Lots of airframes there, by British standards.

I recall an F4 stude coming in to the office. His instructions were to brief on the Mig 21. Had I got anything on the Mig 21 :)

Well I said, what do you need to know? I said they have 4,000 for starters. A clear indication of quantity being a quality all of its own.

I recall the last diplay day at Binbrook - VERY wet. Somewhere I have a photo of I++ B++++ doing about M.98 in the rain - and the shock waves on nose and canopy clearly visible. A few months earlier there was a retirement bash at Neatishead for OC Ops, the only Branch commissioned wg cdr in the RAF ISTR (John ????). Lightning was due to fly over -"Where are you ?" asked the Neatishead controller. "Pulling up between the twoers NOW" came the reply. Trouble was he was at Bacton Gas Terminal

Another Lightning Mk3 figment of imagination..... (2)
 

Having made a few transatlantic crossings on Concorde as a pax, I was twice invited to spend some time on the flight deck.

Thus with stick time on the Mk3 & having enjoyed & observed the standard routine Concorde cruise parameters, it is impossible to believe that a Mk3 Lightning ever overtook a Concorde in normal cruise.

The Lightning Mk3 was fast and could accelerate well, but it had only just enough fuel to reach Mach2 on a carefully planned out and back flight.

Pilot’s Notes for the same fuel capacity, but smaller engined Mk1 quote a fuel consumption of 300lbs per minute, per engine, at a Mach 1.7 cruise. Full wing + ventral fuel at start-up is 7,284lbs Avtag.

Throwing in a lucky encounter with a tanker at toc may help a little – if the tanker AND CONCORDE routing are perfectly timed to allow our aviator in XR749 to make a crossing intercept & still have just enough fuel to safely rtb. An angled intercept & missile acquisition just maybe, but not an overtake and wave as you pass Hale (hail?) manoeuvre.

But back to the real world of onboard fuel, for how many minutes could a Mk3 fly at Mach 2?

One minute, maybe two .... and to overtake a Concorde in cruise it needed Mach 2+.

This is another figment of imagination which has become more heroic with time....... Nonetheless a great and enjoyable tale.

The Lightning (Mk3) is a great hotrod in many ways, but it is severely fuel limited, rather than aerodynamically limited when operating at the higher Mach numbers.



Google to see this hotrod Lightning Mk3 picture ....... XR749 - Score Group PLC (gate guard), Glenugie Engineering Works, Peterhead, Aberdeenshire

Interesting.
I'd always assumed the bounce the U2 and catch the Concorde stories were legit.
Will read the Classic Wings article with interest...

In all these 'stories', only the participants will know the truth, the Lightning pilots and the U2 pilot in particular. I have (kindly) given the benefit of the doubt to those who tell the tales. However, having done 65+ a few times and experienced the almost complete lack of control I have always felt a sense of wonderment and an element of doubt. BUT as the saying goes - I wasn't here.:)

Bigglesbrother.

Saw successful* Lightning M2+ stern intercepts twice. (*As claimed by pilots in debrief anyway)

First, 1975-76, Wattisham F3 during exercise against Mirage IV.

The exercise routine was that the FAF would send a pair with a KC135 up the North Sea and they'd then do a M2.0 run south before RTB. LATCC would give us a heads up and we would scramble a pair of F6 with red Top to sit plugged into a tanker on TTL6 waiting for them to break cover and then break off with full tanks and do a frontal intercept when they were about 150nm north.

On this occasion, due to various problems, we ended up with an F6 and an F3 (flown by "the Wandering Milliamp"). The F3 intercept was performed as normal. The F3 was controlled by one of the older WOs and set up for a U26A(?) - 180 x 26 converting to a 90 x 8. He rolled out at 3-4 miles, closed and took the Fox 2 about 20nm north of Bravo 1 at about 48K - and diverted into CS because he didn't have enough gas to reach WT. Landed on fumes.

The Concorde intercept was on the occasion when it flew a trial as a high speed target for the UK AD sqns. Concorde flew a preplanned figure of 8 around the North Sea at a constant M2.0 with height between FL500-550 to hold the speed. Their were pre-planned CAPs and intercept points and times. As above the Binbrook CAPs were supported by AAR with the fighters dropping off the hose at the optimal point, height, heading and range to start to accelerate for the intercept - though on that occasion they were F6.

That sounds bizarre! I'm having trouble with that one, ORAC. Why fly a 180 x when you have a head-on capability? I would also think I would want to see the target about 40 off at the 90 to have a chance. Having 'turned back' from a M2 chase towards the Cape on a Blinder to desperately get back to the tanker and avoid banging out into the North Sea at 0100 I reckon 8 miles is a touch optimistic for a M2 turning circle?

Now - how long does it take at M2 and a bit to close from 3-4 mm to missile release range (which would have been v close at that speed) on a M2 target? Even at M2.1 (which would be pretty impressive after a 90) it would take a couple of minutes. IF it worked, it was very impressive!

Stern because the F3 in question was E02+0 not F02+2. (Firestreak, not Redtop - no frontal capability)

The geometry for the crossing leg is 90 x 8 to reflect the turning circle, not the point at which the turn is started. IIRC the northbound leg was flown at about M1.3 with acceleration in the crossing leg and final turn ordered at about 50 off.

IIRC the Concorde intercepts the Lightnings were F020+2, geometry was planned as a 150 x 0 with tgt crossing left to right; ( from dim memory, maybe wrong - acquire and Fox 2 with port Mx in zoom, roll inverted to expose starboard Mx, Fox 2 and pull through.)

However at least one took Judy and converted to a stern intercept.

Added - Radius of Turn in nm:

Mach No at Trop/AOB 45 - 1.4G/AOB 60- 2.0G/TAS

1.6/12.3/7.1/917

1.7/13.9/8.0/975

1.8/15.5/9.0/1032

1.9/17.3/10.0/1089

2.0/19.2/11.1/1147

Once had a go at Concorde for a stern shot with Firewood. Worked out the turning radius and acceleration point from the ODM, but then only got one burner. Turned early and pulled loads of lead to try and roll out in front and below, then snapshoot up to it as it overtook me. Didn't get within a country mile of the damn thing!

Thanks for all that. 50 off is close to my guess! I mis-interpreted the '90 x 8' as a 'B-Scoper' would:). Altogether a pretty good result for the WO! Those radius figures are interesting.

Initials for "the Wandering Milliamp"?

Thanks for all that. 50 off is close to my guess! I mis-interpreted the '90 x 8' as a 'B-Scoper' would:). Altogether a pretty good result for the WO. Those radius figures are interesting.

Initials for "the Wandering Milliamp"?

D*** F*****

Aha - known by another name at the OCU. I always reckoned his parents must have had a wicked sense of humour.:D

Some good but strange guys on the Lightning. I had Red Dog as my OC Ops at Stanley, mad as a coot. AFAIK he's the only person banned from the bar at Binbrook at the same time he was PMC?

His office at Stanley was the portacabin on the AtC room, he used to come out onto the roof in the morning and the aircrew would come out, bow down and worship him and throw up Star Bars as tribute. He'd gather them up, administer a blessing on the gathering and then return grandly inside.

Ah memories - knew 'RD' from uni days in the 60's and we trained together at BFTS and bounced off each other through our careers. Last seen by me at the BAC '50th' at Duxford a few moons ago. Didn't know about the Star Bar addiction......

Some good but strange guys on the Lightning


Strange ORAC!!!! I resemble that remark!!!!! We did have a lot of characters I must admit but it was great fun!:ok:

So where is LM :p

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.

Not always high up
 

It was the Lightnings' last week in service and as I was driving home down a long lane near Leconfield I was a little surprised to see a Jaguar coming in the opposite direction in the avenue of trees being followed very closely by a Lightning only a few feet behind and above it. As they roared overhead I glanced round in time to spot a second Jaguar trying to tuck down behind a very small hill with 2 Lightnings following just as closely.

Low fast and fabulous.

If anyone here wants to own up to this particular cat bullying... I'd just like to say thanks.

“… 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!”

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.

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"....

:8 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?

want more WIWOL tales, one of best threads of evah!!!!

VFR above - I presume that translates into engineerspeak as f*****g high up...

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...

Fuel tanks. Peeled off upwards and backwards if jettisoned. Limited max speed and G limit.

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)

Also they could carry 1000lb retarded bombs, seem to remember the company I worked for being involved in the release trials for I think the Saudi's

tartare, they did put fuel in the flaps of the later marks.

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?

:)

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

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.

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 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/wbored.gif

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

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:{

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.

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!!!:E

I suppose that makes the F1A a 'later' mark. The tins of PRC used to seal the tanks had a very short shelf life, but time-expired tins were very useful for all manner of car (and glider) maintenance................

The forum was getting a bit dull in some areas, but this thread is getting really good. Don't hold back, guys. Keep it coming. :ok: