syscom3
Pacific Historian
There must have been valid reasons your govt didnt want the Lightning exported.
Cold War Intercept
- Thread starter plan_D
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
They sold them to the Saudis?!?!
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
the indian air force was interested but opted for mig21 but later there was allegations of bribary etc
here are some other interesting tid bits
There was the issue that such a powerful aircraft was something of a handful, with such unpleasant features as a high stall speed and a fast landing speed. It featured a drag chute to reduce the landing roll. Apparently the Lightning was sometimes known as the "Frightening", and it is a fact that only experienced pilots were assigned to fly the type, and then only after thorough qualification. That in itself enhanced the elite status of a posting to a Lightning squadron. Once mastered, however, the Lightning was a very rewarding ride. The accident rate was surprisingly low. The lion's share of the accidents were due to engine fires -- a nagging weakness of the Lightning -- not landing or other handling accidents.
The F.1 had significant weaknesses. One of the worst was an inadequate fuel supply and minimal endurance, a problem that would plague the Lightning through its entire life in spite of all attempts to fix it. For a time, Number 74 Squadron's F.1s were forced to fly without the ventral fuel pack while a bug was worked out, reducing them to (as was once said of another aircraft) "fighters for defense over the airfield beacon".
This was not a mere nicety, either, since if an F.3 missed its target on its first pass, it almost never had enough fuel to make a second attempt without topping off from a tanker, which would give an intruder plenty of time to get to its target and then depart.
While RAF pilots liked the Lightning, they weren't all that unhappy to see it go. It was a fantastic ride, but as a weapon system it was inadequate in both armament and endurance. Lightning pilots were said to be the last people in the world who would run out of gas while driving on a road trip, as checking fuel levels was an activity somewhat like breathing to them
www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html
still over all it was impressive
here are some other interesting tid bits
There was the issue that such a powerful aircraft was something of a handful, with such unpleasant features as a high stall speed and a fast landing speed. It featured a drag chute to reduce the landing roll. Apparently the Lightning was sometimes known as the "Frightening", and it is a fact that only experienced pilots were assigned to fly the type, and then only after thorough qualification. That in itself enhanced the elite status of a posting to a Lightning squadron. Once mastered, however, the Lightning was a very rewarding ride. The accident rate was surprisingly low. The lion's share of the accidents were due to engine fires -- a nagging weakness of the Lightning -- not landing or other handling accidents.
The F.1 had significant weaknesses. One of the worst was an inadequate fuel supply and minimal endurance, a problem that would plague the Lightning through its entire life in spite of all attempts to fix it. For a time, Number 74 Squadron's F.1s were forced to fly without the ventral fuel pack while a bug was worked out, reducing them to (as was once said of another aircraft) "fighters for defense over the airfield beacon".
This was not a mere nicety, either, since if an F.3 missed its target on its first pass, it almost never had enough fuel to make a second attempt without topping off from a tanker, which would give an intruder plenty of time to get to its target and then depart.
While RAF pilots liked the Lightning, they weren't all that unhappy to see it go. It was a fantastic ride, but as a weapon system it was inadequate in both armament and endurance. Lightning pilots were said to be the last people in the world who would run out of gas while driving on a road trip, as checking fuel levels was an activity somewhat like breathing to them
www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html
still over all it was impressive
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Nice info. I've always suspected that its fuel load was the achillies heel of the aircraft.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Interesting indeed. Thanks for the link.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not the performer like the Lightning, the Saab Draken was (is) the same way. At Mojave Airport is located the National Test Pilot's School, a civilian training center. I know the owers personally, Shawn and Nadia Roberts. They operate several Drakens used for test pilot training. These things go like bats out of hell but could only stay in the air about 1/2 hour if you're lucky.....
http://www.ntps.edu/HTML/Aircraft/
http://www.ntps.edu/HTML/Aircraft/
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
the way the swedish were set up with highways used a rwys with hard shelters like nato but the swedes didn't stray very far the 35 was probably a good choice
Nonskimmer
Captain
Another good link. Thanks Joe.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
No Sweat NS - Had I'd stayed in California I hoped to be a primary instructor there....
plan_D said:
Cool thanks for the info. You learn something knew every day here.
- Thread starter
- #191
pbfoot, your attempts to belittle the Lightning are futile. My father refers to the Lightning as the "Frightening" - it was it's nickname. Why? Because it was fast and scary, extremely dangerous to the enemy. Plus, it rhymes with the Lightning - I know, we really are that inventive.
There is no problem with having a drag chute on landing, and while the landing speed was high - pilots were trained well. All fighter pilots have to be properly trained in "their" aircraft. Even in World War II - pilots transferring from one plane to another were best served to have flight time in their new aircraft in training before taking it out for a "spin".
There's no surprise in the low accident rate, it was a nice aircraft to fly and the pilots were trained. And in all my fathers years with the Lightnings, he only ever saw one have an engine fire while in the air and it made it down safely.
The range of the Lightning was not a problem for it's purpose, and the F.6 Lightning had an added ventral fuel tank which increased it's range still further. 400 miles is enough of a distance to be there, especially because it's up first before anyone else.
And that last statement is downright bullsh*t - everyone involved with the Lightning, and even those that weren't, were sad to see it go. The pilots loved the Lightning more than anything else they might have flown. It was sorely missed, and the last airshow at Binbrook brought tears to many people's eyes. Every station in Britain had a final flypast of the Lightning - and it was sad time for the entire RAF.
As a weapon's system the Lightning was fine. It was a point interceptor. It was designed to be there first while everything else took it's time to get in the air.
And the reason Britain sold Saudi Arabia Lightnings is because the Lightnings we sold were worn out and old. We gave them a shine, added hard-points then called old F.3s, F.53s - then we bribed the Saudi diplomats into buying them ...because they knew the F.3 was old. And the airframes we were selling were worn out. No where near the capability of the newer F.6 Lightnings - which had properly trained RAF mechanics keeping them in tip-top shape.
There is no problem with having a drag chute on landing, and while the landing speed was high - pilots were trained well. All fighter pilots have to be properly trained in "their" aircraft. Even in World War II - pilots transferring from one plane to another were best served to have flight time in their new aircraft in training before taking it out for a "spin".
There's no surprise in the low accident rate, it was a nice aircraft to fly and the pilots were trained. And in all my fathers years with the Lightnings, he only ever saw one have an engine fire while in the air and it made it down safely.
The range of the Lightning was not a problem for it's purpose, and the F.6 Lightning had an added ventral fuel tank which increased it's range still further. 400 miles is enough of a distance to be there, especially because it's up first before anyone else.
And that last statement is downright bullsh*t - everyone involved with the Lightning, and even those that weren't, were sad to see it go. The pilots loved the Lightning more than anything else they might have flown. It was sorely missed, and the last airshow at Binbrook brought tears to many people's eyes. Every station in Britain had a final flypast of the Lightning - and it was sad time for the entire RAF.
As a weapon's system the Lightning was fine. It was a point interceptor. It was designed to be there first while everything else took it's time to get in the air.
And the reason Britain sold Saudi Arabia Lightnings is because the Lightnings we sold were worn out and old. We gave them a shine, added hard-points then called old F.3s, F.53s - then we bribed the Saudi diplomats into buying them ...because they knew the F.3 was old. And the airframes we were selling were worn out. No where near the capability of the newer F.6 Lightnings - which had properly trained RAF mechanics keeping them in tip-top shape.
I have always stated that the Lightning was a great plane. It is just not my favorite. I also still think that there were interceptors that were better depending on the role they were performing.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i think in it's day it was the best and one of the best of all times.........
I would say from the 1950's-1970's yes it was the best.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
please read the last line of my post these are not my views but some other guys in the website I'll still say the thing had no legs which is a huge disadvantage for an interceptor and your raf ground crews are good keeping any aircraft as complex as a interceptor airborne particularly 20- 30 years ago was a labour intensive endeavour I know in the caf the maintainers shifts lasted until all were servicableplan_D said:
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
firstly if you mean the Canadian AF it's the RCAF, and secondly the RCAF didn't operate the lightening so what're you on about?
not really, summit's picked up on RADAR, an intercepter's sent up to greet it, once the threat's dealt with come back to land, it's pretty much straight up and straight down again, it's what intercepters are designed for!
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
it is not the rcaf and hasn't been since 1968 further i was complimenting the raf guys for keeping a complex early interceptor airborne its a tough job I almost bet that if you could get 2-3 launches out of any early interceptor without a snag or 2 it was a good day and i think you'll find an intercept was more complex then pointing the a/c at the target the gci guys have to sort out targets from decoys there is ecm involved and the lightning for all its attributes did not have good range
Glider
Captain
FJ the F35 is one of my favourites. There was one version which had a more powerful engine but they didn't do anything about the amount of fuel it could carry. As a result, in certain conditions it could still be accelerating when the fuel ran out, a scary thought.
Man Lanc even I could figure out what pbfoot was talking about.
- Thread starter
- #200
The Lightning didn't need a long range, it was stationed in Britain and Germany. Both areas of operation for the Lightning were small, and it was clearly a defensive fighter. The range was never a problem that hampered the ability of the Lightning as a point defence interceptor. It followed the same defensive attitude that the RAF had for decades before with the Spitfire, short range but excellent ability.
The RAF ground crews were/are good. The Lightning never landed without a snag but most were just minor problems, that would still let it fly in desperate situations. In the Gulf, RAF Chinooks were flying with many faults. If they weren't making the flight unsafe, they let it go.
The Lightning did have short range, but it didn't need long range. It wasn't an escort fighter or anything.
The Lightning was maintenance intensive, but the RAF ground crews kept them flying all the time because they were well trained. It doesn't matter how hard something is to fly or fix as long as people are trained properly on them.
The Lightning had a high stall speed, and a high landing speed but the RAF pilots were trained. They knew the capability and inability of the Lightning. The Lightning only had two speeds, fast and stop ...and the RAF pilots knew it.
But all the "problems" of the Lightning don't defeat the fact that it was the best interceptor on the planet for decades. And even today would be hard to beat to target.
The RAF ground crews were/are good. The Lightning never landed without a snag but most were just minor problems, that would still let it fly in desperate situations. In the Gulf, RAF Chinooks were flying with many faults. If they weren't making the flight unsafe, they let it go.
The Lightning did have short range, but it didn't need long range. It wasn't an escort fighter or anything.
The Lightning was maintenance intensive, but the RAF ground crews kept them flying all the time because they were well trained. It doesn't matter how hard something is to fly or fix as long as people are trained properly on them.
The Lightning had a high stall speed, and a high landing speed but the RAF pilots were trained. They knew the capability and inability of the Lightning. The Lightning only had two speeds, fast and stop ...and the RAF pilots knew it.
But all the "problems" of the Lightning don't defeat the fact that it was the best interceptor on the planet for decades. And even today would be hard to beat to target.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
