syscom3
Pacific Historian
The Lightning had the shortest time from engine start to target acquisition and missle launch.
Jet fighters/interceptors of the sizzling 60's?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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
- Thread starter
- #23
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
If that's not the case then gentlemen, which was fastest up to intercept?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Lightning.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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
1st Lieutenant
intercept what and where and how high
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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
Pacific Historian
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #30
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
From a standing start to 50,000 feet the Lightning was unsurpassed, period. It was able to out climb every interceptor in its day.
- Thread starter
- #32
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Does that include others as well, with twin engines?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes....
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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
Pacific Historian
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
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/cold-war-intercept-2542.html
- Thread starter
- #36
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
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?
), 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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.If the Lightning was/is as fast as you maintain (bare with me here
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.
- Thread starter
- #38
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Did they also have the best radar as well then, the Lightning?
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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
Pacific Historian
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.
