Lightning II
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. "non-biased pilot?" No such thing.
2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For quite a few folks the last "good looking" airplane was the Spitfire. Maybe the Mustang. After that everything "looks ugly." Beauty is a lousy and very subjective metric.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Mk 3 Nimrod elicited the comment J....C..... and look how that turned out.
I find some views of the Lightning look very good and purposeful. Sitting on the ground it is somewhat less so more of a beer belly (can't use the P word)
I find some views of the Lightning look very good and purposeful. Sitting on the ground it is somewhat less so more of a beer belly (can't use the P word)
Goodness, Ken, you're sounding like a professor of modern art. Next, you'll be telling us that beauty is a social construct emerging from discourses of relative power and violence.
I was at an air museum yesterday with a female colleague. In between telling one another how we won the Cold War, we were talking about the relative aesthetics of the F-16 and F-4, among other things. The F-4 is malevolent but not without character, She is a big F-16 fan. We both find the F-35 lumpish and uninteresting, rather than actually ugly. But I have the same aesthetic reaction to the F6F Hellcat and it got the job done.
I was at an air museum yesterday with a female colleague. In between telling one another how we won the Cold War, we were talking about the relative aesthetics of the F-16 and F-4, among other things. The F-4 is malevolent but not without character, She is a big F-16 fan. We both find the F-35 lumpish and uninteresting, rather than actually ugly. But I have the same aesthetic reaction to the F6F Hellcat and it got the job done.
Sadly these days I have to get my fix from the occasional Mossie. There's no extant Hornets.
Now I wonder who could use a fast, two engined, nimble and long legged load lugger with the ability to drop a serious load?
How radar reflective is wood?!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 50
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it couldn’t air to air refuel how did it get across the Atlantic?
It doesn’t have “lift engines” it has a lift fan driven by THE engine.
It’s sensor / weapon capabilities should render combat manoeuvres unnecessary.
Cannot speak to it’s stealth capabilities but nothing claims to be invisible except in the Daily Mail.
Like the Harrier before it it may well not be able to take off vertically with a weapon and fuel load. That’s why we have brought carriers with long decks and ski jumps.
You May be right about its ugliness though but not as ugly as the Boeing submission.
It doesn’t have “lift engines” it has a lift fan driven by THE engine.
It’s sensor / weapon capabilities should render combat manoeuvres unnecessary.
Cannot speak to it’s stealth capabilities but nothing claims to be invisible except in the Daily Mail.
Like the Harrier before it it may well not be able to take off vertically with a weapon and fuel load. That’s why we have brought carriers with long decks and ski jumps.
You May be right about its ugliness though but not as ugly as the Boeing submission.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside, I can understand calling it the Lightning but not the II suffix. We don't do that. Over its life, the machine will evolve, so what happens when the MK2 comes along? Lightning II MK2? Are we so sycophantic that we have to follow the septics to the letter?
Golf Bravo Z
ULU,
It's not called the Lightning II in UK service, just Lightning. Some time ago Lightning FG1 was being banded around, but I have not seen that used for some time now.
ULU,
It's not called the Lightning II in UK service, just Lightning. Some time ago Lightning FG1 was being banded around, but I have not seen that used for some time now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-show-06082018
See from 03:45. You have to be registered to view it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-show-06082018
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-show-06082018
Now that the RAF has a few, would a non-biased pilot correct my views on this aircraft: I subscribe to the principle that if it looks good, it possibly is good. In my opinion F35 looks ugly. I also think that anything with lift engines that are inoperative most of the time are dead weight and ruin performance. It cannot of course use the lift engines for combat manoeuvrability as that enormous barn door would need to be open. There are may other combat jets that out perform it in speed, load carrying capability and range. I'm told that it cannot take-off vertically or inflight refuel. It is very expensive, complicated and thus possibly unreliable. I doubt if it is invisible to radar.
Am I totally wrong?
Am I totally wrong?