Avionics & Performance
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #2
From what I've read about the performance, I would assume the Lightning would have the best acceleration but shorter range and about the same top-speed as the F-104's; the F-106A, from what I recall was slower than the previous two. As for the J-35: Some said it performed as well as the F-104, and others merely said that both could operate in the Mach 2+ range (with a way shorter takeoff run).
Avionics, I was told the F-106 was the best until it was basically retired, the lightning was said to be sophisticated by some, others described it as rather simple but had good human factors characteristics (HOTAS). The F-104G actually had a decent radar for interception from what I was told, the F-104A/C were fairly primitive and heavily dependent on SAGE.
I'm not sure how the J-35 compared in terms of onboard avionics but it did essentially profit from a very sophisticated datalink.
Anybody have anything that would provide more accurate data on the matter, provided it's not classified
G Glider
GrauGeist
X
XBe02Drvr
Avionics, I was told the F-106 was the best until it was basically retired, the lightning was said to be sophisticated by some, others described it as rather simple but had good human factors characteristics (HOTAS). The F-104G actually had a decent radar for interception from what I was told, the F-104A/C were fairly primitive and heavily dependent on SAGE.
I'm not sure how the J-35 compared in terms of onboard avionics but it did essentially profit from a very sophisticated datalink.
Anybody have anything that would provide more accurate data on the matter, provided it's not classified
G Glider
GrauGeist
X
XBe02DrvrThe early F104s, the Lightning, the MIG21, and the J35 were more or less contemporaries, were inspired by the advent of long range jet powered nuclear bombers, and were essentially point defense interceptors with a ME163-like mission profile.
The standout in this class, it seems to me, is the J35, with its STOL rough field capability (shared with the MIG), its ACM maneuverability (shared with the Lightning), its versatile avionics with ground attack capability, and its fuel capacity and flight endurance (shared with no others).
Given the technology of the time, interceptor designers tended to go with the "missile with a man in it" approach, resulting in clipped wing lawn darts like the MIG21 and F104.
The Swedes, OTOH, could only afford one aircraft type per generation and needed to defend their mountain kingdom from all potential adversaries, so they went with a radical airframe design and created a multi-talented interceptor.
When you get into the Mach 2 range, top speed doesn't really have much significance. What's far more important is the rate of acceleration getting there. By the time any of these aircraft (except the J35) have reached Mach 2 they're at bingo fuel. It's a long, slow, thirsty slog from .95 to 2.0, and the practical limit is not how fast your airframe will fly, but how long your canopy can stand the heat before melting.
The F104G was a politically driven unwise attempt to convert a lawn dart into a multi-role fighter, which resulted in too much fancy equipment being crammed into an airframe that wasn't suited to it to perform missions the airframe wasn't designed for. Result? Lots of dead Luftwaffe pilots. Lawn darts don't make good Close Air Support birds.
Cheers,
WES
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
I have to give the nod to the Lightning which for its time was sophisticated and had a blistering performance
There were a number of problems with the Lightning first prototype, the sort that the RAF were delighted to have:-
a) Roll rate had to be restricted to 180 deg/sec because of the pressure that built up in the fuel tanks. I have to admit that 180 sounds like a decent roll rate to me
b) Acceleration was rapid and care had to be taken until the pilot was used to it
c) Speed was such that flight limitations had to be increased to mach 1.3. and straight line acceleration had to be limited to 5g (subsonic) and 3g Supersonic. Now that's what I call acceleration
d) The rapid rate of climb was too much for the instruments which had to be replaced
What I find so impressive is that this first prototype didn't have afterburners
There were a number of problems with the Lightning first prototype, the sort that the RAF were delighted to have:-
a) Roll rate had to be restricted to 180 deg/sec because of the pressure that built up in the fuel tanks. I have to admit that 180 sounds like a decent roll rate to me
b) Acceleration was rapid and care had to be taken until the pilot was used to it
c) Speed was such that flight limitations had to be increased to mach 1.3. and straight line acceleration had to be limited to 5g (subsonic) and 3g Supersonic. Now that's what I call acceleration
d) The rapid rate of climb was too much for the instruments which had to be replaced
What I find so impressive is that this first prototype didn't have afterburners
- Thread starter
- #5
YesXBe02Drvr said:
Out of curiosity, how much fuel capacity did it have?
The Lightning probably had everybody beat in time to Mach 2.0, not sure how the J-35 and F-104 compared, I assume the F-106 didn't accelerate as fast (I do remember hearing something to the effect of 4 minutes to Mach 2.0, though I do not remember the exact details). I didn't know what aircraft had canopy failure issues other than the F-4...
But it's radar was decent...
I'm not sure how the capabilities of the radar ranked with other aircraft, but I do know human factors were excellent. The acceleration and climb were out of this world.Glider said:
I assume some of these issues were rectified?
Glider
Captain
I will do some research into the radar tomorrow but one of my favourite facts was the interception of a U2 at over 68000 ft by an F1 lightning in (I think) 1963. The biggest problem being that the U2 was so much slower.
They all did to a greater or lesser extent if they pushed the issue too much. Plexiglass is plexiglass is plexiglass, no matter what airframe you mount it on. I read somewhere that "A frame" canopies like F102, F106, Mig25, X15, SR71, etc were more resistant to this issue, though more restrictive to visibility from a combat standpoint.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #8
Why didn't they create a different form of glass?
They did, for the X15 and the SR71, but those aren't really practical for a mass produced combat aircraft. The trade-offs are visibility, durability, affordability, and availability of exotic materials. Those that exceeded the Mach 2.? limit for any length of time (X15, SR71, MiG25) all suffered from reduced all around visibility from the cockpit, that could be (and was for the MiG25) detrimental in a combat situation.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #10
True, but what you said about the MiG-21 largely has to do with the fact that the canopy appears small and isn't raised up much (so pretty poor visibility to the rear), the framing is a little bit large, but doesn't seem too bad.
The F-15 however was designed for the same top-end speed as the MiG-25 (you'd have to hit the VMax switch), the canopy was a bit weak, but they had proposed fixes. The problem wasn't the physical ability to fix it, but the lack of will to pay for it (the F-15 was very expensive, and already the subject of cuts).
Plexiglass isn't glass, it's a clear acrylic plastic.
But it's a thermoplastic, so no matter how thick you make it at some point it's going to be affected by aeroheating.
They've developed better thermoplastcs, as speeds increased , I'm sure.
