Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

• Jan 8, 2005

• #81

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

In the QRH two Lightnings were kept but were not warmed up. I can ask my dad about it all since he worked in there. The scramble would be given, the pilot rush out, the technicians strap him in pull away the ladder.
And as GrG quite rightly said "Press a button, flip a switch, the engines are on. Drop flaps, apply trim, open throttle, and you're off!" And was it ever, he'd be hurtling down the runway and bang that nose up vertical. From scramble call it would take a minute to have both Lightnings in the air.

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #82

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

yes just trust us RG, i've seen a video of a lighning at takeoff, and it DOES accellerate very quickly, and as has been said, goes straight into a vertical climb for several thousand feet, no piston engined aircraft can go from take off to into a vertical climb for 10,000ft and not loose any major ammount of speed...............

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #83

evangilder

"Shooter"

19,049

208

Sep 17, 2004

Moorpark, CA

www.vg-photo.com

No piston warbird can do a vertical climb from the ground to 10,000 feet. There might be some aerobatics airplanes have a very light fuselage and might be able to, but no piston powered warbirds could.

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #84

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Ill give it a try in the PZL P.11, it takes off a bit quicker than you might think...

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #85

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

It may takeoff quickly. But its rate of climb would be far to slow. I think most likely you would merely stall and crash.

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #86

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

wouldn't mind giving it a go in a lyslander

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #87

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

I think you'd reach a similar end in the Lysander. As impressive as its STO capability was, it still lack the power and acceleration to maintain a vertical climb. You might be able to make it to vertical, stall, and still regain flying speed before you crash.

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #88

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

perhaps you're missing the point, it was british!!!

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #89

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

I could do it in the Wright flyer...

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #90

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Bollocks, that thing stalls when you try to turn...



Twelve whole horsepower isn't quite enough for a vertical climb...


__________/\... BOOM! (That would be the flight pattern, a long roll, a quick climb, a stall, and a dive resulting in a crash...)

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #91

redcoat

Senior Airman

468

77

Nov 20, 2004

Stockport

I went to the Woodford airshow in the 80's, and I saw 3 EE Lightnings do a quick take off in formation and a vertical climb.... I'm not a fan of jets, but it impressed me....
Mind you, I was slightly deaf for a few days afterwards

 

• Jan 8, 2005

• #92

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

A jet could do it. And even the number of jets that could do it would be rather limited. And many of those jets could only do it in a clean configuration. I just don't think a piston-engined aircaft would have the speed/power needed.

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• #93

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

a piston wouldn't have a chance in a straight up vertical climb, only a small handfull of jets had the pure power to do it, especially in the 60s.............

interestingly the vulcan could also go straight up into a vertical climb from a take off, although obviously for not as long as the lightening...............

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• Thread starter
• #94

A

Anonymous

Guest

The Bearcat could not go "strait up", but it could (in later models) maintain something around 6500 feet per minute right off the ground. I.e., that's not a "zoom" climb.

The Lighting could do 30,000 fpm in the earlier versions, 50,000 in the later versions. The Phantom could do 70,000 fpm, and I believe the F15 is faster than that!

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• #95

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

but i don't believe the phantom could sustain a vertical climb from take off as long as the lightening.............

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• #96

evangilder

"Shooter"

19,049

208

Sep 17, 2004

Moorpark, CA

www.vg-photo.com

I agree Lanc, the Phantom is probably considerably heavier too. The fpm measurment is okay, but it doesn't tell how long that climb rate can be maintained. Weight and drag are going to effect it.

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• #97

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

not to mention the fact that the lightening did it in far more style............

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• #98

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

GermansRGeniuses said:

Bollocks, that thing stalls when you try to turn...



Twelve whole horsepower isn't quite enough for a vertical climb...


__________/\... BOOM! (That would be the flight pattern, a long roll, a quick climb, a stall, and a dive resulting in a crash...)

Click to expand...

But it was very light...

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• #99

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

and i've been reading about it and it was extremely advanced.................

 

• Jan 9, 2005

• #100

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Yep, if the British had it in 1066 the Frenchies might not have made it onto our turf Emphasis on "might" there