Was the Lightning really THAT good ?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: lalaland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaaagh Nostalgia
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
. Never developed, basic, fuel an issue, weapons rudimentary 
.
As a legal 'high' doing illegal things - it was 'one hell of a hooligan machine'
Honoured to have flown and operated it - grateful never went to war in it.
'Aut Pugna aut Morere'
As a low level day fighter - unsurpassed until the 'computer jets' arrived on the scene.
As an all weather interceptor and weapons system - awful
. Never developed, basic, fuel an issue, weapons rudimentary .As a legal 'high' doing illegal things - it was 'one hell of a hooligan machine'
Honoured to have flown and operated it - grateful never went to war in it.
'Aut Pugna aut Morere'
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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)
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)
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.
His words, not mine.
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xRAFRadar.
Oooo, hold on.
I've flown one in Flight Sim. What do you want to know ??
Oooo, hold on.
I've flown one in Flight Sim. What do you want to know ??
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
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.
