# English Electric Lightning



## Zipper730 (Mar 21, 2022)

I remember hearing different figures for the aircraft's radius of action: Some sources list as little as 150 nm, others around 300 nm? Are either of these correct, and are these figures based on the following

Supersonic both ways
Supersonic outbound and subsonic on the return leg
Other


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Mar 22, 2022)

Also depends which version - the prototype P.1 "flat-belly", the F. Mk. 1 & F. Mk. 2 with a small ventral fuel tank, the F. Mk. 3 with the small ventral fuel tank and optional overwing fuel tank capability (also usable for weapons), the F. Mk. 6/F. Mk. 2A (originally F. Mk. 3A) with added large ventral belly tank but not carrying the overwing tanks... or the F. Mk. 6/F. Mk. 2A with the overwing tanks.

I couldn't find any photos of the F. Mk. 3 with the overwing tanks installed.

P. 1








P. 1B







F. Mk. 3







F. Mk. 6







F. Mk. 6 with tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 22, 2022)

I'll have to take a look into the weight and fuel figures for the different variants.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 22, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Also depends which version - the prototype P.1 "flat-belly", the F. Mk. 1 & F. Mk. 2 with a small ventral fuel tank, the F. Mk. 3 with the small ventral fuel tank and optional overwing fuel tank capability (also usable for weapons), the F. Mk. 6/F. Mk. 2A (originally F. Mk. 3A) with added large ventral belly tank but not carrying the overwing tanks... or the F. Mk. 6/F. Mk. 2A with the overwing tanks.
> 
> I couldn't find any photos of the F. Mk. 3 with the overwing tanks installed.
> 
> ...



Agree with (almost) everything you said...and love the pics. I was at the last Lightning airshow at Binbrook in 1987.

One minor nitpick. The airframe you label as a Lighting F.3 is actually a T.5 of the Lightning Training Flight. This is a Lightning F.3...in the most appropriate of markings:







And the ONLY reason I'm being such a pedant is because it lets me post another pic of the "Frightening" in (arguably) its most attractive scheme.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 26, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> And the ONLY reason I'm being such a pedant is because it lets me post another pic of the "Frightening" in (arguably) its most attractive scheme.



56 Sqn certainly added colour to the type's various schemes, although 74 and Treble One's black fins with yellow highlights always look smart...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Mar 28, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Agree with (almost) everything you said...and love the pics. I was at the last Lightning airshow at Binbrook in 1987.
> 
> One minor nitpick. The airframe you label as a Lighting F.3 is actually a T.5 of the Lightning Training Flight. This is a Lightning F.3...in the most appropriate of markings:
> 
> ...



I was based at RAF Ballykelly in the late 60s when we had a couple of USAF Orions visiting, a couple of Lightnings did a "beat-up" over the airfield, coming in low very fast and then rotating and climbing vertically, deafening everyone!... one of the American ground crew called the Lighting the "All Aluminum Boom Tube" .... the name stuck with me ever since.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2022)

wingnuts said:


> I was based at RAF Ballykelly in the late 60s when we had a couple of USAF Orions visiting, a couple of Lightnings did a "beat-up" over the airfield, coming in low very fast and then rotating and climbing vertically, deafening everyone!... one of the American ground crew called the Lighting the "All Aluminum Boom Tube" .... the name stuck with me ever since.


Great story but the USAF never flew the Orion

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 28, 2022)

Did the Navy ever deploy P-3s to England would be the obvious question. You guys may both be right.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Did the Navy ever deploy P-3s to England would be the obvious question. You guys may both be right.


They did, many times.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They did, many times.



It follows that his story could be basically true, but with the wrong operating org.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It follows that his story could be basically true, but with the wrong operating org.


Agree - never doubted him about seeing an Orion

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

EE Lightning
Take off
Climb to 40,000feet
Run out of fuel
Land

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Apr 12, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great story but the USAF never flew the Orion


Correction, it was the US Navy, but as it was over 50 years ago in the mid to late 60s the distinction was irrelevant to us "Limeys" at the time, especially as the "Canucks" were there with the Argus. the "Cloggies" with their Neptunes and the "Frogs" with their Atlantics, "Yanks" were just "Yanks".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Apr 12, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They did, many times.



The RAF Shackletons often had joint exercises with the US NAVY P-3s, I remember them being at RAF Kinloss in Scotland, RAF Ballykelly in Northern Ireland, and also a joint exercise at TUSLOG Cigli in Turkey. 

Extract from "Ballykelly - The Shackleton Era": 
The Orion Makes its DebutIn May 1963 a major NATO exercise Fishplay VII was held. It had major implications for the squadrons at Ballykelly, 203 moving to Keflavik, Iceland, and half of 204 going to Aldergrove for the duration. These moves were to make way for an influx of visitors, Neptunes of the Aeronavale and VP-24, USN, and making its first visit to Ballykelly, the P-3A Orion. Four examples arrived from VP-8 at Patuxent River, Maryland, and were the centre of attraction of the remaining Shackleton crews at Ballykelly, as the Americans considered them to be state of the art as far as airborne submarine hunting was concerned. The noise levels were so different, purring turboprops as opposed to the growling Griffon piston engines of the Shackleton.









The Shackleton Association - Ballykelly - The Shackleton Era


A summary of Avro Shackleton roles during their time at Ballykelly




www.thegrowler.org.uk

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Apr 12, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - never doubted him about seeing an Orion


The RAAF only recently ended a long association with the P-3, the company I worked for (Tenix) finally completed the update on the AP-3C after taking over from several companies that struggled. Luckily I was not involved with that project, I was on the C130Hs, but I did design the company badge for the project and marshal the AP-3Cs when they visited.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2022)

wingnuts said:


> The RAAF only recently ended a long association with the P-3, the company I worked for (Tenix) finally completed the update on the AP-3C after taking over from several companies that struggled. Luckily I was not involved with that project, I was on the C130Hs, but I did design the company badge for the project and marshal the AP-3Cs when they visited.


I worked on the RAAF P-3 program extensively during the mid 1980s. About 40% of the aircraft was built in Canada as the result of the offset agreement when the Canadians bought the CP-140.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 12, 2022)

wingnuts said:


> The RAAF only recently ended a long association with the P-3, the company I worked for (Tenix) finally completed the update on the AP-3C after taking over from several companies that struggled. Luckily I was not involved with that project, I was on the C130Hs, but I did design the company badge for the project and marshal the AP-3Cs when they visited.


Where’s FLYBOY J’s patch?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Apr 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I worked on the RAAF P-3 program extensively during the mid 1980s. About 40% of the aircraft was built in Canada as the result of the offset agreement when the Canadians bought the CP-140.


CAC, then HdeHV, and Tenix (all the same factory, we kept getting bought out) only did mods and updates on the P-3s in Australia, I was not involved apart from inspection of minor components and assemblies, plus I did ground handling when they visited the Tenix hangar at Melbourne Tullamarine airport.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 13, 2022)

Cool!


----------



## Dronescapes (Aug 27, 2022)

A video about the English Electric Lightning

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 29, 2022)

With its arrestor hook, I wonder if any RAF pilot considered if he could land his Lightning onto HMS Ark Royal or Eagle.







Hmm.... very high landing speed and spindly undercarriage.... maybe not.


----------



## GTX (Aug 29, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> With its arrestor hook, I wonder if any RAF pilot considered if he could land his Lightning onto HMS Ark Royal or Eagle.


Not with that hook, though there were designs for carrier based versions:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 1, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> With its arrestor hook, I wonder if any RAF pilot considered if he could land his Lightning onto HMS Ark Royal or Eagle.



On the majority of aircraft fitted with arrestor hooks that were not naval aircraft designed for landing on carriers, this couldn't be done for the simple fact that the hook was not strong enough to restrain the aircraft within the space a carrier aircraft lands at. The arrestor hooks on non-carrier based aircraft were designed to restrain the aircraft on airfield emergency arrestor systems that don't provide anywhere near the strain capability of carrier arrestor systems, bearing in mind that they're located on long concrete runways that provide plenty of rolling distance once the aircraft's movement has been arrested.

A wee pictorial representation of what we're dealing with. This is the arrestor hook on the Lightning, the boom is less than half an inch thick. In the picture with the hook, the drag chute stowage door can be seen.




DSC_0471




DSC_0456

This is an A-4's arrestor hook. Even though the A-4 is smaller and lighter than the Lightning, it's boom is beefier.




DSC_2273

For comparison, this is an F-4's arrestor hook. A mite more substantial given the Phantom was a bigger beast, but the point is obvious.




DSC_8504


----------



## ww2restorer (Sep 1, 2022)

Is it true that the Lightning was the only interceptor that could from a standing start, catch an aggressor doing supersonic?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 1, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> On the majority of aircraft fitted with arrestor hooks that were not naval aircraft designed for landing on carriers, this couldn't be done for the simple fact that the hook was not strong enough to restrain the aircraft within the space a carrier aircraft lands at. The arrestor hooks on non-carrier based aircraft were designed to restrain the aircraft on airfield emergency arrestor systems that don't provide anywhere near the strain capability of carrier arrestor systems, bearing in mind that they're located on long concrete runways that provide plenty of rolling distance once the aircraft's movement has been arrested.
> 
> A wee pictorial representation of what we're dealing with. This is the arrestor hook on the Lightning, the boom is less than half an inch thick. In the picture with the hook, the drag chute stowage door can be seen.
> 
> ...


I wonder if the RCAF’s CF-18s keep naval spec hooks for their land based arrested landings. Did USAF F-4 Phantoms have naval spec hooks?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder if the RCAF’s CF-18s keep naval spec hooks for their land based arrested landings. Did USAF F-4 Phantoms have naval spec hooks?


I believe there was no "naval spec hooks" on either aircraft.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe there was no "naval spec hooks" on either aircraft.


I wonder what the weight or cost savings the RCAF accomplished by using a different hook. 

I didn’t know the Eagle had a hook.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder what the weight or cost savings the RCAF accomplished by using a different hook.


Not much - and more than likely there would be changes to the structure to support a such a modification. You're dealing with such powerful aircraft that the weight saving wouldn't make a difference in the end.


Admiral Beez said:


> I didn’t know the Eagle had a hook.


So does the F-117A - not very many photos of it - it was contained within the fuselage.

I saw the mock up and the first 2 F-117As being built. At the time none of us who were cleared on the program knew the designation or who was going to operate the aircraft. I assumed at the time that it was going to be a naval aircraft because of the tailhook on the mock up.





Credit FFRC

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 2, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not much..


Looking at the CF-18 image above and USN F-18s pics online the hook looks the same to me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Looking at the CF-18 image above and USN F-18s pics online the hook looks the same to me.


They are probably the same


----------



## rochie (Sep 2, 2022)

Also the Lightning had tyres that were good for only 12 landings, not very economical on-board a carrier where they probably wouldn't last even that long !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2022)

rochie said:


> Also the Lightning had tyres that were good for only 12 landings, not very economical on-board a carrier where they probably wouldn't last even that long !



Mains' pressure 360 psi, apparently... woulda been a few nasty bangs on a carrier. The Lightning was a maintenance hog, according to an ex-RAF engineer I got talking to once. He was amazed that they managed to keep them serviceable!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 3, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Mains' pressure 360 psi, apparently... woulda been a few nasty bangs on a carrier. The Lightning was a maintenance hog, according to an ex-RAF engineer I got talking to once. He was amazed that they managed to keep them serviceable!


Thanks Grant, i knew they were some ridiculous pressure but couldnt remember off hand and didnt want to make it up !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

