lightning supercruise [Archive]

Mach2

25th Sep 2003, 04:52

The famous Lightning 'Rotation', (which was a snatch-pull to the near-vertical carried out immediately after raising the undercarriage after takeoff or after a low overshoot -no intentional 'rollers' in Lightnings) was initiated at around 230-240 knots - which fell to around 220 knots by 3-4000 feet, by which time you had better start recovering to a more normal flightpath!
;)
After a crash in the Far East when a pilot rotated too rapidly at too low a speed, flicked and crashed, 'genuine' rotations were banned and only a more controlled transition into a steep climb was allowed, at no less than 250 knots . Much safer, but MUCH less spectacular, and no fun at all! :{ :{

Reichman

25th Sep 2003, 06:32

I flew in the same AEF as George Aird in the late 80s when he was working for BAe. The fire did indeed burn through the elevator controls causing the jet to pitch up and down very violently. He ejected at the top of the final bunt before the jet took its final bow. He landed in a large greenhouse and was woken by the spray from the sprinklers.

Reichman

BEagle

25th Sep 2003, 14:36

There was also someone (who I used to think was a friend....) who saw Mach-quite-a-lot in a Frightning when pointed straight down after cocking up a PI. Saw the nadir star on the AI sitting dead centre and the strip ASI well to the right and moving further right. Closed the throttles, pulled as hard as possible, then woke up pointing up at very low level with the speed washing off rapidly. Full AB to recover, then off home to Binbrook....

Surditas

25th Sep 2003, 16:36

BEagle,

Ref above:

Crikey!

ORAC

25th Sep 2003, 17:24

Beagle,

As I remember him telling it, he was chasing a Vulcan at FL400 when it went into a dive to lose him. He was head down on the AI23 and just keeping it centred when something nagged him to look at the instruments, he was descending vertically through the 20s at M1.3+. He pulled the throttles to idle, selected air brakes out (they're speed limited and would only come out when the speed decayed), pulled and waited.

At some stage the brakes the deployed and the G started coming on and he passed out. He woke up with the aircraft in a shallow climb with the altimeter unwinding through -200ft (It had a +/- 700ft error at low level/high speed.

I also remember Porky **** flat spinning during a scissors at around 9,000ft. (The book said eject at that height, but that assumed that the spin had started much higher and that the aircraft had developed a high rate of descent.) His wingman called for him to eject as he passed around 5,000ft but he decided to stick with it as, at that stage, he had the nose down. At the time, he said he pulled out at about 100 ft, but that went up substantially in the report...

ARXW

25th Sep 2003, 21:53

Was there any chance to recover the Lightning from such a spin at all?

I know the F106 had a particular (flat?) spin it couldn't get out of.

Back to original question - has anyone really supercruised a combat-fit Lightning say, from the later Binbrook days? I guess it has been done in pre production/test jets but I dunno about regular service jets...

tengah chum

26th Sep 2003, 03:38

mach2

I witnessed the crash you refer to, it was not a pretty sight. The F6 was no 2 of a pair.After the aircraft had climbed to about 50 ft it flipped wing tip over wing wing tip twice before regaining momentarily a wings level attitude,by this time it had lost forward speed ,dropped like a stone and crashed into a chicken farm the other side of the road that ran alongside the airfield boundary. The canopy was seen to release but unfortunately the ejection was not successful.

BEagle

26th Sep 2003, 03:49

ORAC - the reason Porks was unable to hear his wingman telling him to eject was probably, as ever, that he was stuck on transmit! Don't you remeber the ear defenders in the Binners crewroom which were labelled 'Porky Defenders'?

Wonderful RAF fighter mate wit to christen the lad 'Porky'. Why - because he was of the faith which recognises the Sabbath and snips the end off the whatsit. Nowadays it would be considered as non-PC, against the EO-dogma and awfully naughty to give him such a nickname. But Porks thought it was rather a giggle!:ok:

lightningmate

26th Sep 2003, 04:52

Ref the 'Singapore Rotation' that went wrong. Purely due to the aircraft CofG being further aft than normal. Ventral fuel transfer had been inhibited during taxi to prevent fuel venting. Hence, when pilot applied standard longitudinal control input for a rotation the aircraft was much more responsive.

I do not recollect any change of policy ref rotations after that event. Their airships were much more concerned about people sinking back onto the runway and becoming a flamer even before they got to the rotation point!

lm

ARXW

27th Sep 2003, 02:04

I know of another CofG accident when a Lightning F3 from the 1987 aeros pilot went into an (inverted?) spin due to fuel transfer problems. That was overhead Binbrook. Anyone know of the manoeuvre attempted?

Btw would the lighter F3 been able to come out of that Tengah Lightning 'rote' without problems? If I recall the figures correctly he held the Lightning down a bit more and rotated at 290knots instead but pulled (apparently) in excess of 5G (didn't know the Lightning could pull as much from such a low airspeed!).

Firestreak

28th Sep 2003, 15:12

There certainly was a difference between the small and big winged versions when doing a rotation. With the small wing, you could just hoick the stick back, the a/c effectivly pulled right through the stall and just kept on rotating till the stick was shoved forward, the big wing wasn't as good as the small for this manouvre.

You could certainly spin the a/c. If I remember correctly BAe (or BAC or English Electic) did spin trials, I believe a total of 70+ spins. The only time the a/c didn't come out cleanly was due to the pilot not applying enough opposite rudder initially. BAC recommended that spinning should be demo'd on the OCU but it never happenerd.

That's as much as the ageing grey matter can recall, may be some inaccuracies but esentially correct.

John Farley

28th Sep 2003, 23:55

(didn't know the Lightning could pull as much from such a low airspeed!)

ARXW

To get a rough idea of how fast you need to go to pull Xg multiply the aircraft stalling speed by the square root of the g you want to pull.

I say rough, because mach effects mean you never quite get this level of theoretical performance. So do expect to need a few more kts even at apparently low mach numbers. But it is a start.

And of course there is some lift due to thrust deflection during manoeuvre, quite a lot if the aircraft (like the Lightning) gets to a high alpha at the stall...Oh dear I should never have started this.

ARXW

2nd Oct 2003, 18:41

Nice replies. Thanks.

JF if you are the man to hover that first jump jet I got to say - respect!

I actually saw you some years back ('98?) at a RAeS lecture by an American on gunsights/HUDs etc. You might remember the venue better than me. What sticks to mind is that somebody (you?) mentioned a test fight between an F-14D and a Harrier in which the 14 still got beat..:ok:

Cornish Jack

3rd Oct 2003, 01:48

The Lightning high rotation take-off featured in a cinema newsreel during the early 60s. It was a full squadron formation affair - twelve aircraft in 4 vics and simultaneous rotation then upwards, ever upwards. The response from the cinema audience was a spontaneous burst of applause. Maybe the fact that the cinema was in Bangkok was a factor, but I reckon applause for a newsreel item may have been unique. The film? ...... 'Breakfast at Tiffanys' - not remotely aviation related but the young lady enjoyed it ..... oh, go on then, I did as well!!
JF - small world - she became your secretary but I don't think the newsreel had anything to do with that !!:D

farcanal

3rd Oct 2003, 05:10

The most interesting question about the tractor in the photoo(which NOBODY has ever picked up on),is,why does it have a DH Goblin badge on the radiator grille?

scroggs

4th Oct 2003, 01:13

Um, the original question was about 'supercruise'? By that, I assume you mean supersonic cruise without the use of reheat thrust. I seem to remember being told by my Dad, who has some considerable experience on all marks of the Lightning from the P1B to the F2A, via the F1, F1A, F3, F6 and associated T-birds, that the early aircraft could maintain a low supersonic cruise without reheat, depending on altitude and temperature, but that the later, heavier aircraft could not. I will check with him to see if I've remembered it correctly!

scroggs

4th Oct 2003, 05:16

OK, checked with the old man - apparently all marks of Lightning could maintain M1.2, or thereabouts, level at or around 35,000ft. In fact, the aircraft would climb supersonic in dry power if a lower-than-normal climb attitude was selected. Normal climb was 350kt/M0.9.

Hope this helps.

ORAC

4th Oct 2003, 05:50

May I refer the gentleman to my reply on the previous page.

scroggs

5th Oct 2003, 07:22

I saw it, ORAC, even if the original poster didn't. Perhaps you needed to shout louder!

ARXW

6th Oct 2003, 02:11

A follow up Q on supercruise...If the Lightning could do M1.2 at 35k on dry power then why have they been complaining about very short endurance all along? The jet practically doesn't need reheat (except for those fully developed ACM sorties in which the pilot is in the unfortunate position to have to sustain the fight for more than a few seconds)!

ORAC

6th Oct 2003, 02:52

Even in cold the endurance was only around 65 minutes. You could, theoretically of course, extend that by shutting down an engine and doing a restart when needed, but that would have been against regulations.

jah

6th Oct 2003, 05:00

First post after many months, if not years, of enjoyable reading. However, I never did like writing (just ask my tutors at ISS, BSC and ASC!). My memory may have dulled but I think that my comments are all accurate.

Firstly scroggs: the climb speed/mach no was 450kts/M0.9 not 350kts. Initial pitch attitude was 18 degrees in cold power/30 degrees in burner. Mind you, a light 747 will climb at 20 degrees and get to 39,000ft in about 13 mins

Next Firestreak, if you were on the fleet in the early/mid 70s you probably remember the spinning film produced by BAe that was part of the annual training syllabus and the annual (I think?) Jet Provost spinning trip that went with it. From personal experience x 2 (both due to gross mishandling subsonic and super/transonic), the ac was pretty stable in the spin and recovered readily.

ORAC, the longest none-AAR/none-OWT trip that I ever flew was 90 mins; it consisted of subsonic PIs at high level in cruise nozzle (max efficiency) followed by a drift down to Binbrook at 250kts and landing with Wadd VFR fuel. It was just before Christmas. We were trying to crack the annual hours target so that the station could combine the Christmas and New Year holidays; I flew 4 trips that day for 5:30 and tanked on only one of them.

Lightningmate: certainly during the 70s, rotes were forbidden to all bar the display pilots who, as usual, required AOC's final approval. I never did one but I did take our hangar queen to Laarbruch for final disposal at the demise of the RAFG Lightnings. The AI, guns and ballast had been removed and I did confirm that the ac 's CofG was in limits. But it didn't seem to be; on rotation, the ac nose continued to rise despite me pushing the stick fully forward. Fortunately, the speed continued to build and at about 220kts the elevators began to work. The duty pilot thought that it was a punchy take-of given the ac's history of irrepairable centre-section fuel leaks. That experience did give me the a desire to experiment but that is another story

Finally, ARXW:it doesn't matter how efficient your ac is, if it hasn't got the gas it can't endure.

overstress

6th Oct 2003, 05:49

ARXW

going back to an earlier post where you mentioned the inverted spin over Binbrook.

I do know the pilot involved and will ask him about the manoeuvre - I know he ended up using the Martin-Baker facility.

ORAC

6th Oct 2003, 06:02

The Airfix Special must have held the record for non-AAR endurance. It regularly trogged back and forth at high level as a target for 3 or 4 studs in row in one trip.

Dop

6th Oct 2003, 07:05

I'd just like to say that threads like this are why I love PPruNe. As an ordinary PPL student I just love reading things from people who have Been There and Done That and are willing to discuss it
(and I always thought the Lightning was a cool looking plane!).

ARXW

6th Oct 2003, 19:55

Couldn't agree more with you Dop (interesting name btw)!

Overstress,
Thanks. Is it true he asked for a second aircraft right after he knackered the 1st one?:ok:

Point taken jah (interesting name !), still remarkable that the jet could supercruise...

ARXW

7th Oct 2003, 00:30

Ref. rotation take offs...
Beat that Lightning!!

http://www.rf4bphantom.addr.com/lgimages/lgimg94.jpg

PS: The crew survived this!

BEagle

7th Oct 2003, 01:21

I'll bet the F4 didn't though!

No doubt there are piccies of Vixens and Buccs in the same "Oh sheeeeeeeeeeeeehit" attitude from the days when the RN had real carriers.

orionsbelt

7th Oct 2003, 02:16

Re the High Rotation Take Off.
I was at Wattisham in 68, as a AI 23b fixer on 29 Sqdn.

We had a Good Neighbours day, as a way of making up to the locals for too many night QRA scrambles and one or two fast run in and breaks!!!!!!

Part of the Display was a Scramble of 8 Mk3s, 4 from 29 and 4 from 111, 29 had one go U/S with a massive bubble on a tyre, so the scramble was 4, 3 and then 1 from different ends of the Runway. all 8 did the Rotations and spectacular and noisy it was.

However that was not the end of it as the flights formed up into 2 Box formations and flew from behind the spectator line very very very fast and low (just above hanger height ) exactly on time just as the commentator said ‘ Ladies and Gents I present No 29 and 111 sqdns )
If I remember rightly they all lit there Afterburners and went vertical at that point.
It was the most spectacular and noisiest thing I have ever seen or herd.

Don’t think the Neighbours were very impressed though!!!!
:O

John (Gary) Cooper

7th Oct 2003, 04:43

Orionsbelt

I was on 29 (F) Squadron at that time, I do recall that happening and I think that coincided with a FA Cup Final Saturday, deliberately chosen to avoid such a large crowd gathering,

My diaries for this period shows one entry thus:

10th July
1968 Wattisham: Exercise King Pin underway, all pilots strapped into their cockpits on the ASP, we then went into a 'battle scramble' position and had to move all aircraft to 06 Runway ORP in readiness for immediate take off. This did happen some time later.

Roughly about the same time there was a flypast from RAF Wattisham where we had about 20+ kites overfly RAF Bentley Priory when Fighter Command ceased to be in existence and Strike Command took over the role, I recall that we very nearly lost a diamond 4 on the return to WTM

scroggs

7th Oct 2003, 15:04

jah sorry - finger trouble on the speed! You and my old man were obviously contemporary at Gutersloh - he was the last Lightning Staish there.

As for 747 climb performance, I had the pleasure of bringing the last Virgin 747-200 (RR) out of Amsterdam after a service in April last year. The ac was due for retirement very shortly thereafter, so we decided that a TOGA climb (at about 200 tonnes) would be a nice way to see the old lady out. We had to rapidly renegotiate our climb clearance a number of times on the way up. We made F210 in about 3 minutes, as I remember. Nothing to shout about in FJ terms, but good fun nonetheless!

Scroggs

ORAC

7th Oct 2003, 15:21

The PR9 was always an impressive departure, as was the K2 when getting airborne with a light fuel load on a repositioning flight.

ARXW

7th Oct 2003, 20:20

BEagle,

the F-4 did actually survive, which is what is surprising about this photo. A lot of power these Phantoms...though I bet Lightnings had more especially the F3s..:ok:

Gainesy

7th Oct 2003, 20:37

I vaguely remember a story at the time that the Tengah rotation accident pilot was trying to put on an especially punchy t/o as he was getting a mate to film it from the ground for him to send home. Any truth in this?

Were'nt there also some pics in Air Clues ?

tengah chum

8th Oct 2003, 03:22

Gainsey

If my memory serves me correctly this t/o was filmed, but I think it was for some sort of PR effort.
Perhaps other old 74 chums out there may know more.
Or at least have a less decrepit memory than myself.

jah

8th Oct 2003, 14:51

Scroggs: yes a light 747 can certainly go! I met your father a couple of times after Gutersloh but my lasting memory of him is a the rollocking he gave to the O' Mess after a particularly torrid Oktoberfest when 19 and 92 were playing the fool and 18 sqn looked on with threatening disdain as the beer and schnapps flowed and the bratties and brotchen flew. He hadn't attended but your mother had; however it was the PMC who had complained but felt powerless to intervene. Your mother, reportedly, thoroughly enjoyed herself. By the way, I think that we flew together in Nov 79 on a strafe dual.

Gainesy/tc. I seem to remember that IFS made the 74 Sqn accident the subject of a FS film in the early 70s but changed the venue to Akrotiri. Some of the 56 Sqn pilots starred in the film; a hazy recollection but I think that a photogenic first tourist, who subsequently flew Omani Strikemasters, F4s on Ark Royal's last cruise and Jaguars, played the ill-fated pilot. The (fictional?)catalyst for the accident was a bit of banter in the bar on the previous night with a visiting fast jet mate who was told to be half-way down the runway with his camera to witness a spectacular t/o!

ARXW

9th Oct 2003, 00:00

The 1970 74Sqn Tengah rote accident was indeed being filmed by someone the pilot (a F/L) brought in to record as (I presume) something worthwhile to keep from the tour.

The accident has been reported in Air clues and pics of the wreckage were published. According to eyewitnesses this was the fastest rote they ever saw, hence my earlier comment on 290kt, 5+G and the F6 reached 600ft before coming down again.

teeteringhead

9th Oct 2003, 16:38

jah

.... that would be the Old Harrovian photogenic first tourist, now something of an upmarket travel agent???????

Gainesy

9th Oct 2003, 20:46

Thanks for the replies.
I was at Akrotiri from March 1970, I don't remember many (any?)Lightning rote T/Os either by 56 or APC visitors, and that was before the Tengah crash (22 July,1970).

What did look impressive was 56's practice on a pairs T/O
of breaking left/right as the gear came up at about 30-50ft and then resuming runway hdg to cross the upwind boundary in battle formation.

Looking at the pic of the F-4 earlier in the thread prompted the thoughts of the Tengah crash. Outwith authed displays etc, I wonder how many crashes have been caused by the "Hey, watch this" syndrome. I can think of at least one (Mil, non-UK).

wub

9th Oct 2003, 21:49

From an earlier thread on Lightnings

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73801&highlight=scarborough+bay

"Over the years, during the annual positioning transit of the aeros display Lightning from Binbrook to Tees-side for their air show, it had become the practice to carry out an informal aerobatic display at Scarborough en route to support some kind of activity (RAF Recruiting?) on the sea-front. In 1983, however, the hard word had gone out about such activities and all such things had to be authorised by Group. Permission was duly sought (good cause, after all, and a precedent), but it was refused. Poor Mike, who was the Lightning display pilot that year, got very angry about the refusal and argued unsuccessfully for hours on the phone to have the decision reversed, to no avail.

He took off in an angry mood, and only the Lord knows what went through Mike’s mind en-route, but descend into Scarborough Bay Mike did, and at some stage of the routine he overcooked it with the result that we all know. Even if that had not happened, Mike was headed for a lot of trouble. R.I.P. Mike Thompson, who tried to please his public at whatever cost to himself."

RPH

9th Oct 2003, 23:06

WUB,

Thanks for posting that link to the Scarborough accident. I knew Mike very well from his time as the Brit exchange in Canada. Spent many an hour flying and partying with Mike and never could find out exactly what happened.

RPH

Out Of Trim

10th Oct 2003, 03:05

I found this short account on the Lightning Association Web site some years ago.. It does not appear to be there now but, it may be of some interest!

LIGHTNING vs CONCORDE

The Lightning that once overtook Concorde was described as "the best of the best" by Flt Lt Mike Hale at the roll-out ceremony for XR749 at Teeside Airport on September 28th 1995.

Now an instructor with 56 Sqn at Coningsby, Mike flew 80 sorties in XR749 after the aircraft was allocated to 11 Squadron at Binbrook. He has a particular affection for the aircraft: "The Lightning was an exceptional aircraft in every respect, but XR749 was one of the best of the best. It is probably the best aircraft that I will ever have had the privilege to fly. Because of her tail code BM, she was known as "Big Mother", although the tail code changed to BO for her last few months on 11 before joining the LTF in January 1985.

She was a very hot ship, even for a Lightning She remained my aircraft for all her time on 11 Sqn despite my being entitled to an F6 as I moved up the squadron pecking order. I invariably asked for her to be allocated to me for the major exercises such as MALLET BLOW, OSEX, and ELDER FOREST despite her being a short range F3 - there were invariably plenty of tankers about!" His memories include the time in April 1984, during a squadron exchange at Binbrook when he and XR749 participated in unofficial time-to-height and acceleration trials against F104 Starfighters from Aalborg. The Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead heat. This is not surprising when the records show that the year before on one sortie XR749 accelerated to Mach 2.3 (1500 mph) in September 1983.

In 1984 during a major NATO exercise he intercepted an American U-2 at 66000 ft,a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Shortly before this intercept, he flew a zoom climb to 88,000 ft and, later that year he was able to sustain FL550 while flying subsonic. Life was not entirely without problems, however, as in a three month period his No 2 engine seized in flight and its replacement failed during a take-off when intake panelling on the inside of the aircraft became detached and was sucked into the engine. In April 1985, British Airways were trialling a Concorde up and down the North Sea. When they offered it as a target to NATO fighters, Mike spent the night in the hangar polishing XR749 which he borrowed from the LTF for the occasion and the next day overhauled Concorde at 57,000 ft and travelling at Mach 2.2 by flying a stern conversion intercept. "Everyone had a bash - F15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirage, F-104s". "But only the Lightning managed to overhaul Concorde from behind" !

In October 1985, XR749 represented the LTF on the tenth anniversary of the units formation. It was given a new colour scheme - light grey underside, dark grey upperside, with the spine and tail fin dark blue. It was the only Lightning to be so coloured and then only for two months, but that is now its permanent livery at Teeside Airport.

Account taken from "Lightning Review" by Charles Ross.:cool:

lightningmate

10th Oct 2003, 03:45

Hmm! Large pinch of salt all round I think.

lm

Zoom

10th Oct 2003, 03:50

An excellent thread, this one.

ARXW, all models of the F-4 had more thrust (up to 40,500lbst total) than any of the Lightning models, but they also had more weight (31,500lb empty to 58,000lb max), higher wing loading and drag off the clock, especially the fat UK F-4, which was also in major breach of the Area Rule. Overall, whilst the F-4 might have been pretty nifty accelerator up to the transonic region, it lost out to the Lightning beyond that and had generally poorer turning performance at all speeds. But the F-4 did carry considerably more fuel, more and better weapons and far superior radar and it would generally win any fight with a Lightning that lasted more than a minute or so. And if the fight took place more than 10 miles from the Lightning base - well, no contest!! :ok:

Shackman

10th Oct 2003, 04:11

A bit off the subject I know, but my most memorable meeting with a Lightning (apart from the one that tried to bounce us in the Med when we were v-e-r-y low and slow) was at Acklington (sadly now long closed). Whilst locking up the squadron buildings as duty student at 6 FTS long after flying for the day had finished and just about dusk a slight noise made me turn round just in time to see said Lightning apparently dead sticking it on to the 6000ft runway. As everything else was closed I rang the SDO - as he was a great god QFI and I was but a lowly student who knew nothing - and was duly b*******d for disturbing him at the bar. Eventually peruaded him to investigate and we drove out to see ac gently sinking into the tarmac at the end of the runway (LCN numbers)

It transpired the pilot was an ex 6 FTS guy who was on the Lightning OCU at Leuchars and had essentially run out of fuel - and the only runway he knew was ours. I think he got a good show for saving the jet and chopped for poor awareness!

Incidentally, was at Changi at time of Tengah crash, but if I remember that was not the only incident, as a certain Victor tanker crew might be able to recount after seeing the plan view of an F6 pass right in front of them whilst overflying Tengah!

Pertama

FFP

10th Oct 2003, 04:25

When they offered it as a target to NATO fighters, Mike spent the night in the hangar polishing XR749 which he borrowed from the LTF for the occasion

Now that's the kind of commitment the boys are lacking these days !!! :ok:

ARXW

10th Oct 2003, 04:25

Zoom,

But not many a fight did last more than a minute! I think the F-4 was an even thirstier beast in burner (1800lbs/min low level max).. F-4 has never been mentioned as a problem to the Lightning in combat...:ok:

ORAC

10th Oct 2003, 05:33

Good old day's of DACT. The Lightning playing the vertical, the F-4 playing the horizontal.

That's after they'd spent 5 minutes with the Lightning up at 50K telling the F4 to come up and fight like men; whilst the F-4 sat down at 20K telling him to come down and say that.........

tonybliar

10th Oct 2003, 05:50

Having seen the Lightning from both sides against the F-4 I have to say that the former was a lot of fun but not much use as a weapons system in comparison to the latter. The fact that it was rushed from a prototype into service as a fighter is the reason and that it did the job at all was fortuitous. What a shame that its' weapons system did not get the development effort it required because we have had nothing like it in performance since.

ARXW

11th Oct 2003, 00:20

F-4s playing the horizontal?:eek:

These guys must have been desperate! In the immortal words of USN F-4 pilot 'about the only thing we could outturn in those days was the F-104'. This couldn't have been very encouraging against a Lightning...;)

ORAC

11th Oct 2003, 02:31

And the USN were doing it in the S with manoeuvre slats whilst our guys were pulling in Ks and Ms..... ;)

(Is it true we got the J and not the S in the mid-80s because they didn't think the WT crews would be able to take the extra G force? :p )

Zoom

11th Oct 2003, 06:13

ARXW
The F-4 was certainly thirsty but it had lots to drink - up to 21,500lbs but more often 17,500lb. And would a Lightning pilot ever admit that the F-4 was a problem in combat? You know... American, 2-seater (which meant navigators!!!), pig ugly, just a bomber really, etc, etc. Just think of the embarrassment back at Binners. But then, would an F-4 pilot........?

ORAC
The slats (on the F-4E at least) were fine for that snap turn but the speed washed off very swiftly and the J-79s didn't have the power to regain it quickly. And most F-4s were stressed to the same g limits, I think - 7.5g structural limit but an operational limit of 6g or less. So not too difficult to handle overall, and not likely to psyche out the RAF.

ORAC

11th Oct 2003, 06:28

Zoom, twas a joke... :}

A little bit of truth in it though, they were offered the S but took the J to minimise the differences with the rest of the fleet. Considering the differences in the donks and aerodynamics it seemed to be clutching at straws. The stunned silence the first time they did Q and told the tanker they were happy to prod at FL330 was wonderful.......

Zoom

11th Oct 2003, 06:41

Sorry, ORAC, it's past my bedtime. :zzz:

tonybliar

11th Oct 2003, 07:08

Prodding at FL360 was not a problem for the FGR2 (F4M). The final sortie of the tanking conversion in the early 70s was 3-bag 3000lbs to full at FL360 at night, preferably on the centreline hose. Watching the eager new blade getting first one and then the other engine into burner whilst remaining in contact was a real treat.

As one of our new blades remarked on this sortie after getting into position for contact "Ready for contact centreline wet to full, and my next trick is impossible"! It wasn't.

ORAC

11th Oct 2003, 16:11

Just with the tanks, perhaps, but D4408 or C44+8 at FL360? Wouldn't it be going out faster that it was coming in? :}

I recall the Jag doing AAR height trials with a max weight/drag load of tanks, bombs, BOZ etc. After sitting plugged in for about 5 minutes he was asked him if he was gaining. After a long pause, a small voice replied, "I'm not sure".......

(It's a long time back, but I believe he was in full burner on one and min burner on the other).

tonybliar

14th Oct 2003, 01:04

And I remember my first ride in a Jaguar - about 3 miles off the end of the runway accelerating (if you can call it that) through about 300kts I said "Why didn't we use reheat?" and the other chap didn't speak to me for at least 30 mins.

However, ORAC, yes, the FGR2 did suffer as it filled to full at that height even with just the tanks but at least the job was possible with both in burner - not like our present fighter!

Incidentally, before the days of fuel famines, we were often asked to help out the odd Victor crew whose planned trade had not turned around midnight - they were desperate to give away a full fuel load and two F-4s in contact at FL360 in burner on both with wing dump selected is a pretty quick way to empty a tanker.