Well if that is true about the 101 and the Lightning then I have learned something today!
Your favorite post-war aircraft
- Thread starter JCS
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
An observation but we might have a difference of view as to what Supercruise is. I am confident that the Lightning was the first aircraft to go supersonic without using the afterburner. That could well be different from a cruise speed that can be kept up for a length of time. Two Avon's on full dry power will use a fair amount of juice and the Lightning didn't carry that much to start with.
Supercruise would imply to me that the aircraft can maintain this for a decent period and I would expect that to be only achieved by a more modern aircraft such as the F15/F16 or failing that the F22.
I admit to knowing little about the F101 but I would be surprised if it could go supersonic without the afterburner. Its power to weight ratio is nothing special, good yes but not out of the ordinary. In addition it carried a lot of fuel and a fair amount of equipment and I don't believe that technology existed at that time to carry the weight to that level of performance.
Also on a pratical/Political level if the USAF had such a special performance why did they to purchase the F4 which was a Naval aircraft. They would have just developed the F101.
PB I was at Fairford this year and there was a bit of a stir when they had to clear part of the display, because the Rafael had developed a serious fuel leak causing some embarrassment to the French people on site.
Supercruise would imply to me that the aircraft can maintain this for a decent period and I would expect that to be only achieved by a more modern aircraft such as the F15/F16 or failing that the F22.
I admit to knowing little about the F101 but I would be surprised if it could go supersonic without the afterburner. Its power to weight ratio is nothing special, good yes but not out of the ordinary. In addition it carried a lot of fuel and a fair amount of equipment and I don't believe that technology existed at that time to carry the weight to that level of performance.
Also on a pratical/Political level if the USAF had such a special performance why did they to purchase the F4 which was a Naval aircraft. They would have just developed the F101.
PB I was at Fairford this year and there was a bit of a stir when they had to clear part of the display, because the Rafael had developed a serious fuel leak causing some embarrassment to the French people on site.
Very good point there glider.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
the f 4 was more multi role intercepter air superiority recce .... the 101 never flew as intended long range escort had no external weapons capability that i'm aware just wasn't as mission capable as f4
The thing I will always remember the F4 the most is the Wild Weasel role.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
After the F4 was being deployed by the USAF, the F101 was swicthed to the recon role, where it had some level of success.
Of course once there were enough F4's available, then they took over that duty as well.
Of course once there were enough F4's available, then they took over that duty as well.
The P.1A prototype of the Lightning achieved Mach 1 without after-burner but the production Lightnings could not. They were much heavier than the P.1A and P.1B prototypes. I must add that the P.1A did not have Rolls Royce Avon engines, it achieved Mach 1 without afterburners with Siddeley Sapphire engines.
The F-101 (Mach 1.87) was much slower than the F.6 Lightning (Mach 2.3), and while I do not know the cruise speed of the F-101, I do know the Lightning cruised at Mach 0.87.
The F-22 is the first production aircraft to achieve super-cruise, just like the F-15 was the first production aircraft to achieve a greater thrust:weight ratio throughout it's flight.
No, pbfoot, Lightnings did not leak while on the ground. Any leak, on any aircraft, is dangerous. I do not know how Canadian or U.S forces work, and honestly I don't know how British forces work deep down these days, but I've asked my dad about leaks on all the aircraft he's worked on and it's always the same answer; "If it's leaking it's not flying, and if it's leaking on the ground it's priority for maintenance," And he knows what he's talking about.
The F-101A carried four M-39 20mm revolver cannon as standard, this could be supplemented by three Falcon air-to-air missiles in internal bays. The F-101B carried three AIM-4D Falcons internally and two AIR-2A Genie air-to-air missiles under the fuselage.
While the F-101 seems decent enough as an early type aircraft which evolved into a good enough interceptor, it wasn't as good as the Lightning.
--------------
I have just read that the Lightning did see action albeit only against groud forces. In a border clash between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Saudi F.53 Lightnings flew ground strike missions "...these ending the situation without any help from the Saudi Army..."
Attached picture is a F.53 Lightning being shown off before being shipped to Saudi Arabia. Note the over-wing rocket pods and under-wing bomb racks.
The F-101 (Mach 1.87) was much slower than the F.6 Lightning (Mach 2.3), and while I do not know the cruise speed of the F-101, I do know the Lightning cruised at Mach 0.87.
The F-22 is the first production aircraft to achieve super-cruise, just like the F-15 was the first production aircraft to achieve a greater thrust:weight ratio throughout it's flight.
No, pbfoot, Lightnings did not leak while on the ground. Any leak, on any aircraft, is dangerous. I do not know how Canadian or U.S forces work, and honestly I don't know how British forces work deep down these days, but I've asked my dad about leaks on all the aircraft he's worked on and it's always the same answer; "If it's leaking it's not flying, and if it's leaking on the ground it's priority for maintenance," And he knows what he's talking about.
The F-101A carried four M-39 20mm revolver cannon as standard, this could be supplemented by three Falcon air-to-air missiles in internal bays. The F-101B carried three AIM-4D Falcons internally and two AIR-2A Genie air-to-air missiles under the fuselage.
While the F-101 seems decent enough as an early type aircraft which evolved into a good enough interceptor, it wasn't as good as the Lightning.
--------------
I have just read that the Lightning did see action albeit only against groud forces. In a border clash between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Saudi F.53 Lightnings flew ground strike missions "...these ending the situation without any help from the Saudi Army..."
Attached picture is a F.53 Lightning being shown off before being shipped to Saudi Arabia. Note the over-wing rocket pods and under-wing bomb racks.
Attachments
More addition to Lightning information; a stripped down T.5 Lightning beat a F-15 to 30,000 feet. I'll be sure to look into this more when I have time to get the full story.
A F.6 Lightning shot down a Harrier! The only aircraft kill given to a Lightning was a Harrier with no pilot. The pilot had ejected due to mechanical troubles but the Harrier kept flying. Instead of risking the Harrier flying into built up zones a Lightning was ordered to shoot it down, which it did.
A F.6 Lightning shot down a Harrier! The only aircraft kill given to a Lightning was a Harrier with no pilot. The pilot had ejected due to mechanical troubles but the Harrier kept flying. Instead of risking the Harrier flying into built up zones a Lightning was ordered to shoot it down, which it did.
Nice info pD!
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
its just preference the one oh one was a treat to watch take off at night with that huge flame coming out and watching it go vertical in the clear skies that i know are missing in the UK the ops procedures are pretty much the same as Europe except we have much less congested airspace with less noise restrictions i would think getting clearance from atc to go vertical to higher altitudes in Europe would be much harder because of the heavier traffic I believe a fairer match with the lightning would be a 104 which overall might prove superior to the lightning
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
httphttp://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/voodoolst_e.asp
57 secs sounds tough to beat and please note my list was of my preferences and in 2nd place was the vulcan which i don't believe was as good as the 52 .I actually fell out of boat because of a vulcan who was doing lo level work low level in the uk probably means 200agl this was about 25ft and it came up fast from behind with a gaf f4 in trail
57 secs sounds tough to beat and please note my list was of my preferences and in 2nd place was the vulcan which i don't believe was as good as the 52 .I actually fell out of boat because of a vulcan who was doing lo level work low level in the uk probably means 200agl this was about 25ft and it came up fast from behind with a gaf f4 in trail
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Voodoo Magic at its best.
The Lightning was never actually intended to go Mach 2, the development of the F-104 up to Mach 2 was what kept English Electric on the Mach 2 target. As an interceptor, the F-104 was also inferior to the Lightning. As a general fighter, it probably was better especially for the large expanses of Canada and the U.S.A.
The Vulcan was a more capable fast acting tactical nuclear bomber. The B-52 was/is a superior all-round bomber which is capable of doing anything asked of a heavy. The Vulcan used the same ignition procedure as the Lightning; AVPIN to light it's engines instantly.
The Vulcan was a more capable fast acting tactical nuclear bomber. The B-52 was/is a superior all-round bomber which is capable of doing anything asked of a heavy. The Vulcan used the same ignition procedure as the Lightning; AVPIN to light it's engines instantly.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes it was vital if a nuclear stike was found to be coming towards england in the form of a missile or bomber that vulcans could get in the air quickly loaded up with some form of nuclear weapon to throw back at russia instantly, they had to get up in the air quickly because the V bomber bases would be the first target............
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
pbfoot said:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
i hate to call my government a liar but i got that info offplan_D said:
www.airforce.forces.gc.ca
go to history then historical aircraft then voodoo
and i don't exactly trust everything i read i assuming that time is til rotation add another 1.5 minuted til altitude i included the link first time round but upon trying as pasted realized it didn't work
by the way i pride myself on being a straight shooter and if i error am not to proud to own up or laugh at my error all the things i post i endeavor to verify and back up with appropriate links or source or have the source available upon request
"This remarkable shot of a CF-101 Voodoo doing an afterburner take-off was taken from a second Aircraft by Capt W. "Turbo" Tarling. One of the Voodoo's primary roles was as an interceptor in the Northern NORAD Region. During an alert scramble the prescribed time limit to get airborne was 5 minutes; in July 1962 a record was set at CFB Bagotville, Quebec at 1 minute, 30 seconds though the target turned out to be a friendly B-52. This record was broken at Chatham in August 1963 with a time of 57 seconds!"
That's from call to take-off, which is much more believable. And it's a record, a sign of a good call Q crew. However, as stated, the average was five minutes. Time from call to altitude in a Lightning on average was between one and two minutes. It must be remembered that the record there was set in 1963 - what of the 70s and 80s when the Lightning was still serving? Remember, the F.6 Lightning was faster than the previous marks.
The Lightning was a superior interceptor.
That's from call to take-off, which is much more believable. And it's a record, a sign of a good call Q crew. However, as stated, the average was five minutes. Time from call to altitude in a Lightning on average was between one and two minutes. It must be remembered that the record there was set in 1963 - what of the 70s and 80s when the Lightning was still serving? Remember, the F.6 Lightning was faster than the previous marks.
The Lightning was a superior interceptor.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
From the bell to altitude, the Lightning would achieve it's operational rate in about four minutes. This would be from bell to 44,000 feet, direction and Mach 0.87 (cruise).
Time from call to altitude in a Lightning on average was between one and two minutes
which quote should i believe
i've worked many a scramble and i have my doubts about 57 secs but not the fact about from start to altitude in 5min
the lightning was probably a pretty decent short ranged intercepter with many inovations like the 2 engines piled on top of each other and unusual drop tank configuration mine is apreference :
ill leave you with a pilots comment ref on 104vs lightning
"Any day you wanna go do some ACM, or just race… Bring your pug nosed Lighting, if you can get it running, and I'll bring the Zipper. Fights On!"
just question do you happen to know how many man hours of labour per flying hour for lightning in the later stages the 101 was up to about 55
Time from call to altitude in a Lightning on average was between one and two minutes
which quote should i believe
i've worked many a scramble and i have my doubts about 57 secs but not the fact about from start to altitude in 5min
the lightning was probably a pretty decent short ranged intercepter with many inovations like the 2 engines piled on top of each other and unusual drop tank configuration mine is apreference :
ill leave you with a pilots comment ref on 104vs lightning
"Any day you wanna go do some ACM, or just race… Bring your pug nosed Lighting, if you can get it running, and I'll bring the Zipper. Fights On!"
just question do you happen to know how many man hours of labour per flying hour for lightning in the later stages the 101 was up to about 55
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I dont think you can "drop" tanks that are on the top of wings.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
