pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
The same problem was also present in those F 86's with the 20mm cannon in Korea
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The same problem was also present in those F 86's with the 20mm cannon in Korea. One problem I heard about that was trying to be fixed when I worked next door to Vought at Temco was that when the guns were fired the engine flamed out. .
I have now uncovered the Beaumont book I referred to previously. Here is the report I was referring to earlier in support of the Lightning.
Also in the same chapter Beaumont writes "the Lightning was likely to remain superior (to the F-106) on many counts. These included acceleration and time to altitude, and hard turning capability and sustained g at all altitudes due to the Lightnings low tailplane configuration which produced significantly less lift-loss and induced drag in the turn than the all-elevon wing of the F-106"
"Of the first three generations of subsonic, transonic and mach 2 capable jet fighters the North American F-86 Sabre was undoubtedly the classic of the first era. The English Electric Lightning will always be held, by its pilots at least, to be the finest of the first mach 2 fighters, the F-106 and Mirage running it in all departments except combat manoeuvrability in which the Lightning was supreme " (my emphasis)
I don't know why the middle page came out smaller when all I did was press 'scan' three times?
Great post Waynos!
This pretty much confirms my guesses.
Gotta love the Lightning, a spectacular a/c for its time, the best fighter in the world during that period IMO.
I don't understand how you can doubt its turning performance at altitude FLYBOYJ, what is the reason behind your doubts ?
According to Beaumont the Lightning was clearly a much better turn fighter than the F-106 Mirage, and it climbed accelerated much faster as-well.
But it's not just Beaumont FLYBOYJ, it's also Capt. Dan Schuyller who it seems did fly the F-106.
I dunno wether Beaumont flew the F-106, but since he makes a comparison between the two I would assume he did.
One opinion from an exchange pilot. No indication on how many hours he had in the -106 or if he was even really qualified to give a full assessment of either aircraft. Had the article stated Schuyller's hours, training, time in both aircraft and if he any experience as a test pilot, his statement would catch my interest more. Again, show me the -1 for both aircraft and we might be able to determine how both aircraft would have performed at altitude.Yes but Schuyller later states than the Lightning was the most combat maneuverable Mach 2 fighter in the world at the time.
That's what I'm looking for.Yes, Beamont did fly the 106 as well as the F-102A, F-101 AND F-104. The flight test reports are contained in chapter 5 "Testing 2nd Generation American Jet Fighters, 1958" which is the same chapter that Dan Schuyllers report is taken from and is a direct comparison between these aircraft and the Lightning.
Part of this report states that "Performance, which during the climb phase promises well, is disappointing at altitude and, as measured, does not approach the standard at present achieved with the P.1B series"
a little further down the page he reflects " on the way back to the UK it was pleasant to reflect that in the Lightning it was now clear that the RAF had a fighter which could handle anything in the USAF's inventory up to and including the F-106"
I am conscious that this is now starting to resemble a hatchet job on the F-106 from me so I want to point out that Beamont was very fulsome in his praise of the F-106 thoughout the five pages in the book that this report covers, he just felt that the Lightning, in terms of performance, was better.
What the whole report? It basically gives all the figures for the F-106 recorded on that particular test flight interspersed with Bea's judgement ie the weapons system was better than on the Lightning, the handling was excellent, the Lightning was easier to fly and was faster, more manoeuvrable etc. Is that what you want scanning? Or do you mean something else?
So do we have a settlement ?
Read the article, Schuyller makes only one reference to the 106. The only other comparisons were between the F-86 and F-101.
Notivce he mentions the turning ability of the F-86 and the power of the F-101, a much larger fighter. He does not mention the performance of either, but id clearly highly impressed with the manouverability. Exactly what words were used and not used can be analysed to death but the meaning is clear.
Oh, and was that sarcasm I detected?
That's what I call "thread dedication!"I was just a bit shocked at the prospect of scanning and uploading 5 pages of a book at 3 am, but don't mind me