View Full Version : Lightning F6
Hate to have to ask this kind of question but desperation is a bummer....
Do any of you learned people happen to know the coefficient of static drag for the good old Lightning F6?
Damn! That was hard to ask.....:8
Frustrated....
28th Feb 2011, 20:47
The zero lift drag coefficient of the F-6 is 0.02.
I cannot remember the exact source, but it was taken from a book on EE Lightning I researched for an assignement.
Frustrated....
Sounds feasible..cheers!
For an assignment you say, hmmm, there's a coincidence!!!
Frustrated....
1st Mar 2011, 06:09
From said assignment, I have other stats you can use in aircraft performance and stability equations if you need them.
Good luck.
Madbob
1st Mar 2011, 08:16
Griz. Would that be an ETPS assignment? :yuk::yuk:
MB
Tarnished
1st Mar 2011, 18:22
Don't copy, look what happened to the German Defence Minister when he copied. I guess as long as you give credit, then its not copying, its called research.
Don't copy, look what happened to the German Defence Minister when he copied - and maybe delayed the 4th Reich a year or two?
MB
Similar kind of idea I suspect but I can only fly in circles on account of one wing (dihedral)! :hmm:
Frustrated
Getting the figures is the hardest part! The other aircraft is the F104 and I swear the units of measure are getting more obscure. Only a matter of time before I find thrust measured in cubits per bushel or some such nonsense! If you could supply me with some decent figures before Thursday then please PM me. They'll be gratefully received. :8
MATELO
1st Mar 2011, 23:44
Do any of you learned people happen to know the coefficient of static drag for the good old Lightning F6?
Why didnt you just ask did the shape slow it down.
No. It was a rocket gifted with wings.
Top West 50
2nd Mar 2011, 18:53
Just for interest, how much difference did the over-wing tanks make?
alisoncc
2nd Mar 2011, 21:19
how much difference did the over-wing tanks make?
The over-wing tanks were the only surfaces that provided lift. The flattish bits sticking out of each side were there purely to provide ground crew with somewhere to sit. This most often happening during the time it took for the pilot to decide whether he really wanted to take his life in his hands and fly the beast.
60MU Leconfield Lady
Top West 50
3rd Mar 2011, 17:32
- and the evaporating AVTUR must have provided a bit more thrust?
During the early1970s I, while stationed at RAF Lakenheath flying Phantoms, I got the opportunity for one flight in the Lightning at RAF Coltishall. This was of course a two seat version and unfortunately I don’t remember the assigned squadron. The thing I remember most was the excellent handling qualities of the aircraft compared to the Phantom especially in pitch. A very shot legged aircraft, however, and it seemed like we were out of gas just after we got airborne. This led to the reputation that Coltishall had among our pilots as a great place to divert to when the weather was really nasty as the GCA lads there were outstanding in their craft. We assumed that was because the Lightings were always short on fuel and couldn’t make very many missed approaches.
Fitter2
3rd Mar 2011, 21:01
Hi Bevo
If Colt in the early 70's, it would have been 226 Operational Conversion Unit, masquerading on exercises as 145 squadron. The sortie duration gradually increased with later marks (and AtoA refuelling) but was never very long.
Fitter2,
Thanks very much for the information. At that time I was 4 years into my 21 year USAF career. I wish I kept a journal, but at that age I was too busy looking forward to understand that some day I would want to look back.
Bevo
* Found the date in my logbook - 15 May 1973
nrl1965
4th Mar 2011, 17:55
oy I was was Lightning ground crew, and we all know that the wings were only put on it to help the aircrew think that it was in fact an aircraft and not a ballistic missile.
Sumpy :=:=:=