #5 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: down south
Age: 67
Posts: 13,242
Quote:
Do you know who owns the copyright to this image?
It's in the public domain as "courtesy BAe" and not "copyright BAe", so whilst it's possible that they own the copyright, I don't think so.

I'll check for you if you wish.
Lightning Mate is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 16:04   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 430
Thanks, Barnstormer. Will do a search...
Ewan Whosearmy is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 16:06   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 430
LM

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

Cheers
Ewan Whosearmy is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 16:58   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 44
Posts: 6
Fantastic Photo... but it generates a question.

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

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

...so now my question! .. Gear off to say 40000ft... who'd get there first !
jonesy101 is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 18:08   #9 (permalink)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 71
Posts: 10,672
Try and contact Mike Sweeney BAE Systems who was their PR man (IIRC). Any attribution is always good publicity for them.
Pontius Navigator is online now   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 18:44   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 372
IIRC there is an excellent sunset picture of 2 Lightnings and 2 F15s in the magazine that was sold at the Last Lightning Display at Binbrook. I'm sure someone here must have a copy - mine's in the UK so out of reach now I'm afraid.
Canadian Break is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 18:53   #11 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: down south
Age: 67
Posts: 13,242
Quote:
He always decribes the experience as gear up, nose up to vertical and accelerate whilst vertical.
Sorry to shatter the myth 101 - it's simply not true. In order to accelerate vertically, an aircraft must have enough thrust to overcome weight and (increasing) drag. The Lightning simply couldn't achieve it.

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

OK guys, challenge open......

Quote:
Great pic, as usual, but don't you have one of the Lightning in the cousin's six?
Sorry Charlie, I don't mate.
Lightning Mate is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 19:37   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 300 miles south of EDI
Age: 46
Posts: 129
cough Harrier...cough
Speed Twelve is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 20:21   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 254
When the brand new F15 was breaking climb to height records, I remember an advert in Flight pointing out that the F15 was faster from brakes off to 70,000' than a Saturn V moon-shot...

I believe the Saturn V drew ahead after that... !
EyesFront is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 20:29   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere sandy probably.....
Posts: 27
Lightning mate - Challenge accepted, from usaf website....

F-22

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

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

With max fuel it weighs 61340lbs vs thrust of 70000lbs, hey presto it has thrust/weight ratio of better than 1:1. Pretty sure F-15, Typhoon, su-27/31 etc will all accelerate in the vertical as well
Spiro is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2010, 22:21   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 700
Quote:
IIRC there is an excellent sunset picture of 2 Lightnings and 2 F15s in the magazine that was sold at the Last Lightning Display at Binbrook. I'm sure someone here must have a copy - mine's in the UK so out of reach now I'm afraid.
And I no longer know where mine is either.....I did have a quick look around the bookshelf but to no avail.

Ewan Whosearmy,
Ian Black may have some unpublished Lightning and F-15 shots he took (he certainly has published some Lightning and F-16 shots in his Lightning books) and IB is on the directory here index so you could try and contact him via Ed Durham.
GeeRam is offline   Reply
Old 5th May 2010, 00:25   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 44
Posts: 276
Courtesy of Wiki...
Quote:
The Lightning possessed a remarkable climb rate, and its time to reach an altitude, or time-to-climb, was exceptional. To achieve this short time-to-climb, Lightnings employed a particular climb profile, which was more shallow in angle compared to that demonstrated at air shows. The Lightning was famous for its ability to rapidly rotate at the end of the runway and climb almost vertically away, but although this near-vertical climb was impressive, it did not yield the best time to altitude, nor was it a demonstration of the ability to sustain a vertical climb. When Lightning pilots performed their trademark tail-stand, they were actually trading airspeed for altitude. The Lightnings would seemingly zoom “out of sight,” accelerating away, when in fact they would slow to near stall before pushing over into level flight. During the optimum time-to-climb profile, the maximum climb angle never exceeded 30 deg.
The Lightning’s optimum climb profile began with an afterburner takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the landing gear would be retracted and the nose held down to allow rapid acceleration to 430 KIAS, then a climb initiated and stabilized at 450 KIAS. At this IAS, the climb rate would be constant at approximately 20,000 ft/min.,[5][nb 9] The Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 at 13,000 ft.[nb 10] The pilot would then maintain Mach 0.87 until the tropopause, 36,000 ft. on a standard day. The climb rate would decrease during the constant-Mach portion of the profile.[nb 11] If further climb were required, the Lightning would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause prior to resuming the climb at supersonic speed.[7][5]
A Lighting flying its optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft less than 3 minutes after brake release.[5] This was—and is—impressive performance. That the Lightning never reached the climb rates of some of its contemporaries during this profile was not important; that it reached altitude quickly, was.
The official ceiling was a secret to the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18 000+ m), although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights; the official maximum altitude mainly being determined by cockpit pressurisation reliability and safety. In September 1962 Fighter Command organized a series of trial supersonic overland interceptions of Lockheed U-2As, temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor resumed Soviet nuclear tests, at heights of around 60,000-65,000 ft.[22][23] The trials took place in two stages, the second series consisting of 14 interceptions, including four successful and four abortive ones at 65,000.[24] The late Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26 600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark" but control-wise it was "on a knife edge".[25]
In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight, but in a ballistic climb or a zoom climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, trading speed for altitude. The normal service ceiling for this aircraft was 60,000 feet in level flight. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".[26]
Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison of the Lightning and the F-15C Eagle (which he also flew) that "acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500m]".
In British Airways trials in April 1985, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only Lightning XR749, flown by Mike Hale and described by him as "a very hot ship, even for a Lightning", managed to overtake Concorde on a stern conversion intercept.[26] The XR749 now resides at the entrance of Score Group plc's gas turbine testing and servicing facility in Peterhead, Scotland.
Despite its acceleration, altitude and top speed, the Lightning found itself outclassed by newer fighters in terms of radar, avionics, weapons load, range, and air-to-air capability. More of a problem was the obsolete avionics and weapons fit, particularly the 30 mile (very short) range 1950s radar sets: the avionics were never upgraded in RAF service since Lightnings were always supposedly just about to be replaced by something better.
Roland Beamont (Lightning development-programme chief test pilot), after flying most of the 2nd Generation Century series US fighters of that era, made it clear that in his opinion, nothing at that time had the inherent stability and control and docile handling characteristics of the P 1 series prototypes and Lightning derivatives throughout the full flight envelope. Its turn performance and buffet boundaries were well in advance of anything known to him, the Mirage III included.[27] This remained so right up until the next generation of fighter/interceptors was developed worldwide, with underbelly intakes and straked leading edges, or canards.
English Electric Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MATELO is offline   Reply
Old 5th May 2010, 09:15   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 65
Power to weight ratio comment

I remember chatting to a USAF chap (mid 70s?) shortly after the F16 started flying and he was boasting that it was the first jet where the thrust exceeded the weight of the aircraft. I pointed out the Harrier and he said, "Sure that's a good aircraft as well". I highlighted that as it could take off vertically, the thrust must exceed the weight of the aircraft. He paused for a second and then walked off. Didn't see him again!!
Tricorn is offline   Reply
Old 5th May 2010, 11:37   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 38
Posts: 963
88,000 feet. Damn that is one badass M**********r of a machine.

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

Bet that scared the U2 driver, but would the SR71 get there as well?
cornish-stormrider is offline   Reply
Old 5th May 2010, 11:48   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornish-stormrider
but would the SR71 get there as well?


SR-71 holds a level flight altitude record of a bit over 85,000ft.
GeeRam is offline   Reply
Old 5th May 2010, 12:00   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gatport Airwick
Posts: 113
Interesting to see the radar range quoted as 30 miles. When I worked on AI23B/C we had a 60 mile range and later D versions increased that to 80 miles. Still it is wiki, you can't expect it all to be right!

PM575
pmills575 is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 20:27.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network