The best fighter of the 1950's.

[Lucky13]

I have to agree, if longevity was the only rule of thumb to judge military hardware, then the best ship in the world would be the HMS Victory (251 years old).

What about Regalskeppet Wasa in Stockholm, she's from 1628 which make her 381 years young!
Yes, I know that she did sink on her maiden voyage.....

 

[timshatz]

What about Regalskeppet Wasa in Stockholm, she's from 1628 which make her 381 years young!
Yes, I know that she did sink on her maiden voyage.....

I dunno on that one. I think once there is more water over your bridge than under your keel, you kinda lose the arguement about being an effective warship

 

[Lucky13]

I dunno on that one. I think once there is more water over your bridge than under your keel, you kinda lose the arguement about being an effective warship

What ya mean losing the argument of being a effective warship? Look at how efficient she was on her maiden voyage, she sank!
Ask any enemy, if that isn't the most efficient of all ships, those that do that....

You should visit her in Stockholm in her muesum, well worth it.... 8)

 

[timshatz]

What ya mean losing the argument of being a effective warship? Look at how efficient she was on her maiden voyage, she sank!
Ask any enemy, if that isn't the most efficient of all ships, those that do that....

You should visit her in Stockholm in her muesum, well worth it.... 8)

I've heard it's a very nice exhibit. Also that if she'd been two feet wider, she wouldn't have rolled over and sank.

Stockholm is on my list of places to see before I die. Sounds like a fun place.

 

[Lucky13]

During the summer it's MAGIC man! Lived there for 7 years before I moved up north to Östersund and later Glasgow. Been there plenty of times, Old Town is a must with it small pubs and cafés...8)

 

[Venganza]

Try to think here fellas, none of the crates on this list is missiles only, or am I wrong?

In the 1950's, the F-106 was all-missile. I believe later they had the ability to carry a Vulcan cannon (already alluded to in this thread), but in the 1950's I don't think they had that capability.

Venganza

 

[Soren]

I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.

 

[drgondog]

I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.

Personally, I think it would have been the best choice for US. The USAF went 'astray' when missles clouded judgement regarding how air supremacy was to be achieved - and the systems (fire control and missle guidance/fusing) did not live up to expectations - leaving the 'missle carier' few options.

Credit Robin Olds and Bob Titus for carrying the message back to the Pentagon and driving not only the F4-E but also energizing John Boyd's 'anarchy' at the Pentagon - resulting in the F-16 and F-15.

That the 105 was leading killer of MiGs in VN was a credit to the M-61 and USAF pilots learning to not tangle in a turning game... which they learned quickly.

Joe Baugher's site is the best on the F-106 development challenges and Venganza is correct about the Gun mod not being installed until the experience in VietNam indicated a gun could be useful


Convair F-106A Delta Dart


Soren - Many of the 1967 losses (and beyond) were NVA skill at manuevering their MiGs in Cloud cover to a six o'clock position on 105s (and F-4B/C) striking NV before we had any really effective AWACS to warn them.

First awareness was often an Atoll hitting you from behind.

So, in my opinion the Lightning would have been the best 'escort' and air superiority fighter of the VietNam war.

I chose the F-106 (when avionics finally matured and for models equipped with Vulcan kit) but my close second was the Lightning, then MiG 21.

Absent gun and -17 engines, the 106 IMO was inferior to the Lightning.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.

Not well IMO - remember, political leaders placed "rules of engagement" requirements on fighters and sometimes they would have to have a visual on their target. The Lightning was fast as hell but was not maneuverable and aircraft like the MiG-17 would have had a field day with her had she got into a turning fight. In the vertical the Lightning would have had the advantage and I also think one on one against the MiG-21 would have done well. Another negative was her range; I don't think the Lightning had long legs.

 

[drgondog]

Not well IMO - remember, political leaders placed "rules of engagement" requirements on fighters and sometimes they would have to have a visual on their target. The Lightning was fast as hell but was not maneuverable and aircraft like the MiG-17 would have had a field day with her had she got into a turning fight. In the vertical the Lightning would have had the advantage and I also think one on one against the MiG-21 would have done well. Another negative was her range; I don't think the Lightning had long legs.

It's funny Joe - I went through the same checklist you just presented. The reason I concluded it would have done well was that the Lightning pilot would also figure out that turning was not the best place to use its' performance attributes - but like the F-4 it owned the vertical and accleration and had the choice of guns or missles at all times.

What I don't know however was whether the Lightning had refueling capability - if not it simply would not have been a good fit - even from Ubon or Takhli.

Virtually most of the 105s and F-4s had to hook up to get home from Route Pack 6

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's funny Joe - I went through the same checklist you just presented. The reason I concluded it would have done well was that the Lightning pilot would also figure out that turning was not the best place to use its' performance attributes - but like the F-4 it owned the vertical and accleration and had the choice of guns or missles at all times.

What I don't know however was whether the Lightning had refueling capability - if not it simply would not have been a good fit - even from Ubon or Takhli.

Virtually most of the 105s and F-4s had to hook up to get home from Route Pack 6

I don't know if the Lightning had air-to-air refueling capability, but the "built in" cannons would have made a huge difference.

I read somewhere that during NATO games, F-5s from Holland and Norway would have a field day with the Lightning when she played in their back yard.

 

[Soren]

I have to agree with Bill, the Lightning does seem like the ideal choice for the USAF during the Vietnam war as an escort and air superiority fighter. It would need to either carry some drop tanks or get refueld by air for every mission nearly though.

As for the Lightning's turn performance, it was one of the best turn fighters of 1960's jets according to Roland Beamont the chief test pilot of the a/c, being able to outturn the Mirage I with ease.

But the Lightning was such a fast climber that it didn't have to turn with the slow MIG-17's, it could simply B&Z fight them, like the Fw-190 did the Spitfire.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have to agree with Bill, the Lightning does seem like the ideal choice for the USAF during the Vietnam war as an escort and air superiority fighter.

As for the Lightning's turn performance, it was the best turn fighter of 1960's jets according to Roland Beamont the chief test pilot of the a/c, being able to outturn the Mirage I.

Eh, I don't thing Beau made that statement at the time of the Vietnam War. I know the F-5 could turn circles around the Ligntning as well as the MiG-17, 19 and probably 21.

 

[Soren]

The F-5 Tiger ? It's got a wing loading of somewhere between 500 to 600 kg/m^2, and the climb rate is lower than that of the Lightning.

I think the fact that the Lightning has been compared to the F-15 says it all really.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F-5 Tiger ? It's got a wing loading of somewhere between 500 to 600 kg/m^2, and the climb rate is lower than that of the Lightning.

No F-5As, check out their turning performance at about 450 knots, They ate the Lightning for lunch!

I think the fact that the Lightning has been compared to the F-15 says it all really.

In climb performance and radar capability, aside from that it couldn't turn and wasn't designed to do so. And it's combat range? About 800 miles.

 

[Soren]

No F-5As, check out their turning performance at about 450 knots, They ate the Lightning for lunch!

Hmm.. well wing loading is far from all there is to turn performance, available thrust is just as important, and the lightning as plenty of that. I suspect that the Lightning will simply power itself through turns that a/c with a lighter wing-loading can't even perform.

In climb performance and radar capability, aside from that it couldn't turn and wasn't designed to do so. And it's combat range? About 800 miles.

It couldn't turn ? I beg to differ!

"The late Roland Beamont (Lightning development-programme chief test pilot), after flying most of the 2nd Generation Century series US fighters of that era, made it clear that in his opinion, nothing at that time had the inherent stability and control and docile handling characteristics of the P1 series prototypes and Lightning derivatives throughout the full flight envelope. Its turn performance and buffet boundaries were well in advance of anything known to him, the Mirage 1 included. This remained so right up until the next generation of fighter/interceptors was developed worldwide, with underbelly intakes and straked leading edges, or canards.
"

 

[Soren]

The F-5A was compared to the MIG-21 in terms of flying characteristics, and AFAIK that a/c wasn't a great turner.

When fitted for combat I'm pretty sure the F-5A wasn't such a splendid turner.

 

[red admiral]

Wing loading isn't the whole story. Rapid changes in direction means rapid acceleration and high thrust/weight ratios. The drag rises with the square of the lift coefficient and when you're banked over hard you need large amounts of lift from the wings. Because of this you need large amounts of thrust to pull hard turns and maintain/gain altitude. The fast role rate and large amounts of excess thrust makes the Lightning very maneuverable. Twin Adens and Firestreak missiles give reasonable armament against all targets.

Range plagued the Lightning (and most of the other period fighters) when it wasn't performing intercept missions, but for rapid acceleration to Mach 2 and 50,000ft to shoot down incoming nuclear armed bombers its the best available.

 

[Soren]

Exactly. That is the reason for why the Lightning was considered such a great turn fighter, it simply powered itself through extremely tight turns that other low wing loading a/c couldn't perform.

Today most fighters are also designed to have a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1:1 as that means much greater maneuverability at all speeds, esp. in turn performance. With a T/W ratio greater than 1:1 wing loading generally doesn't make much difference.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hmm.. well wing loading is far from all there is to turn performance, available thrust is just as important, and the lightning as plenty of that. I suspect that the Lightning will simply power itself through turns that a/c with a lighter wing-loading can't even perform.

It couldn't turn ? I beg to differ!


"The late Roland Beamont (Lightning development-programme chief test pilot), after flying most of the 2nd Generation Century series US fighters of that era, made it clear that in his opinion, nothing at that time had the inherent stability and control and docile handling characteristics of the P1 series prototypes and Lightning derivatives throughout the full flight envelope. Its turn performance and buffet boundaries were well in advance of anything known to him, the Mirage 1 included. This remained so right up until the next generation of fighter/interceptors was developed worldwide, with underbelly intakes and straked leading edges, or canards.
"

Soren, I saw that on Wiki, - do the math on the Lightning and the F-5 at about 450 knots - speeds at which the F-5 and MiG-17 excelled. The F-5E had an even tighter radius than the A (I got it backwards). Beau may of had that opinion but the exact opposite occured during NATO exersizes. Even our own "Plan D" spoke of the Lightning getting wooped by F-5s as his dad worked on them.

Later model Lightnings had better turn performance (I believe the F6) but in the end they were designed as a high speed interceptor designed to shoot down Soviet bombers.

In the vertical or straight out zoom, almost nothing was going to touch the Lightning, once it started turning it placed itself at a disadvantage.

"Despite its acceleration, altitude and top speed, the Lightning found itself outclassed by newer fighters in terms of radar, avionics, weapons load, range, and air-to-air capability. More of a problem was the obsolete avionics and weapons fit, particularly the 30 mile (very short) range 1950s radar sets: the avionics were never upgraded in RAF service since Lightnings were always supposedly just about to be replaced by something better."

English Electric Lightning: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article