# Jet fighters/interceptors of the sizzling 60's?



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

Which would come out on top of the list? Mirage III, F-8 Crusader, MiG-21, Sukhoi-9/11, SAAB 35 Draken, E-E Lightning.......which should be on the list in the first place?

Which had the best performance, radar, weapon system, pilot friendly, operation system (operate outside the airbase like the J-35 Draken)....?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Overall fighter/ interceptor I'd say you have the Mirage III, the F-8 Crusader, the MiG-21 and the F-106. The Crusader was big and maneuverable. The Saab Draken - excellent machine but very short legs (I know the folks who operate them at Mojave Airport at the civilian test pilot school there). A sortie is about 20 minutes.

We can't forget the Lightning as a straight interceptor.


----------



## Glider (Oct 5, 2008)

A purely personal selection but if I had to put them in order

Crusader - Very good all round aircraft with a good range
Lightning - Interceptor par excellance and was quite sophisticated for its time, but had to keep an eye on the fuel gauge.
Draken - Very good all round aircraft with little range
F106 - The best long ranged interceptor around at the time, but if the missiles miss or you get caught by a dogfighter you could be in trouble. Better at altitude than on the deck where most fighting takes place. I expect FBJ to have some comments on this
Mig 21 - Close with the Mirage but I prefer its wing, handling and agility.
Mirage III - I don't like the delta wing, it bleeds energy like mad in a turn, plus the electronics were minimal on the III and close to non existant on the V. 
SU9 - A Wannabe F106 without the range, agility or decent missiles.
F104 - Not on the list but not impressive, dreadfull agility, poor range, lightly armed and so so electronics.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

Is that 20 minutes with full throttle as well? How much longer with extra fuel tanks?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Is that 20 minutes with full throttle as well? How much longer with extra fuel tanks?


Full throttle at take off then running about 92%. With tanks you might be able to get 45 minutes to an hour.


----------



## Glider (Oct 5, 2008)

The first version of the Draken with an afterburner (the first didn't) could run out of fuel before it reached max speed as they didn't increase the size of the fuel tanks. Almost a record


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> F106 - The best long ranged interceptor around at the time, but if the missiles miss or you get caught by a dogfighter you could be in trouble. Better at altitude than on the deck where most fighting takes place. I expect FBJ to have some comments on this.


If flown in the zoom the 106 could be competitive - later in its career it had a gun. It did take a bit to accelerate but one it got going it was a rocket.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

What about the F-4 Phantom? Also, was it the 102 or 106 that had an internal weapon bay for its missiles?

Cheers FLYBOYJ...


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Is that 20 minutes with full throttle as well? How much longer with extra fuel tanks?


Most of the birds back then gulped fuel at tremendous rates I know the J 57 used about 80 Gal per minute in burner the J79 was not much better .
At fuel power the F4 would have about 20 minute fuel , the F101 with 2 tanks had 14 minutes fuel . 
If you are defending Delaware or the Isle of Man the Lightning was the machine , but overall the F4 could do it all range , radar,
This is actually 2 different topics interceptors was category unto itself


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> What about the F-4 Phantom? Also, was it the 102 or 106 that had an internal weapon bay for its missiles?
> 
> Cheers FLYBOYJ...


Both the 102 and 106 had an internal weapons bay. The F-4 had the range for interception as well. Externally it carried the fuel needed and could handle it self it it had to dogfight, but I think the F-106 was a bit better in the interceptor role.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

How does another of the Century birds compare here then, F-100 Super Sabre?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

We had a great discussion on this a few years ago.

In the end, the EE Lighting was proved to be the superior interceptor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> How does another of the Century birds compare here then, F-100 Super Sabre?



The F-100 was more of a good tactical fighter bomber although it was touted as an air-to-air fighter. Its main contemporary was the MiG-19 which I feel would of been superior in the air-to-air role in many respects. The F-100C could be a handful on landing as it had no flaps and I do know it had the highest attrition rate in NATO - yes, even higher than the F-104!


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> We had a great discussion on this a few years ago.
> 
> In the end, the EE Lighting was proved to be the superior interceptor.


I still disagree if the Lightning was so good why was it replaced by a contemporary the F 4 and lightning were both introduced into service in 1960 approx and the Phantom replaced the Lightning in RAF service , if it was so good how come they weren't lining up at the doors to buy it . It had one export sale to the Saudis . It was a spectacular air aircraft but so were every century series fighter but it had 0 range the aircraft when transiting the pond required 7 air to air refuellings 1 less then the mighty F5 .


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

Even worse than the Starfighter!? Crikey!  Why was that then, was it because it lacked flaps and most accidents happened at landing?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Even worse than the Starfighter!? Crikey!  Why was that then, was it because it lacked flaps and most accidents happened at landing?



Hard to say - I know Denmark operated them and also lost many. I think it might of been training and the mission.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

If I recall most of the fighters from that era had fairly high landing speeds in the area of 160 knots or more . As for the F100 did not the French also use them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> If I recall most of the fighters from that era had fairly high landing speeds in the area of 160 knots or more . As for the F100 did not the French also use them


They did and If I remember right the F-100C landed at about 160 knts.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They did and If I remember right the F-100C landed at about 160 knts.


and a amazing 220 for a flapless 104


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Yep - I think the F-106 did 180.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

The Lightning had the shortest time from engine start to target acquisition and missle launch.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The Lightning had the shortest time from engine start to target acquisition and missle launch.


where did you get this pearl of wisdom . All QRA'a are stationed near the end of the runway the aircraft are all plugged in and its just a matter of getting in and turning the key . If you took longer then 5 minutes from the bells til airborne you knew all about it .
I've worked hundreds of scrambles , the pilots got the bells as I copied down the scramble vector to pass to the aircraft as they taxied out from the Q the info was passed to the pilots with take off clearance


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

If that's not the case then gentlemen, which was fastest up to intercept?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> If that's not the case then gentlemen, which was fastest up to intercept?



The Lightning.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> where did you get this pearl of wisdom...



From the thread we had two years ago.

The Lightning was proven to be the fastest in the intercept role.

I think it was Lanc that provided the documentation to back up his assertion.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> If that's not the case then gentlemen, which was fastest up to intercept?


intercept what and where and how high


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Lightning.


do the Brits run faster , how close is the Q to the Rwy, what are the winds are they in limits for a tail wind take off. I don't get how the lightning is faster. Is the pilot chained to the cockpit


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

From the moment the engine was started to climb to any altitude, the Lightning had everyone beat by a considerable margin.

And when it came to intercepting a Soviet bomber at sea (I cant remember the range that was specified, but it was around 100 miles or so), the Lightning could still beat out the competition for getting out the fastest, acquire the target regardless of ground control, fire the missle and score a hit.

It was minutes better than the contenders .... F106/Falcon missle, F101/Falcon missle and F14 with Phoniex.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 5, 2008)

Which of these era machines got the most kills...probably the Mirage III in Isreali service maybe...

I would add the Northrop F-5...

I am the opinion the Fishbed was a far better aircraft than the kill ratio against it suggests. 

I would say the Lightning was the best pure point to point interceptor and even holds its own against more contemporary opposition. Useless but fast.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

Wasn't the Falcon missile something of a failure? I think that I read that somewhere that it wasn't as good as it could or should have been, or am I wrong?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> do the Brits run faster , how close is the Q to the Rwy, what are the winds are they in limits for a tail wind take off. I don't get how the lightning is faster. Is the pilot chained to the cockpit


From a standing start to 50,000 feet the Lightning was unsurpassed, period. It was able to out climb every interceptor in its day.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From a standing start to 50,000 feet the Lightning was unsurpassed, period. It was able to out climb every interceptor in its day.



Does that include others as well, with twin engines?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Does that include others as well, with twin engines?



Yes....


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> From the moment the engine was started to climb to any altitude, the Lightning had everyone beat by a considerable margin.
> 
> And when it came to intercepting a Soviet bomber at sea (I cant remember the range that was specified, but it was around 100 miles or so), the Lightning could still beat out the competition for getting out the fastest, acquire the target regardless of ground control, fire the missle and score a hit.
> 
> It was minutes better than the contenders .... F106/Falcon missle, F101/Falcon missle and F14 with Phoniex.


100 miles might as well be overhead thats less then 10 minutes away the terminal area I worked with was that big
, intercepts hopefully in the UK took place over the water prior to entering CADIZ


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

This was the thread where we had a general brawl over the best interceptors.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/cold-war-intercept-2542.html


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

If the Lightning was/is as fast as you maintain (bare with me here ), then it must have burned its fuel to almost empty, to get to the interception point or what you call it? What then? If there's was no target around when they got there, they couldn't just hang around, could they?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> If the Lightning was/is as fast as you maintain (bare with me here ), then it must have burned its fuel to almost empty, to get to the interception point or what you call it? What then? If there's was no target around when they got there, they couldn't just hang around, could they?


Remember, these aircraft were being vectored and at the same time have very strong internal radar - they knew what they were chasing and be assured would of been able to take care of business if they were ever placed in a shooting war.

As far as the fuel consumption issue - correct, but then again their job was to get up quick, take care of business and return to do it all over again.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 5, 2008)

Did they also have the best radar as well then, the Lightning?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Remember, these aircraft were being vectored and at the same time have very strong internal radar - they knew what they were chasing and be assured would of been able to take care of business if they were ever placed in a shooting war.
> 
> As far as the fuel consumption issue - correct, but then again their job was to get up quick, take care of business and return to do it all over again.


you want them up and far away nuclear debris would cause Green Peace to be a tad upset . also couldn't locate the info of Pland or Lancs ref response time that made the lightning so much "better"


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Did they also have the best radar as well then, the Lightning?



Dont know if it was the best, but it sure was adequate for the task. The Brits know radar and systems, so I wouldn't put it past them to have fitted the Lightning with a very capable avionics package.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> you want them up and far away nuclear debris would cause Green Peace to be a tad upset . also couldn't locate the info of Pland or Lancs ref response time that made the lightning so much "better"



If it was 1983 and 20 or 30 "Bears" were approaching the British Isles, I don't Greenpeace would of been an issue.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If it was 1983 and 20 or 30 "Bears" were approaching the British Isles, I don't Greenpeace would of been an issue.


 I agree but the further out is more optimal which gives you time to stop the one's that leak through.
I was in the Glasgow in 83 and the Greenpeace guys sure had a dim view of a Canadian who lived in Newfoundland and whose girlfiend a had a stuffed baby seal key chain True story


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2008)




----------



## Matt308 (Oct 5, 2008)

The Brit plan at the time was to vector Lightnings to the intercept. As I recall, they trained to intercept with an offbore of about 2-3miles, initiate a turn about 7 miles ahead of the intercept and perform a high-G 180 turn to end up aft of the bomber target to begin a missile run. Remember, that head on missile attacks were highly risky of failure at this time. BAE Hawks would serve as the secondary line of defense for those that got through using GCI, short range IR missiles and Aden cannon.

It is true, that the Lightning's Achilles Heel was its range... especially at max afterburner. She was wicked quick in acceleration. The F-106 was fast. But the acceleration curve was anything but linear. IIRC the F-106 was quick to above Mach 1, but then it literally took several minutes to accelerate significantly beyond that.

Cruise missiles ended all discussion of these types of operations. As Pb said, 100mi is nothing at 600+ knots


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

I'd go for the battle-proven F-4. The main reason the people in ex-Yu call all the US jets "fantom"


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 19, 2009)

The 'F-4 was certainly a capable aircraft - but not, I would argue, a world-beating interceptor. As we have already seen above, the Lightning gets that title. I think the Phantom was a great all-rounder though, capable of dogfighting, and equally capable of delivering serious bombloads or numbers of PGMs from a variety of different attack profiles. And ultimately, that is why it replaced machines light the Lightning, you spent less on airframes and maintenance, and got more jobs done...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

Hmm...

Methinks that "battle proven" attribute weights much more then "as seen on forum", no offense 

EE Lightning, in order to be efficient, needs a C3 chain to work flawlessly and in just-in-time manner. Now, just throw some well timed diversions (like ones RAF put against LW in WWII days) and Lightnings must return to refuel. 

It is, further, just un-imaginable for me to that Lightnings could make all the kills above, say, North Vietnam, in way F-4 did.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 19, 2009)

A fair point, but the F-4 saw relatively little use in the 'interceptor' role, in any war. That was my point, it is a battle proven all rounder, but I think very few of the dedicated interceptors built in the 60s (other than the Mirage family) saw much combat use - maybe, in that case, the Mirage should be proclaimed the best interceptor, although the Lightning to both types was demonstrably superior in the performance factors most critical to the interceptor mission...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> The 'F-4 was certainly a capable aircraft - but not, I would argue, a world-beating interceptor. As we have already seen above, the Lightning gets that title. I think the Phantom was a great all-rounder though, capable of dogfighting, and equally capable of delivering serious bombloads or numbers of PGMs from a variety of different attack profiles. And ultimately, that is why it replaced machines light the Lightning, you spent less on airframes and maintenance, and got more jobs done...



I do not know. The Lightning was certainly a better interceptor than the F-4, but I would put my money on the F-4 as a pure fighter in say air to air combat (i.e. dogfighte, etc.) The F-4 has a much more impressive weapons package overall as well.

In the end I believe the F-4 was a much better aircraft than the Lighting.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 19, 2009)

All these posts saying the Lightning was only a straight line Interceptor? This is quite wrong. The Lightning was also the most manouverable fighter of its day, though the lack of range and armament are obvious minus points.

Manoverability, you ask?

In Rolan Beaumonts book 'Testing Early Jets' there is a flight test report on the Lightbning, written by a USAF test pilot, who is absolutely ecstatic with his flight in the Lightning. He describes it as being the 'hottest ship' he has ever flown and describes it further as 'faster than the F-104 but turns like an F-86, Incredible!'

Now he may be exaggerating a bit with the F-86 remark, but he is clearly not talking about 'point and squirt' is he. 

The decision to replace the Lightning with the F-4 was as much political as military and almost all the ex Lightning pilots preferred it to their new mount. Such was the advantage of the Lightning as an Interceptor that the RAF felt compelled to maintain two squadrons in service until 1988, the original out of service date had been designated as 1976 (F-4 deliveries to the RAF began in 1970)! 

The Lightning was the worlds fasting climbing fighter from its debut in 1960 until the debut of the F-15 Eagle in 1972 and was the fastest climbing fighter in RAF history EVER until the debut of the Eurofighter Typhoon. Not bad for something more than half a century old. Oh, and the P.1, fropm which the Lightning was evolved, went supersonic without afterburners in 1954, something which Lockheed is currently claiming as a 'first' for the F-22


----------



## Avn-Tech (Jan 19, 2009)

Group,

Each aircraft will have advantages and disadvantes, and ultimly what one decides is the best fighter/Interceptor/cago/Ect.... will come down to personel likes and dislikes. Very few have flown the actual aircraft (even fewer in combat), and can really talk first hand.

Then any aircraft can be shot down with a lucky shot, by a pilot in the right place and right time. 

Any comparisons would have to be equal, take off from the same field, same mission, and all the same variables. Run the senario multiple times, with the same pilots, and conme up with an average. even this senerio has disadvantages, aftrer multiple runs the pilots will know what to expect.

Personally I have never seen an aircraft I did not want to own (but a Wilga is the ugliest aircraft I have ever seen) and unfortunatly I run out of money before owning the airplanes I want! Please send all unwanted acft to me at . . . . . . . 

From a maintenance standpoint, I like the A-10 (worked on them for 6 years). Altough I also liked the F-15 and B-52 when I worked on them (required more maint). I even enjoyed working on F-111, T-37, KC-135's, F-6, P-38, T-6, L-29, T-33, L-5, Yak-52, Provost and numerous other aircraft.

But I had the most fun flying 12 combat missions on C-130E's as a flight engineer in Iraq and Afganistan.

So keep up the arguements, and when you come to town, I will let you buy me a drink and we can continue the arguement! If you don't get too drunk, I mite even try putting you to work in the hanger...............


----------



## Bill G. (Jan 27, 2009)

/


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2009)

I do not want to pick between the Lightning and the F4 suffice to say that in this combination the RAF had the best in the world. 
Over Germany where the Reds were close and time short, the Lightning is the plane for you. Over the North Sea, N Atlantic waiting for the long range bombers, the Phantoms range, payload and radar is the best. 

As I said you would have to look long and hard, to find a better combination anywhere.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> I was stationed at Griffiss AFB from '72 to '77. We had the 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron stationed there. They flew the F-106s. They were something to watch. The "6" had a hard light afterburner that would shake you a half mile away!
> 
> The "6" had the SAGE ground radar link. If everything worked right, a pilot could take off, hand the aircraft over to the SAGE operator and take a nap. The SAGE operator could fly the aircraft, perform the intercepts, launch the missiles, and return to aircraft back to home station area. The pilot could then land the plane and find out how many kills he had!
> 
> ...



Bill G - My father in law was the CO of the last squadron to operate 106s - the flight test unit at Rocklwell on the B-1 program. The aircraft were actually pulled out of the bone yard and placed back into service. The 106's were used as chase planes and later during their "recycled service" they were used for dis-similar aircraft training and agressor training - all this in the late 80s out of plant 42, Palmdale.

He had a similar experience flying aganist F-15s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2009)

Avn-Tech said:


> But I had the most fun flying 12 combat missions on C-130E's as a flight engineer in Iraq and Afganistan.
> 
> So keep up the arguements, and when you come to town, I will let you buy me a drink and we can continue the arguement! If you don't get too drunk, I mite even try putting you to work in the hanger...............



I have 650 combat hours in Iraq, so I will let you buy me that drink...


----------



## Bill G. (Jan 27, 2009)

/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> Flyboyj:
> 
> It sounds like your Father-in-Law had one of the most fun duties in the Air Force!
> 
> ...




Thanks Bill - here's one of his birds.


----------



## Bill G. (Jan 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ:

That is one pretty bird! I would have loved to have flown with him in a B model! I would probably be still trying to find my stomache! But what the heck!

Bill G.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2009)

They had a few B models as well. They were known as "the station wagons."


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 6, 2009)

Bill G:

I was at the Griff from 75 to 78, Det 8, 26th Weather Squadron. I used to sit in the ROS across the runway from BASOPS and do the weather observations. I LOVED watching the 49th's 106's launch. Somewhere, I have some silent 8mm film my wife and I did of a 3-ship launch. Those AB shockwaves were something, as was that "BOOM!" when they lit. 

If you recall, BASOPS and the weather shop were between the two hangars, one of which is where the 49th's maintenance shop was. To get to the control tower, we had to climb over the 106 area.

Remember the guy who spun in the 106? My first sight upon arrival to the Griff was the vertical stab of his plane, hanging from a big meathook in the hangar. I later met the guy, after he'd done the same trick to an F-15 near Sparrevohn (AK). That was when they finally grounded him.

BTW, did you know that Curt Poorman, formerly a support guy for the 49th, is the guy who designed the fin flash for their aircraft? He later became a forecaster. I worked with him at Elmendorf in the early 80's.

My wife and I belonged to the local radio control club. We used to meet in the 49th's bar and fly on the old runway. Now, that old runway is fenced off and in the midst of a forest of evergreens.

CD


----------



## Bill G. (Feb 6, 2009)

Captain Dunsel:

No, I did not know Curt Poorman. 

I was in the 2019 Comm Sqdn. I worked up on SAC Hill. My equipment was in the same building as the SAC Command Post. I hope that helps.

It was a treat to watch the F-106s take off at dawn or dusk. The afterburner was something.

Back at Griffiss AFB I built a 1/72 scale F-106 in 49th Markings. I have the kit and decals to do a 1/48th one. I love that plane! The only thing is I want to do the tail number for the one at the Air Force Museum. That is the one that the pilot ejected from in Montana. And the pilotless plane recovered from the flat spin and landed with little damage in the snow!

Once I did go up to the Control Tower. I had a squadron friend, Steve Ford that worked there. Once when an SR-71 taxied next to the tower, he got out onto the catwalk to take a picture. He got the shot looking nearly straight down. He almost lost his balance. Anyways, that walk way in the hanger roof bothered me. I don't like heights like that. It took most of my courage to get there and back.

I did take three rides in the old T-29. Those were fun. Once we went to Grissom to pick up an inspection team. On the trip out there was just the four of us. We were getting ready to land. I started to go back to my seat for the landing. The flight engineer said no. He said I could stand behind him for the landing. And then he gave me his headset to listen in on the radio. That was neat listening to RAPCON guiding us in on a CAVU day. 

Bill G.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 7, 2009)

Waynos said:


> in service until 1988...debut in 1960



Well, Waynos, 28 years in service sounds good to me. What is sad is that there was not a follow up aircraft to the Lightning since the company seemed to be solving problems in rather unique ways. The upper engine was behind the lower one which meant a lower cross section because the inlet diameter is less than the overall diameter. Apparently it could go supersonic without reheat which was kind of rare back then. It looks like an exceptionally good aircraft to me.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 7, 2009)

Bill G:

I remember SAC Hill quite well. We used to routinely make up charts for the alert birds, which Motorpool would deliver. For a while, we addressed our stuff to the SAC Command Post as "SAC CommPost", until our commander got a nasty call from someone up there!

I was in the ROS when one of those SR-71's launched. I walked down to only a about 200 feet from the runway, and when the '71 went by, the sound was incredible. I could physically feel the shock waves hitting my chest. I watched the aircraft shoot down to the end of the runway, then rotate and go vertical.

There was an altocumulus deck at around 10,000 feet that day. I watched the SR stay in a vertical climb right to the cloud base. A few seconds later, a dot came out of the top of the clouds and kept going vertically, out of sight.

Meanwhile, I didn't get my hearing back for at least another 10 minutes....

I know what you mean about that catwalk! It was really uncomfortable!

I never got to ride in a T-29. I did an orientation flight in a KC, and got to do some filming of a Buff refueling, though. Much later, when I was in Alaska, I got to do some galivanting around Alaska in C-130's and C-12's, though. Miss those days!


CD


----------



## Waynos (Feb 8, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Well, Waynos, 28 years in service sounds good to me. What is sad is that there was not a follow up aircraft to the Lightning since the company seemed to be solving problems in rather unique ways. The upper engine was behind the lower one which meant a lower cross section because the inlet diameter is less than the overall diameter. Apparently it could go supersonic without reheat which was kind of rare back then. It looks like an exceptionally good aircraft to me.



Thanks for that Murray, I think it might have been on another thread where I said I didn't know why the vertical engines were an advantage in that respect. I also read that it gave a lower heat signature from below than with side by side, but I think that would only apply from directly below so I'm not sure its a real advantage.

EE did design many versions of the Lightning and many follow ups to it too, but our Govt thought that aircraft were a waste of time and money it seems so they were always denied the opportunity. There was even a Sea Lightning with swing wings designed but the mantra was 'we want American planes'. The TSR 2 bomber was designed by them and the former EE site at Warton was home to the British bits of the Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon (with the basic design of the last two originating from Warton) too so there is actually quite a pedigree there.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 22, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Even worse than the Starfighter!? Crikey!  Why was that then, was it because it lacked flaps and most accidents happened at landing?





FLYBOYJ said:


> Hard to say - I know Denmark operated them and also lost many. I think it might of been training and the mission.



Ground effects. The F-100 was aerodynamically prone to it. If the nose was rotated slightly above "textbook" take-off restrictions it would float on a cushion of air it compressed between itself and the ground. Once there it was like rolling on a balloon and ultimately falling off. At that angle of attack the wing was not generating adequate lift nor was there enough power to horse it into flight.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOamnWpLtO8_


----------



## Seawitch (Apr 18, 2009)

I favour the Lightning aka 'Frightening' if only on looks, 8) .... range...I thought the primary job was to intercept incoming Bombers, and also to protect the V force bombers while they were rising to safe altitude, I don't think range was very important?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2009)

Sweb said:


> Ground effects. The F-100 was aerodynamically prone to it. If the nose was rotated slightly above "textbook" take-off restrictions it would float on a cushion of air it compressed between itself and the ground. Once there it was like rolling on a balloon and ultimately falling off. At that angle of attack the wing was not generating adequate lift nor was there enough power to horse it into flight.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOamnWpLtO8_




Sweb, I can't vouch for the authenticity of my statement, but it was told to me by a Nam vet who was a C130 driver. He claimed that video was from a maintenance SNAFU from improperly rigged ailerons. As the story went, he said the Huns original aileron rigging were equal length and they were cross-rigged. Post accident findings resulted in design guideline "best practices" to make all opposing flight control rigging of unequal length to prevent such Class A's from occuring in the future. If anyone has any info on the validity of this story, I would love to hear it. [FBJ?]


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Sweb, I can't vouch for the authenticity of my statement, but it was told to me by a Nam vet who was a C130 driver. He claimed that video was from a maintenance SNAFU from improperly rigged ailerons. As the story went, he said the Huns original aileron rigging were equal length and they were cross-rigged. Post accident findings resulted in design guideline "best practices" to make all opposing flight control rigging of unequal length to prevent such Class A's from occuring in the future. If anyone has any info on the validity of this story, I would love to hear it. [FBJ?]


Interesting info, never heard that but I wouldn't immediately dismiss it, I'll ask some old timers I know. I'll be in Ca next week by EDW.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2009)

Sweb said:


> Ground effects. The F-100 was aerodynamically prone to it. If the nose was rotated slightly above "textbook" take-off restrictions it would float on a cushion of air it compressed between itself and the ground. Once there it was like rolling on a balloon and ultimately falling off. At that angle of attack the wing was not generating adequate lift nor was there enough power to horse it into flight.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOamnWpLtO8_




I am not understanding this statement - all aircraft experience a boost in lift when approximately one wingspan of the ground, increasing as the distance to the ground is lower, due to the decrease in induced drag. This is not a phenomena peculiar to any single aircraft - you feel it in all aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> It was a treat to watch the F-106s take off at dawn or dusk. The afterburner was something.
> 
> Back at Griffiss AFB I built a 1/72 scale F-106 in 49th Markings. I have the kit and decals to do a 1/48th one. I love that plane! The only thing is I want to do the tail number for the one at the Air Force Museum. That is the one that the pilot ejected from in Montana. And the pilotless plane recovered from the flat spin and landed with little damage in the snow!
> 
> ...



I used to think the SR-71 was the loudest ever - but after being around the F-22 in March I have to wonder. I would be interested in the Db level for both in AB.

The F-22 made the F-15 sound like a fan in comparison in both AB take off and flyby


----------



## Butters (Apr 21, 2009)

The F-22's engines generate more than 35K lbs thrust each in AB. That's more than the static thrust of the SR-71's J-85's. 

I've read that the ramjet-bypass system of the SR-71 generated more thrust than the J-58s themselves at high speed. Does this mean that the Blackbird had more than 64,000 lbs thrust on tap at M.3+? I can't seem to find anything specific in regards to this.

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2009)

Butters said:


> The F-22's engines generate more than 35K lbs thrust each in AB. That's more than the static thrust of the SR-71's J-85's.


I think you meant J-58's


Butters said:


> I've read that the ramjet-bypass system of the SR-71 generated more thrust than the J-58s themselves at high speed. Does this mean that the Blackbird had more than 64,000 lbs thrust on tap at M.3+?


It did IMO.


Butters said:


> I can't seem to find anything specific in regards to this.
> 
> JL



And you probably wont!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2009)

The F-22 is exceptionally loud. In fact, the sound signature of the F-35 is being looked for a means of reducing it. The USAF has to address two major items regarding their latest stealth airframes:

First, being a good neighbor. Many US and foreign operating bases are surrounded by civvies that demand quiet. And the sound signatures of these aircraft are in the 190dB range.

Second, hearing problems with airmen are expensive in healthcare costs, unscheduled leave and funneling money to areas that would be more efficiently spent on the tip of the spear.

Regarding the J-58s, its turbine ramjet operation underlies it's limited dry thrust ratings. At ramjet speeds, it certainly was generating huge amounts of thrust that static operation of the turbine could never hope to achieve. I would love to hear a CFM quote of what volume of air is sucked into those engines per minute at Mach 3.6.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

How did the Delta Dart and Delta Dagger stand in comparison back in the day?


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2009)

Reading a book here about Draken. Now I wonder if not Luftwaffe and the Swiss airforces wouldn't have been better off with the upgraded Drakens....


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> How did the Delta Dart and Delta Dagger stand in comparison back in the day?



From what I have read, very well. The F-106 apparently had state of the art avionics and weapon system. But I did read a report from a British flight test pilot on exchange during the early 1960s. He too claimed the avionics/weapon system was fantastic, but I recall him noting the windshield splitter severely hampered visibility and the performance/handling was not even remotely comparable to the English Electric Lightning. Bias? Perhaps. But probably not. The report was commissioned for the USAF.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2009)

could the Lightning go out into the CADIZ as far as the 106


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2009)

Different mission.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Different mission.


nope exactly the same mission Bear hunting over the pond.


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2009)

Lightning hunting MUCH closer in rapid-response intercept. Dagger hunting much further out with over twice the range.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Lightning hunting MUCH closer in rapid-response intercept. Dagger hunting much further out with over twice the range.


Thats exactly the same mission except the 106 reacts much further out . The 106's stood the same 5 minute alert as the Lightnings


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2009)

Then we are in violent agreement. Mission profile is much different.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Then we are in violent agreement. Mission profile is much different.


how both aircraft are interceptors with the duty of intercepting targets over the ocean , the aircraft is a weapons platform for an anti bomber mission , its not dueling with other fighters during its period of operations . I believe the trick is to get the target as far away from your house as possible so they cant lob ASMs.


----------



## Waynos (May 6, 2009)

The Lightning was designed to defend the British isles from an incoming bomber stream by getting as high as possible as fast as possible with no consideration for range. It was a given that any incoming raid would be very close indeed to the coastline by the time interception could be carried out.

There was no need for it to stooge about over the Atlantic as the bombers would be coming from the other direction. Which is another reason it would need to turn rapidly, unlike the 106 which would take a missile shot while the bombers were still quite distant.

Its a similar argument to the one that says the Spitfire was inferior to the P-51 because it lacked range, despite the fact that for the mission the Spitfire was designed for range was not an issue, the RAF even asked for the Spitfire's internal fuel capacity to be reduced at the design stage. Not having an ability that was never asked for is not a failing.

A lot of research went into the aerodynamic shape of the Lightning, not just with the P.1 but also with the Short SB.5 and scale rocket powered models. different wing sweeps and profiles and different tail designs such as T-tail delta, mid mounted and the selected low mounted tail were all tested in a quest to find the best form for a manouverale high performance interceptor. This does not seem to have happened so much on US types were a plethora of prototypes could be afforded and the best selected.

I notice that the Lightning layout was never even tested by any other nation (the Su-7 looks close but is far different in reality) but was found to be the best in the UK research. This is an anomaly I have never really understood.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2009)

how these bombers getting to the UK wiithout hitting Norwegian, German , Danish or American on Iceland or any other countries air defence Radar . I maintain it was a good point defender but a poor interceptor due to its limited range . It was a magnificent airshow performer


----------



## Waynos (May 6, 2009)

Compared to something crossing the Atlantic, the distance involved in reaching the UK are very small. The RAF was DEPENDING on warnings from those stations to allow the Lightning to intercept at all.

"poor interceptor due to its limited range "

Range is not a requirement, as I said. Up off the ground and high into the sky in the shortest possible time is what a UK interceptor required. We even studied vertical launched rocket interceptors based on the same principle as the Bachem Natter, of which the Fairey FD.1 was designed to be a prototype, until someone suggested that this might be a step too far and the FD.1 just became a 'research' aircraft as we had already built it.


----------



## drgondog (May 6, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> How did the Delta Dart and Delta Dagger stand in comparison back in the day?



Simply - the 106 was a 'successful 102' .

The 102 did not (YF102) have the area rule fuselage. 

The F-102 did but the 106 incorporated design changes in length, inlet geometry, replaced leading edge slats with boundary layer control features, had a much more powerful engine.

Net - the 102A did 1.25M and initial climb of 13k/min
the 106 did 2.31+M and had an initial climb of 42K/m.

An F-15 had to be very careful regarding a knife fight against the 106. The F-102 could not 'knife fight' above mach one because of pitiful acceleration and climb.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Range is not a requirement, as I said. Up off the ground and high into the sky in the shortest possible time is what a UK interceptor required. .


I understand that the Lightning is near and dear to every Brit but jeez guys I'd much rather down my target with its nuke over the water . Thats why the Lightning was replaced by its contemporary the F4.


----------



## Waynos (May 6, 2009)

I am just saying what the requirement was when the Lightning was built. The RAF would have dearly loved to intercept the threat way out over the sea, many miles away from the UK, but the received wisdom was that when you are scrambling from the ground that is simply not going to happen, there is not enough time. 

If the RAF at that time had had the F-106 instead it would have made no difference at all to the intercept mission, its extra range would have been utterly pointless. It could not have intercepted further out because the enemy would already be on the doorstep. At least that was how the threat was percieved.

We later moved away from total reliance on that strategy and we saw F-4's and until recently Tornadoes with huge external tanks mounting standing CAP's that the Lightning was never required to carry out, in addition to the QRA role.

To be strictly correct the reason the Lightning was replaced by the F-4 was because the British govt cancelled or backed away from the Fairey Delta III, Hawker P.1121, Gloster Super Javelin (no great loss!) Avro Arrow, Saro P177, English Electric P.8, et al leaving us with no choice at all and precious little industry. But thats another story 

Oh yes, AND we ruined the F-4 by crowbarring Speys into it, ho hum.


----------



## Matt308 (May 11, 2009)

At least the Speys didn't smoke like a 3 penny whore. And I always liked the look of the radome you guys installed to house your radar.


----------

