Could she really achieve 60,000ft in just over a minute. That seems a bit high.
Weird World War 2 Facts
- Thread starter Smokey
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
cheddar cheese
Major General
I believe it.
Actually you are right I just looked it up myself and it says 50,000ft per min initial climb rate.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:So then what would be the Absolute Cieleings?
Many aircraft manufacturers won'tpost that. WHY? Because folks will try to fly it! Case in point - Very recently two commuter pilots took a Bombardier RJ up to it's max service ceiling. Within 5 minutes at 42,000 the aircraft experienced a double flame out. These guys crashed and died. I think it's in the NTSB blotter.
This is your brain. This is your brain at max service ceiling
Well yeah I can understand that but you would think for the old WW2 aircraft and such that wuold be known.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Hmmm, lets see, brains, speed and altitiude. I guys those idiots had 2 out of three!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep- I think sometimes the numbers are published, mainly in recip aircraft, they are a bit more forgiving at their absolute altitude.Jets are not fun when they flame out and airstarts, if successful usually mean hot section inspections at a minimum!
evangilder
"Shooter"
Very dangerous position to be in. I have seen it on numerous occasions. They have all been "sphincter tinglers"
Glider
Captain
I am not familiar with the phrase super cruise, but the lightning could go supersonic without using afterburner if that is what you mean by supercruise. This doesn't mean that it could be considered a cruise speed which I think most people would consider to be a speed that could be maintained for a considerable time. 0.87 sounds about right for a true cruise speed.
The extra thrust without going to afterburner was sometimes used to give the aircraft acceleration and regain energy without draining the tanks dry which was sometimes the only option with other planes of the era.
The lightning had a number of other firsts for which it wasn't given credit for. The Red Top guided missile was the first Infa Red missile that had a head on (or all aspect) capability which is a significant tactical advantage.
The radar was also unusually automated for the time which also helped.
The climb rate of 60,000ft/min is accurate and it was interesting when Phantoms took on Lightnings in exercises as USA Phantom pilots tended to go vertical which didn't work against the Lightning.
One quirk was that when fitted with drop tanks they were above the wing not below. The range was poor but no worse than the F104, Mirage or Mig 21 which were its main rivals. F4's could of course go a lot further.
The lightning could almost the a contender for the best plane that never sold in signifiant numbers award.
The extra thrust without going to afterburner was sometimes used to give the aircraft acceleration and regain energy without draining the tanks dry which was sometimes the only option with other planes of the era.
The lightning had a number of other firsts for which it wasn't given credit for. The Red Top guided missile was the first Infa Red missile that had a head on (or all aspect) capability which is a significant tactical advantage.
The radar was also unusually automated for the time which also helped.
The climb rate of 60,000ft/min is accurate and it was interesting when Phantoms took on Lightnings in exercises as USA Phantom pilots tended to go vertical which didn't work against the Lightning.
One quirk was that when fitted with drop tanks they were above the wing not below. The range was poor but no worse than the F104, Mirage or Mig 21 which were its main rivals. F4's could of course go a lot further.
The lightning could almost the a contender for the best plane that never sold in signifiant numbers award.
- Thread starter
- #51
From Thunder Lightnings http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html
Is this true?
Is this true?
evangilder
"Shooter"
Having worked around that stuff in the air force, I kind of doubt it. The reason is that it only had a 50 mile range, so the power coming out of the feedhorn should not have been that hot. But the sentence is worded oddly, so it may mean that it could get 50 miles through jamming. Now if that is the case, I can believe it. Standing in front of it would have been dangerous for anyone or anything on the ground.
But I do have a question. Where did they mount that gear and more importantly, where did they mount the radar antenna? Couldn't have been in the nose.
But I do have a question. Where did they mount that gear and more importantly, where did they mount the radar antenna? Couldn't have been in the nose.
I believe it was placed in a cone in the inlet.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Hmm, didn't know that. I would think vibration and possible heat might cause problems with that. But then again, I only worked on the ground based stuff.
I might be wrong, I am just going off of what I read in the last few minutes through a search.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Smokey said:
TRUE - I read te MIG-25's Radar could do the same!
How effective was the Mig-25's radar. How far out could it detect enemy aircraft and such not.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In it's day it was the most powerful airborne radar. I'm not in a position to post stats (traveling again for work) but I've read this on several occasions.
I also have heard the same as you are stating it was built to combat the high flyng US spy planes and such not.
