Was it really fright(e)ning?
“… the Colt boys were great at talk-downs,” Hey don’t forget those lasses; very good unflappable ATC: –
Self, turning down-wind after chute failure declaring priority, to which the response was “one on GCA, three ahead downwind; you are number four with the same priority!”
Self, turning down-wind after chute failure declaring priority, to which the response was “one on GCA, three ahead downwind; you are number four with the same priority!”
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Great Wyrley, Staffordshire
Age: 50
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I hope nobody minds me asking a bit of a daft question, its one ive been itching to ask for years. On a very high performance aircraft such as the Lightning as you were cruising along and decided to select reheat on both engines what was the sensation like? Also what was the rate of the airspeed increase like, I suppose the word I should be using is acceleration? Thanks in advance to anybody who could put this one to bed for me.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
CS Lasses, The one I can remember from 75 Was Gay Woolnough (sp?) after the Jags arrived.
Had one pilot flying the circuit in hysterics of laughter in the cockpit till he calmed down - after she made him overshoot because, quote, "She'd just had an abortion on the runway"....
Had one pilot flying the circuit in hysterics of laughter in the cockpit till he calmed down - after she made him overshoot because, quote, "She'd just had an abortion on the runway"....
Last edited by ORAC; 31st Jul 2012 at 06:58.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil Bevo,
Yes the Colt boys were great at talk-downs, but I would say the service we had at all the FJ stations was excellent.
Yes the Colt boys were great at talk-downs, but I would say the service we had at all the FJ stations was excellent.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
time.Ref that video of the low flier attacking the camera; did it have missiles on the upper wings? If so, what was the effect on lift - am I right in thinking that it would be increased?
Thread Starter
Aside from the overwing and ventral tanks - did they ever consider any kind of conformal dorsal or spine tanks to increase range?
Maybe there were area rule implications...
Maybe there were area rule implications...
Last edited by tartare; 31st Jul 2012 at 08:00.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ref that video of the low flier attacking the camera; did it have missiles on the upper wings?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers. I don't want to sound like a spotter, but if the tanks disrupted and slowed down (?) airflow over the wing topside, would that increase lift, getting you to altitude more efficiently? Why were they used if they chopped top speed (useful for an interceptor) - were they used if CAP was necessary if tension was heightened/loitering required? Was the Lightning ever used to loiter - what was the longest sortie and was it any good at it (it must have required frequent topping up?) or would the Phantom have been used for that instead?
(geek, I know)
(geek, I know)
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel tanks. Peeled off upwards and backwards if jettisoned. Limited max speed and G limit.
Lightning weapons loads
Amongst my treasured souvenirs is a brochure on the Lightning that I picked up at Farnborough in 1968. In it they show pairs of Matra combined rocket / fuel pods on each wing pylon. This version also had outer wing pylons outboard of the wheel wells. Thei could carry a pair of SNEB pods or 1,000 pound persuader.
All in all, the export jet could carry a heap of goodies, yet the only accessories the RAF ones had were the over wing tanks. Surely WIWOL chums would have welcomed a pair of AIM-9's on the outer points?
All in all, the export jet could carry a heap of goodies, yet the only accessories the RAF ones had were the over wing tanks. Surely WIWOL chums would have welcomed a pair of AIM-9's on the outer points?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bobward
You can take most of the ground display weapon loads seen at Farnborough, and other similar gatherings, with a very large pinch of salt. Choose just a few from the range displayed and that might be a possible flight configuration. Apart from the total mass to be lifted and the levels of drag induced the release characteristics of weapons require stringent limitations to be applied that invariably limit what else can be carried alongside.
Initially, there was an intention to field an Air-to-Air 2" Rocket Pack for Lightnings, interchangeable with the Missile Pack, this was quickly dropped following 'exciting' flight trials!
Everyone understood that jettisoning the 'Overburgers' with fuel inside would possibly break the wings. Hence, the limitation to jettison only when empty. Allegedly, a ground trial at Warton jettisoning Full Over-Wing Tanks broke both wing spars and then the Tanks just fell off. Not sure what drove anyone to try this without the benefit of aerodynamic separation, almost a bound to happen scenario!
The Overburgers were rarely fitted, being confined to long distance ferry sorties, eg UK to Singapore or similar.
lm
You can take most of the ground display weapon loads seen at Farnborough, and other similar gatherings, with a very large pinch of salt. Choose just a few from the range displayed and that might be a possible flight configuration. Apart from the total mass to be lifted and the levels of drag induced the release characteristics of weapons require stringent limitations to be applied that invariably limit what else can be carried alongside.
Initially, there was an intention to field an Air-to-Air 2" Rocket Pack for Lightnings, interchangeable with the Missile Pack, this was quickly dropped following 'exciting' flight trials!
Everyone understood that jettisoning the 'Overburgers' with fuel inside would possibly break the wings. Hence, the limitation to jettison only when empty. Allegedly, a ground trial at Warton jettisoning Full Over-Wing Tanks broke both wing spars and then the Tanks just fell off. Not sure what drove anyone to try this without the benefit of aerodynamic separation, almost a bound to happen scenario!
The Overburgers were rarely fitted, being confined to long distance ferry sorties, eg UK to Singapore or similar.
lm
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not quite true. The LTF had the AFS (Airfix Special), which was a T5 fitted with the large ventral, over wing tanks and a fresnel lens in place of the radar to increase radar size. They flew it as a target and it would stay up long enough for 2 consecutive student sorties in F6 against it.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
Sorry, I was unaware of such a beast. It was not around during my periods with the force. All that time in a Tub flying target profiles, deep joy
Possibly a little entertaining following an engine failure after Vstop on a warm day?
Some Lightning Squadron Commanders would have loved such a toy, the Chinagraph Line would have been pushed exponential!
lm
Sorry, I was unaware of such a beast. It was not around during my periods with the force. All that time in a Tub flying target profiles, deep joy
Possibly a little entertaining following an engine failure after Vstop on a warm day?
Some Lightning Squadron Commanders would have loved such a toy, the Chinagraph Line would have been pushed exponential!
lm
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not long after my arrival on 23(F) I, as JP, was detailed to go punch some holes in the midnight sky for the 'chinagraph line' with O/W tanks on a Mk6. I elected, for fun, to file airways and entered at Manchester northbound using only offset Tacan to navigate. Much hilarity from ATC as they enquired whether I needed vectors to remain in the airway.
Those O/Ws were BORING! I seem to recall 2.5g limit until empty and your lookout went for a ball of chalk - not that you could do much if bounced
Those O/Ws were BORING! I seem to recall 2.5g limit until empty and your lookout went for a ball of chalk - not that you could do much if bounced
Last edited by BOAC; 31st Jul 2012 at 17:17.
IIRC most of the stores/configs listed were flow by, or in support of the overseas programs.
One of the exciting flight trials of the 2” rockets was in a T5 when the open nose-doors reduced the directional stability during the rapid roll / pull out after launch. The fin departed the aircraft followed by the pilot shortly after.
I also have seen the film of the ‘twirler’, where a 2” projectile having launched, then returned to pass over the wing!
There were some early RAF development plans for fitting sidewinders on the under wing pylons, and also for a ‘Y’ nose pylon enabling a four missile fit on the nose. These did not progress beyond the Group project office as there was no money and the proposals might have conflicted with the then emergent Mk 6 gun fit.
Overwing tanks were used at Leuchars for some low level CAP trials (and low level training – for the hours), and for the air defense of the RN in UK waters. The latter task dropped the tank idea when we lost a chase and turning fight with some Buccaneers
However, for overseas deployment they did help, and I recall (that I did not notice) that the airspeed limit resulted in a relatively high Mach No during a run and break at a high altitude Middle East airfield; Boss debrief – nice run and break, but don’t do it again.
One of the exciting flight trials of the 2” rockets was in a T5 when the open nose-doors reduced the directional stability during the rapid roll / pull out after launch. The fin departed the aircraft followed by the pilot shortly after.
I also have seen the film of the ‘twirler’, where a 2” projectile having launched, then returned to pass over the wing!
There were some early RAF development plans for fitting sidewinders on the under wing pylons, and also for a ‘Y’ nose pylon enabling a four missile fit on the nose. These did not progress beyond the Group project office as there was no money and the proposals might have conflicted with the then emergent Mk 6 gun fit.
Overwing tanks were used at Leuchars for some low level CAP trials (and low level training – for the hours), and for the air defense of the RN in UK waters. The latter task dropped the tank idea when we lost a chase and turning fight with some Buccaneers
However, for overseas deployment they did help, and I recall (that I did not notice) that the airspeed limit resulted in a relatively high Mach No during a run and break at a high altitude Middle East airfield; Boss debrief – nice run and break, but don’t do it again.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
IIRC part of the issue in putting anything other than Firestreak/Redtop on the beast was the missile cooling (ammonia?). In terms of spectacles, C2 and P2 coming through the aeriel farm at Akrotiri when the final two APC Lightnings there were replaced by the F4s from Germany (92Sqn?) after Op El Dorado Canyon in 1986. Left F4s rocking on their undercarriage and bodies hurling themselves off the wings. Other interesting stories about this det available in plain brown envelopes!!!
tartare, they did put fuel in the flaps of the later marks
Last edited by Fitter2; 31st Jul 2012 at 18:40.
