Only one of those figures is near right with respect to the later, longer serving marks.

I try and avoid Wikipedia.

The Lightning's best claim to fame was as a recruiting tool for the RAF!
At least it worked on me though sadly I never got to fly one.....closest I got was as an air cadet in 1977 in Malta courtesy of 5 Sqn. Sadly the X-wind was out of limits on the day.
Another chance came later back at Binbrook but this time a partially blocked eustachian tube got me so the closest I ever got to the pole was a ride in the sim!

MB

The F-106 was maxed at M=2.0 in service.

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manual...06A%201964.pdf

Shaft109 - The Area Rule had not been formulated when the Lightning was designed (and as the above-cited document shows, the Lightning as we know it was basically designed by 1951) but someone involved was clearly aware of the need to avoid a clash between peak body cross-section and the wing, and knew it would be beneficial to have a near-constant-section body and a swept wing.

It might have been Multhopp, who after his RAE days went to the USA and helped design a bomber with two engines in front of the wing and one behind it.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2663

(Seriously, you could paint the XB-51 blue and green with black crosses and fool anyone.)

However, once the Area Rule was defined, it was recognized that the cross-section could be adjusted and the Lightning grew its belly tank. I have no idea about the T.4/T.5 but it smells a bit of urban legend.

Stacks,

Why not add to the discussion by providing some facts or data.

I am quite sure if Wiki had shown the Lightning to be superior there would be no squawking from the Gallery.

Others had compared the Lightning to the 102 and 106......I was merely adding some information about them from sources found on the internet.

The Lightning may have been a fast, climbed like a raped ape, but so did a lot of other aircraft of its time and since.

I shall remind you that Brit isn't necessarily best always....sometimes other nations Air Forces and Aircraft builders get it right too.

The Soviets set a few records you might remember.

BB

I think we can all agree that the capabilities of most military aircraft are less than optimum for a whole range of reasons. No Nation of which I am aware has a particularly good record of producing 'acceptable' Military Aircraft. Of course, such an assessment requires knowledge of the problems that Contractors do not mention, which are often quite significant. Consequently, Military Aviators invariably need to compensate for platform deficiencies and, mainly, they do pretty well at coping.

With respect to Records, almost exclusively the 'high performance' records are gained by 'stripped down' specials that have little in common to the equivalent operational version.

lm

Another vote for "Lightning Boys", a cracking good read.:ok:

The F-15 "Streak Eagle" on display at the USAF Museum set eight records before being retired.


http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2283

54Phan,

Oh really! I thought it was tedious (unless you think that story after story about a No1 Engine Fire is worth reading over and over again!). And the last chapter! Talk about self-congratulation!!!:mad:

Try 'Buccaneer Boys' - much more entertaining and written by real characters!

Bloggs:ok:

PS. I suspect that 'Lightning Boys 2' is just the same!

The Streak Eagle was indeed impressive but as, lightningmate alluded to in his post, it was a stripped out hotrod, and not representative of a production F-15A...

-RP

Well, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). I enjoyed reading it, as well as LB2. I will look into Buccaneer Boys, thanks for the tip.

The crash map is interesting but remember most pilots will try to get home rather than jump as soon as there is a problem, unless you are trying to say they couldn't get far from base.

And that relates to my post how?

I was the Met. man at RAF Guetersloh in the heyday of 19 and 92. Our OMQ in Zeppelinstrasse was not much further from runway end than a good throw of a cricket ball.

I have to say I just loved it! The aircrew were super guys. Bryan Smith was my next-door neighbour. Laurie Jones a fine Wingco. I got on well with Pete Naz and Bob Barcilon.

My youngest of four was born there ........... slept through the sound of freedom rather well.

Never been so in love with the job as in those years.

Record-setters are often development or pre-production jets. (1) They're lighter and (2) they have reached the end of their usefulness, so nobody cares if you overrun a temperature limit.

If I recall correctly the good 'ol USA achieved the time to height record with a 104 with a wicker chair replacing the bang seat - we Brits (being always best) would never stoop so low.

LB - stirred memories: Peter Naz a QFI with whom I flew, Bob Barcilon was my second Stn Cdr at Binbrook, after the tragic loss of his new son-in-law at Hyde Park. Later in my second career he was ag reat help to me when he was at the RAFBF and I had a pretty serious welfare case.

At first did they look inverted when they came round on to finals 04 at 200ft ? or was that because the over-wing external tanks were fitted.:ok:

FB
We did on occasions detach to Lossie with 4 lightnings from Leuchars ( "I fear no man") during the Russian exercise weeks, although it was strange operating from a naval base during those periods.We did one time join the "tot" queue but the disguises it not work !!

Jaguar boys.. At least one chapter is different from the previous one..

I may be wrong here, but I believe that seat was a Mandarin style wicker designed by Pier 1 Imports to subsequently be used operationally in the failed Century series 'Comfort Fighter'.