lightning supercruise
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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?
)
(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?
)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.......
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.......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: on this planet
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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).
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).
Last edited by ORAC; 11th Oct 2003 at 16:49.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: on this planet
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
