Lightning & F-15 photo?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: tetbury
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExCreamie
Ah but don't confuse range scales with detection range. My VW golf has a speedo marked up to 140mph.....My recollection of Lightning AI detection ranges was 60 miles on an oil tanker; 30-35 miles on a Victor Tanker (or Bear D) and a max of 20 on another Lightning. In behind and looking down on the target at low level and you struggled to break him out from background noise above 3 miles. But the BScope tube was agreat place to stack your sandwiches on a ferry flight.....
Curvedsky, got many hours in the Lightning? Thought not, till you've been up there, doing the job, don't mock it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Curvedsky's comment, the RAF was very different in those days. Rules were very much for guidance only. Although I personally didn't get that high, I got high enough to declare "VFR on top" and to verify that the world is in fact round. I also know several guys who claim to have got far higher than the U2 intercept - and seen photographs of their altimeter.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Emptying the litter bin
Age: 65
Posts: 409
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Royal Air Force Flight Lieutenant Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height of 66,000 feet (20,000 m), where the aircraft had previously been considered safe from interception. Hale climbed to 88,000 feet (27,000 m) in his Lightning F3.
Wapedia - Wiki: Lockheed U-2.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) Zoom climbs in a Lightning
On start up, the Lightning Mk3 (including XR749) had a maximum of 7,576 lbs of jet fuel in the tanks (2 x 2,496 AVTUR in the main and leading edge tanks, 2 x 264 in the flaps, 2 x40 in the recuperators & 1 x 1,976 in the ventral tank).
Frank Powers in his book “Operation Overflight” writes that he was in cruise climb when he was shot down over central Russia in 1960. He states that he told his Russian interrogators that he was at a lower altitude of 68,000’ so as to protect the true capability of the U-2C. Chris Pocock, the celebrated U-2 author writes in his 1989 U-2 book Dragon Lady:
“Maximum altitude continued to depend on weight, outside air temperature,and other variables, but was still around 75,000’ for all practical purposes.”
So, “Firestreak” & MH please give us the broad outline of the Mk3 climb profile that you used to zoom to great heights. It will help other aviators to understand and possibly believe these zoom claims. Credence will be added by including:
- 1 max IAS/Mach/altitude at the end of the acceleration (energy)?
- 2 IAS/Mach passing say 60,000’, 70,000’ & 88,000’?
- 3 IAS/Mach/altitude at your U-2/Concorde intercept?
At peak altitude, were the burners still alight, did the pilot throttle back, and was there severe banging in the air intake just under your feet? Did either of the engines flame out?
What fuel did you land with and where? After all it should be in your logbook.
A footnote: FAI certified time to height records were set by U-2C article 349 on 17 Apr 89 at Edwards AFB by NASA pilot Jerry Hoyt. (349 was built in the mid 1950s, ex CIA, donated to NASA).
U2C Time to Height Records recorded by FAI observers -
airframe ‘349’ on retirement to a museum, 34 years after the first flight of this airframe.
- 00 to 9,842 feet in 52 seconds
- 49,212 feet in 6 mins 15 secs
- 65,617 feet in 12 mins 13 secs
- 73,700 feet in 16 mins from brake release
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curvedsky
You said:
Will “Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) please describe for us the profile that they used to reach a U-2 flying at it’s normal height of some 70,000’+?
I am not asking for the info, and am not sure that everyone else is either. So, maybe it is you who wants the info rather than us!
You do quote a lot of figures in your post. Are they from the internet (so, likely to to be wrong), or are they 'in house' ones which which are correct?
I will await the results here, as lots and lots of researched material has quoted the above stories over the last few decades.
You said:
Will “Firestreak” (#42) or Mike Hale (#45) please describe for us the profile that they used to reach a U-2 flying at it’s normal height of some 70,000’+?
I am not asking for the info, and am not sure that everyone else is either. So, maybe it is you who wants the info rather than us!
You do quote a lot of figures in your post. Are they from the internet (so, likely to to be wrong), or are they 'in house' ones which which are correct?
I will await the results here, as lots and lots of researched material has quoted the above stories over the last few decades.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be surprised if Sid's had been in an F3, most likely an F6. My moon shot attempt was is in a full F6 coming straight off the tanker. My IAS was somewhere around touch down speed and control was limited to say the least! Boulmer's reply to my "VFR on top" call was "Roger ceasing radar service, you're clear en route"!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ali Barber
You are now ruining well thought out theories to destroy height claims, by stating obvious facts, such as aircraft can acquire extra fuel after take off
I mean, who would have factored in lightnings needing to be refuelled after take off.....Unheard of
You are now ruining well thought out theories to destroy height claims, by stating obvious facts, such as aircraft can acquire extra fuel after take off
I mean, who would have factored in lightnings needing to be refuelled after take off.....Unheard of
The U2 interceptions (Exercise Trumpet) were carried out by AFDS using two F1As out of Middleton St George (now Teeside airport). Special clearance was given for supersonic flight over land as long as it was outwith 25 miles of built up areas.
Rules of engagement were strict; interceptions were limited to visual ident passes, and if visual contact was not made by 5 nm the attack had to be broken off. The interceptors were not to approach closer than 5000ft astern and under no circumstances were they to pass in front. The pilots wore the Mk5 anti-g suit, a Taylor-Baxter pressure helmet and long sleeved partial pressure jerkin.
Intercepts were initially carried out at 60,000ft then at 65,000ft. Further trials were then carried out above that, the highest being at 68,700ft.
On 7th Aug 1979 Brian Carroll managed an indicated 87,300ft in an F53 over Saudi Arabia. Flt Dave Roome of 74 Squadron saw just short of 88,000ft in an F6 while carrying out a PI on a USAF RB-57F in the late 60s while performing high altitude trials out of Tengah.
Source; Lightning from the Cockpit by Peter Caygill.
An interesting book with one glaring ommission. None of the pictures or diagrams show the interior of a Lightning cockpit!
Rules of engagement were strict; interceptions were limited to visual ident passes, and if visual contact was not made by 5 nm the attack had to be broken off. The interceptors were not to approach closer than 5000ft astern and under no circumstances were they to pass in front. The pilots wore the Mk5 anti-g suit, a Taylor-Baxter pressure helmet and long sleeved partial pressure jerkin.
Intercepts were initially carried out at 60,000ft then at 65,000ft. Further trials were then carried out above that, the highest being at 68,700ft.
On 7th Aug 1979 Brian Carroll managed an indicated 87,300ft in an F53 over Saudi Arabia. Flt Dave Roome of 74 Squadron saw just short of 88,000ft in an F6 while carrying out a PI on a USAF RB-57F in the late 60s while performing high altitude trials out of Tengah.
Source; Lightning from the Cockpit by Peter Caygill.
An interesting book with one glaring ommission. None of the pictures or diagrams show the interior of a Lightning cockpit!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that a Lightning could do anything useful at 88,000 feet is preposterous!
At that height it was merely following a ballistic path at the apex of its' trajectory and the only thing that it was able to do was follow the curve earthwords.
An amazing machine for a prototype turned into a front line fighter but it had severe limitations in its' weapons system and I for one was pleased to move on to the Phantom with a much more capable weapons system and not dissimilar performance clean wing.
Just to put the Lightnings' high altitude capability into perspective, the safety equipment fit for the Phantom included a partial pressure suit to go with the rest of the ensemble used for high altitude in the Lightning. This gave an increased survival capability and raised the service ceiling well above that of the Lightning - but not to anything like 88,000 feet.
Reminiscing is one thing but exaggeration is the job of politicians not professional aviators.
At that height it was merely following a ballistic path at the apex of its' trajectory and the only thing that it was able to do was follow the curve earthwords.
An amazing machine for a prototype turned into a front line fighter but it had severe limitations in its' weapons system and I for one was pleased to move on to the Phantom with a much more capable weapons system and not dissimilar performance clean wing.
Just to put the Lightnings' high altitude capability into perspective, the safety equipment fit for the Phantom included a partial pressure suit to go with the rest of the ensemble used for high altitude in the Lightning. This gave an increased survival capability and raised the service ceiling well above that of the Lightning - but not to anything like 88,000 feet.
Reminiscing is one thing but exaggeration is the job of politicians not professional aviators.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(soddim #53)
“The idea that a Lightning could do anything useful at 88,000 feet is preposterous!”
“The idea that a Lightning could do anything useful at 88,000 feet is preposterous!”
The Lightning was a great aviator’s aircraft & fun to fly. It had consummate handling with a 60 degree swept wing. But when the IAS drops below 200 knots, even though the indicated Mach is high at 60,000’+, the Lightning quickly ends up behind the drag curve and will decelerate or descend, or both, unless the wing is unloaded!
The higher it zooms, the more likely it is to follow a ballistic arc. And the Avon engines have to keep going in the thinner air to provide pressurisation to keep the pilot alive.
The comments by ‘soddim’ are spot on. Thank you.
-----------------------------------
(barnstormer1968 #49)
“aircraft can acquire extra fuel after take off....
....I mean, who would have factored in Lightnings needing to be refuelled after take off.....Unheard of”
“aircraft can acquire extra fuel after take off....
....I mean, who would have factored in Lightnings needing to be refuelled after take off.....Unheard of”
There are no BP or Esso fill up options open all hours located at a convenient place en route.
The RAF has never had more than a handful of tankers at any one time and they are heavily tasked for many roles. So the chances of finding a tanker trailing hoses at the top of your climb to top off your tanks before you accelerate to head off or intercept the ‘hostile’ are probably 1 in a million. Which is why many comments by ppruners refer to the Mk6 which has more fuel tank capacity than the Mk3.
Old hands in earlier posts have asked for fuel figures and profiles flown to reach 88,000’. They, like me, probably wish to sit back in their armchairs – or in front of X-Plane 9.55 on a computer – and reflect on how they failed to do as well as Hale & “Firestreak” and get to 88,000’ alive and in control – and then send details to Wiki!
Wikipedia has some tall stories on board and sometimes they need to be challenged.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Speaking as an FC during the Lightning era, high level intercepts were frequently scripted to ensure AAR support. I frequently intercepted U2, SR71 and Mirage IV during exercises, but alweays with a bit of pre-notice.
To give an example, during the 70s and for WT Tacevals, the French woud send Mirage IV up the North Sea to fly back down top France at FL650+ and M2.0.
LATCC would give a heads-up as they headed north and an F3 would be scrambled to plug into a tanker at the tropopause on track (the FIR boundary) and wait, staying plugged in. When the Mirage broke cover the F3 would be pulled off the tanker at about 150nm and do the intercept with full tanks.
On one occasion the F3 only had Firestreak and was rolled out on a U16A (180x26 converting to a 90 crossing leg) at 6nm. He (the Wandering Milliamp) closed to 1nm, called Fox 2, and then diverted into CS because he couldn't make WT 30nm south!!
I was at Boulmer during the last few months of the Lightning when several pilots tried to see how high they could get. They'd tank on TTL 8 or 4 and be dropped off about abeam Newcastle and then parallel the coast heading home, aiming for the top of the dive arc, 35nm off the coast.
At least one ended up flamed-out tumbling end over end ballistic until he recovered control and relit as he passed overhead the Aggressor Area. Heights as tracked by height finder (HF200) wase in excess of FL850.
The official ceiling was FL560 because they only had standard flight suits/oxygen etc. So if the canopy had gone, they'd have had no chance. But since when did fighter pilots care about that?
Not here-say. Been there, done it, got the T-shirt, as they say.
To give an example, during the 70s and for WT Tacevals, the French woud send Mirage IV up the North Sea to fly back down top France at FL650+ and M2.0.
LATCC would give a heads-up as they headed north and an F3 would be scrambled to plug into a tanker at the tropopause on track (the FIR boundary) and wait, staying plugged in. When the Mirage broke cover the F3 would be pulled off the tanker at about 150nm and do the intercept with full tanks.
On one occasion the F3 only had Firestreak and was rolled out on a U16A (180x26 converting to a 90 crossing leg) at 6nm. He (the Wandering Milliamp) closed to 1nm, called Fox 2, and then diverted into CS because he couldn't make WT 30nm south!!
I was at Boulmer during the last few months of the Lightning when several pilots tried to see how high they could get. They'd tank on TTL 8 or 4 and be dropped off about abeam Newcastle and then parallel the coast heading home, aiming for the top of the dive arc, 35nm off the coast.
At least one ended up flamed-out tumbling end over end ballistic until he recovered control and relit as he passed overhead the Aggressor Area. Heights as tracked by height finder (HF200) wase in excess of FL850.
The official ceiling was FL560 because they only had standard flight suits/oxygen etc. So if the canopy had gone, they'd have had no chance. But since when did fighter pilots care about that?
Not here-say. Been there, done it, got the T-shirt, as they say.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ali Barber....Are you sure about the pre positioned tankers...Apparently we have very few, and you had very little chance of finding one. I won't even go into the chance of finding one AT THE TOP OF A CLIMB, as that would be just stupid, which is why no one has suggested they would even be there!
Rubberband 2
You said:
"Barnstormer – flying an intercept on a very high altitude target is not like driving your VW to the minimart.
There are no BP or Esso fill up options open all hours located at a convenient place en route.
The RAF has never had more than a handful of tankers at any one time and they are heavily tasked for many roles. So the chances of finding a tanker trailing hoses at the top of your climb to top off your tanks before you accelerate to head off or intercept the ‘hostile’ are probably 1 in a million. Which is why many comments by ppruners refer to the Mk6 which has more fuel tank capacity than the Mk3".
I have never owned a VW and live in the wrong continent to be able to visit a minimart, so can't pass comment on your theory
On the other hand, I do know that lightnings and tankers often met, due to the stupidly low amount of fuel carried internally on most lightnings.
I also don't see where I have mentioned any particular MK of lightning!
I must say that IMHO you come across as someone who is not just typing their first ever post on PPRuNE.......But very much like an American poster who sent me a PM in the last 24 hours on this very same subject!
At this rate I will be off to check your IP address
Rubberband 2
You said:
"Barnstormer – flying an intercept on a very high altitude target is not like driving your VW to the minimart.
There are no BP or Esso fill up options open all hours located at a convenient place en route.
The RAF has never had more than a handful of tankers at any one time and they are heavily tasked for many roles. So the chances of finding a tanker trailing hoses at the top of your climb to top off your tanks before you accelerate to head off or intercept the ‘hostile’ are probably 1 in a million. Which is why many comments by ppruners refer to the Mk6 which has more fuel tank capacity than the Mk3".
I have never owned a VW and live in the wrong continent to be able to visit a minimart, so can't pass comment on your theory
On the other hand, I do know that lightnings and tankers often met, due to the stupidly low amount of fuel carried internally on most lightnings.
I also don't see where I have mentioned any particular MK of lightning!
I must say that IMHO you come across as someone who is not just typing their first ever post on PPRuNE.......But very much like an American poster who sent me a PM in the last 24 hours on this very same subject!
At this rate I will be off to check your IP address
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim, I don't recall anyone saying that the aircraft in question actually did anything at the altitudes mentiones, although I'm certain it wouldn't have been too difficult to launch a missile while up there, and as the tests were conducted to assess if and how a satellite could be intercepted, I'm not sure they would need to do much while up there.
Last I heard, satellites weren't very agile.
Although I have no proof, this is a story I have heard several times over the years, the first time being from my wife who served, for a time, at RAF Binbrook, then seperately from various different sources, all who had served for much longer than myself.
Even if it IS an exaggeration (which I doubt), then it is one which find most enjoyable.
I'm sure you'll find lots of examples of aircrew doing things with their aircraft that designers say is impossible, especially with older, "designed" aircraft, rather than the new "computer generated" aircraft we see today.
Last I heard, satellites weren't very agile.
Although I have no proof, this is a story I have heard several times over the years, the first time being from my wife who served, for a time, at RAF Binbrook, then seperately from various different sources, all who had served for much longer than myself.
Even if it IS an exaggeration (which I doubt), then it is one which find most enjoyable.
I'm sure you'll find lots of examples of aircrew doing things with their aircraft that designers say is impossible, especially with older, "designed" aircraft, rather than the new "computer generated" aircraft we see today.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting theories, moosemaster, but even a missile needs to be sent in roughly the right direction - even if that coincided with the direction of the pointy end of the aircraft at some stage in its' ballistic trajectory, the pilot would have been most unwise to fire at an altitude where any missile efflux would have upset the delicate state of the airflow through engines already operating well above their normal breathing limits. A double flameout at that altitude and the conseqent loss of pressurisation well above the limit of protection offered by the safety equipment would have almost certainly led to a very short life for the adventurous pilot.
Whilst I know from experience that some limitations are set well below the real limits, I also know that it takes a wise pilot to understand the consequences of ignoring them.
Whilst I know from experience that some limitations are set well below the real limits, I also know that it takes a wise pilot to understand the consequences of ignoring them.