FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
They "depart," but drop in the end!!!
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
They "depart," but drop in the end!!!
I meant time from call to take-off in between one and two minutes, my apology. And time from take-off to operational height, direction and altitude would be around two minutes. Which makes call to operational status four minutes, which is superior to both the F-101 and F-104.
The website you provided states call to take-off being five minutes, not call to altitude. Which would mean call to altitude, if climb rate was as quick as Lightning (which it's not) would be around seven minutes. The F-101 was actually slower plus had a slower climb rate thus making the call to altitude time of a F-101 over seven minutes, probably over eight minutes.
That pilot hasn't a clue about the Lightning, quite obviously. I bet, if he exists, he's never even seen a Lightning fly nor does he have a clue about the mechanics of a Lightning. "...if you can get it running..." just shows his complete ignorance, my father has told me out of a squadron of fourteen, at most only two would be grounded at any one time and even those would be for basic overhaul or extensive maintenance. The Lightning would start first time, everytime and much quicker than anything else.
Sure, the Lightning was maintenance intensive but the RAF had the engineers capable of keeping Lightning squadrons at near 100% operational rate all year round.
I do not know the flight:maintenance hour ratio, that's something that was done in records. And since my father only worked in records after the Lightnings departure from service he wouldn't know. He only recorded his hours, and his maintence, he had no need to fiddle around with numbers. He just kept the things flying.
Although, I do know the South African T.5 that is privately owned has around a 1:75 (flight:maintenance) ratio. Quite amazing for an aircraft over forty years old and was maintenance intensive in the first place.
The Lightning's over-wing tanks were of no innovation, they were out of desperation. And they weren't drop tanks. The Lightning could not detach the tanks, they were merely ferry tanks and had to be detach by the engineers. And they didn't last long anyway because they just had air-to-air refueling anyway.
Some innovations of the Lightning were, stacked engines, mechanical ABS brakes, full tailplane movement, fuel cooling, 120 degree RADAR plus a few others, I'm sure.
You may like the F-101 or the F-104 better, but the fact remains, the Lightning was a superior interceptor.
The website you provided states call to take-off being five minutes, not call to altitude. Which would mean call to altitude, if climb rate was as quick as Lightning (which it's not) would be around seven minutes. The F-101 was actually slower plus had a slower climb rate thus making the call to altitude time of a F-101 over seven minutes, probably over eight minutes.
That pilot hasn't a clue about the Lightning, quite obviously. I bet, if he exists, he's never even seen a Lightning fly nor does he have a clue about the mechanics of a Lightning. "...if you can get it running..." just shows his complete ignorance, my father has told me out of a squadron of fourteen, at most only two would be grounded at any one time and even those would be for basic overhaul or extensive maintenance. The Lightning would start first time, everytime and much quicker than anything else.
Sure, the Lightning was maintenance intensive but the RAF had the engineers capable of keeping Lightning squadrons at near 100% operational rate all year round.
I do not know the flight:maintenance hour ratio, that's something that was done in records. And since my father only worked in records after the Lightnings departure from service he wouldn't know. He only recorded his hours, and his maintence, he had no need to fiddle around with numbers. He just kept the things flying.
Although, I do know the South African T.5 that is privately owned has around a 1:75 (flight:maintenance) ratio. Quite amazing for an aircraft over forty years old and was maintenance intensive in the first place.
The Lightning's over-wing tanks were of no innovation, they were out of desperation. And they weren't drop tanks. The Lightning could not detach the tanks, they were merely ferry tanks and had to be detach by the engineers. And they didn't last long anyway because they just had air-to-air refueling anyway.
Some innovations of the Lightning were, stacked engines, mechanical ABS brakes, full tailplane movement, fuel cooling, 120 degree RADAR plus a few others, I'm sure.
You may like the F-101 or the F-104 better, but the fact remains, the Lightning was a superior interceptor.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
i guess the ultimate answer would be to find exchange pilots who flew both and there are a few ....... :mind you going straight up and not much further kinda sounds like me 263 and the innovative stacked engines has found their way into many other a/c the 104 outlasted the lightning operationally by a decade and the 104 still holds many records you can check the records if you go to www.fai.org i can't seem to locate the lightning in any time to climb records but the 104 is evident in certain speed and time to climb records even the 101 is in their but can't find lightning as a matter of fact the record climb to 15k meters is approx 1m10s maybe english electric forgot to file
The Lightning didn't fly straight up on interception, that was just to show off at airshows. The record of the Lightning was set on a standard interception, not a vertical climb to show off for the cameras. The Lightning could reach 400 miles from it's airfield, perfectly enough for first line interception duties.
And I would like to point out right now, the F-101 had a maximum ceiling of 38,900 feet (source: Boeing.com). How do you expect it to intecept a Tu-95 flying at 50,000 feet? The Tu-95 had a ceiling of 57,000 feet. The Lightning had a recorded ceiling of 60,000 feet, however that is only because the altimeter only went that high. It was not needed to go any higher.
The F-104 is a little more realistic. Yet, the F-104A had an initial climb of 33,000 feet per minute and a maximum climb rate of 40,000 feet per minute. (source: USAF Museum) And the F-104C was pratically the same as the F-104A with ceiling (58,000 feet) and climb.
So, you first state that an interceptor which cannot fly high enough to catch the Tu-95 is an equal of a Lightning. And then you state that an aircraft with an initial rate of climb 20,000 feet slower than the Lightning is better. As well as a 2000 feet deficiency in ceiling.
Maybe English Electric didn't want to show the U.S up with an interceptor that everyone knew was superior. And I never said the stacked engines weren't an innovation, I said the over-wing ferry tanks weren't.
And I can't forget, the Lightning served from 1960 to 1989, it only left service because of government cut-backs. English Electric had offered to improve the Lightning to keep it up to modern times (lighter airframe, better engine, lengthened frame, increased fuel tank, reinforced wings etc. etc. ) but all proposals were turned down because of the Tornado project. Money and politics kept the Lightning from serving to this day, not it's deficieny in capability.
And I would like to point out right now, the F-101 had a maximum ceiling of 38,900 feet (source: Boeing.com). How do you expect it to intecept a Tu-95 flying at 50,000 feet? The Tu-95 had a ceiling of 57,000 feet. The Lightning had a recorded ceiling of 60,000 feet, however that is only because the altimeter only went that high. It was not needed to go any higher.
The F-104 is a little more realistic. Yet, the F-104A had an initial climb of 33,000 feet per minute and a maximum climb rate of 40,000 feet per minute. (source: USAF Museum) And the F-104C was pratically the same as the F-104A with ceiling (58,000 feet) and climb.
So, you first state that an interceptor which cannot fly high enough to catch the Tu-95 is an equal of a Lightning. And then you state that an aircraft with an initial rate of climb 20,000 feet slower than the Lightning is better. As well as a 2000 feet deficiency in ceiling.
Maybe English Electric didn't want to show the U.S up with an interceptor that everyone knew was superior. And I never said the stacked engines weren't an innovation, I said the over-wing ferry tanks weren't.
And I can't forget, the Lightning served from 1960 to 1989, it only left service because of government cut-backs. English Electric had offered to improve the Lightning to keep it up to modern times (lighter airframe, better engine, lengthened frame, increased fuel tank, reinforced wings etc. etc. ) but all proposals were turned down because of the Tornado project. Money and politics kept the Lightning from serving to this day, not it's deficieny in capability.
Reading more on the F-104:
The F-104 first flew on March 4, 1954 and was cleared to fly operationally in January 1958. It had no AI (Airborne Interception) radar and the ejection seat fired downwards! Three months after it's introduction, it was grounded due to the high rate of accidents. In July, it was again cleared to fly.
In 1959 all F-104As were transferred to the National Guard, and removed from front-line duty. Lockheed then developed the F-104C which was sent to TAC, where it stayed until 1965.
It's existance only continued when Germany, among others, chose the F-104 for development as it provided a good base for improvement. Thus, the F-104G was born. But, the accident rate again increased in the hands of new users, at one point reaching one F-104 every ten days being lost.
The F-104 served in U.S front-line service for just about two decades. It served with other air forces for about two decades also. The F-104 on a whole served in primary air forces from 1958 - 1970. The Lightning served in the RAF from 1960 - 1989.
The ceiling of the F-104 varies, the USAF museum states 58,000 feet for the F-104C. Another site states 50,000 feet for the CF-104. While the Encyclopedia of World Air Power puts the F-104C at 55,000 feet.
Take your pick, I'm sure you'll choose the highest ...but it's still less than the Lightning. Enjoy.
The F-104 first flew on March 4, 1954 and was cleared to fly operationally in January 1958. It had no AI (Airborne Interception) radar and the ejection seat fired downwards! Three months after it's introduction, it was grounded due to the high rate of accidents. In July, it was again cleared to fly.
In 1959 all F-104As were transferred to the National Guard, and removed from front-line duty. Lockheed then developed the F-104C which was sent to TAC, where it stayed until 1965.
It's existance only continued when Germany, among others, chose the F-104 for development as it provided a good base for improvement. Thus, the F-104G was born. But, the accident rate again increased in the hands of new users, at one point reaching one F-104 every ten days being lost.
The F-104 served in U.S front-line service for just about two decades. It served with other air forces for about two decades also. The F-104 on a whole served in primary air forces from 1958 - 1970. The Lightning served in the RAF from 1960 - 1989.
The ceiling of the F-104 varies, the USAF museum states 58,000 feet for the F-104C. Another site states 50,000 feet for the CF-104. While the Encyclopedia of World Air Power puts the F-104C at 55,000 feet.
Take your pick, I'm sure you'll choose the highest ...but it's still less than the Lightning. Enjoy.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
hey admit it the lightning was mediocre interceptor top five for sure but had serious limitations you keep stating 50k/min climb that would put it as the best climbing a/c of all time but it doesn't even show in official records i quite sure if the uk had record breaking aircraft the world would know about it such as in the FAI records( the meteor is still in them) they would've enhanced the opportunity to sell a/c world wide the lightning was the UKs last chance to build an indigenous fighter the Harrier withstanding and I'm sure your aware they've all been joint projects afterwords
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
used to call the 104 german lawn darts but lots of that has to do with thier mission low level strike basically one way missions we canadians had the highest attriton with about 110 lost out of 220+/- i've seen film from gun camera of one hitting an apc but they were considered like sports cars by the pilots the ejector seat was changed quickly in newer models either that or invert and eject . one guy at low level rolled 90" and ejected sideways ... unsucessful but the pilot was fast just the same
Just look on the internet for the Lightning's climb rate, it will record as 50,000 feet per minute initial across the entire internet. Including all the books on the Lightning.
I have proven across our "discussion" that the Lightning was superior to any aircraft you have mentioned. You have never even seen a Lightning, let alone seen one fly.
To be frank, for you to think the Lightning is a mediocre interceptor just shows everyone on here that you're ignorant on the subject. To continue to argue your point when proven wrong just shows everyone you're an ignorant moron.
And the reason the Lightning was never sold to anyone was because the U.K refused to let English Electric do so. They only sold them to the Saudis when they had the Tornado in the pipe-line. And were sure the Lightning's day had been done, as it were the Lightning continued front-line service for years later.
Even to this day, while a modern aircraft has to sit and warm up, the Lightning can be up and away. Calling a plane with a ceiling of 60,000 feet, a speed of Mach 2.3, a climb of 50,000 feet per minute and a front-line service life of 29 years mediocre ...just makes you look like an idiot.
The Lightning's main limitation was range. This was not a problem for a point-defence interceptor which formed the front-line of defence while the rest of the NATO air forces were still warming up to get into the air.
I'll admit the Lightning as mediocre when you prove it was. But you're not going to. Not only because it's impossible to prove so because the Lightning was amazing, but also because you don't have a clue and you come here to tell me that the F-101 was an equal of the Lightning during interception when it had an initial climb of some 20,000 feet inferior and couldn't even reach the heights the Tu-95!
Don't believe the ability of the Lightning all you want ...it's your own problem, not mine. And for those that know their aircraft ...will know the beauty hidden deep in the Lightning, while personally I love the brutish mean look of the Lightning some find it ugly ...well, the beauty of a Lightning to you...is truly within...
I have proven across our "discussion" that the Lightning was superior to any aircraft you have mentioned. You have never even seen a Lightning, let alone seen one fly.
To be frank, for you to think the Lightning is a mediocre interceptor just shows everyone on here that you're ignorant on the subject. To continue to argue your point when proven wrong just shows everyone you're an ignorant moron.
And the reason the Lightning was never sold to anyone was because the U.K refused to let English Electric do so. They only sold them to the Saudis when they had the Tornado in the pipe-line. And were sure the Lightning's day had been done, as it were the Lightning continued front-line service for years later.
Even to this day, while a modern aircraft has to sit and warm up, the Lightning can be up and away. Calling a plane with a ceiling of 60,000 feet, a speed of Mach 2.3, a climb of 50,000 feet per minute and a front-line service life of 29 years mediocre ...just makes you look like an idiot.
The Lightning's main limitation was range. This was not a problem for a point-defence interceptor which formed the front-line of defence while the rest of the NATO air forces were still warming up to get into the air.
I'll admit the Lightning as mediocre when you prove it was. But you're not going to. Not only because it's impossible to prove so because the Lightning was amazing, but also because you don't have a clue and you come here to tell me that the F-101 was an equal of the Lightning during interception when it had an initial climb of some 20,000 feet inferior and couldn't even reach the heights the Tu-95!
Don't believe the ability of the Lightning all you want ...it's your own problem, not mine. And for those that know their aircraft ...will know the beauty hidden deep in the Lightning, while personally I love the brutish mean look of the Lightning some find it ugly ...well, the beauty of a Lightning to you...is truly within...
Attachments
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I hate to admit it, but after comparing the Lightning with the F106, hes right.
Its probably the best interceptor of the 50's and 60's.
I have to do more research on the fire control and AA missles to see how that rates.
But the F15 and F4 were superior, if only because they were (and are) multirole and far more versatile.
Its probably the best interceptor of the 50's and 60's.
I have to do more research on the fire control and AA missles to see how that rates.
But the F15 and F4 were superior, if only because they were (and are) multirole and far more versatile.
Not as interceptors though, that's the whole point of my current discussion. The Lightning was an interceptor, and in that role it was superior to the F-4 and all those before it.
It's hard to call for the F-15, while the Lightning has a superior acceleration and initial climb rate, the F-15 would gain an advantage at higher heights while the Lightning was still climbing. Although, a T-bird Lightning did beat an F-15 to 30,000 feet and the Lightning doesn't need to warm up like the F-15.
Note, in the other thread, I did say the F-15 was the best fighter of all time. I have no illusions of the Lightning being the ultimate fighter, but I do say it's the ultimate interceptor of it's day and somewhat beyond it's day. It was just that good! Just like this picture...
It's hard to call for the F-15, while the Lightning has a superior acceleration and initial climb rate, the F-15 would gain an advantage at higher heights while the Lightning was still climbing. Although, a T-bird Lightning did beat an F-15 to 30,000 feet and the Lightning doesn't need to warm up like the F-15.
Note, in the other thread, I did say the F-15 was the best fighter of all time. I have no illusions of the Lightning being the ultimate fighter, but I do say it's the ultimate interceptor of it's day and somewhat beyond it's day. It was just that good! Just like this picture...
Attachments
The Lightning was armed with two 30mm Aden cannon and two BAe Firestreak or Red Top missiles. An English Electric development that was turned down by the British government would have fitted AIM-9s to the Lightning, but this never happened so on to the Red Top.
"The Red Top, originally known as the de Havilland Firestreak Mk.IV, entered service in 1964 as a complement to and partial replacement for earlier marks of the Firestreak. Unlike it's predecessor, the new missile can engage targets from any direction, and both the launch aircraft and it's target may be travelling at speeds up to Mach 2. The Red Top, which carries a larger warhead than the Firestreak and uses semiconductors in place of valves, was designed for use against low-level manoeuvering targets rather than high-level bombers, and may be fired without having to aim the launch aicraft in the exact direction of its objective. The position of the target to be engaged may be supplied by the interceptor's fire-control radar (Ferranti Airpass) or by the pilot.
The Red Top remains in service and will continue to do so as long as the Lightning is retained in service. Hawker Siddeley Dynamics (now BAe), which absorbed de Havilland, designed the QC434 SRAAM (Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile) to succeed Red Top, but this programme was reduced to the status of a technology demonstration project in January 1974, and the Royal Air Force has since ordered the AIM-9L Sidewinder as it's short-range air-to-air missile for the 1980s."
From Bill Gunston's Encyclopedia of World Air Power - 1981.
Cruise speed: Mach 3 at 40,000 feet.
Range: 7 miles
Warhead: 68-lb
"The Red Top, originally known as the de Havilland Firestreak Mk.IV, entered service in 1964 as a complement to and partial replacement for earlier marks of the Firestreak. Unlike it's predecessor, the new missile can engage targets from any direction, and both the launch aircraft and it's target may be travelling at speeds up to Mach 2. The Red Top, which carries a larger warhead than the Firestreak and uses semiconductors in place of valves, was designed for use against low-level manoeuvering targets rather than high-level bombers, and may be fired without having to aim the launch aicraft in the exact direction of its objective. The position of the target to be engaged may be supplied by the interceptor's fire-control radar (Ferranti Airpass) or by the pilot.
The Red Top remains in service and will continue to do so as long as the Lightning is retained in service. Hawker Siddeley Dynamics (now BAe), which absorbed de Havilland, designed the QC434 SRAAM (Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile) to succeed Red Top, but this programme was reduced to the status of a technology demonstration project in January 1974, and the Royal Air Force has since ordered the AIM-9L Sidewinder as it's short-range air-to-air missile for the 1980s."
From Bill Gunston's Encyclopedia of World Air Power - 1981.
Cruise speed: Mach 3 at 40,000 feet.
Range: 7 miles
Warhead: 68-lb
Attachments
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Syscom3
I happend upon this clip really good footage of an A-10 thunderbolt straffing a target in Kosovo SYS3 I think you will like this
http://www.danshistory.com/a10strafe.avi
you seem to like the Warthog alot so
I happend upon this clip really good footage of an A-10 thunderbolt straffing a target in Kosovo SYS3 I think you will like this
http://www.danshistory.com/a10strafe.avi
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
i've seen the lightning fly but my point is the lightning had an initial climb rate of 50k/min but if it could maintain that climb rate for 1 min it would hold the record with www.fai.org it doesn't and as for your info on 101s climb rate i found this link which indicates 49000+ http://www.marchfield.org/f101b.htm you seem to be using a single source try to upgrade from the golden book of airplanes and daddys info what was daddys trade? ( cook refuelleR )i'm familar with gunston good info as for being a moron well been called worse by better I'm sorry you think i kicked your puppy but i didn't start the personal attacks the only expieriance i've had with the RAF was the 3 years in goose bay watching Vukcans Victors Jags harriers tristars Hawks Nimrods c130 along with a host of other a'/c from nato .goose was the best to see a/c operate because we had such amassive terminal area 87dme to fl60 almost the whole of england and our reason for being was lo level training and with that much airspace it was fun to observe a/c and the pilots from over the pond actually use all the potential of there a/c
Attachments
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Uh oh - I'm taking cover! 
Me tooFLYBOYJ said:Uh oh - I'm taking cover!
, where is that nuclear bunker now
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Let the games begin
Begin? They have already begun!
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
maybe i'll ask my dad about aircraft he was a licenced aircraft engineer(fitter rigger) in 1936 and he still manages to go flying once or twice a week not as pilot but passenger he went up in a stearman and tiger moth in past month
You found one f*ckin' link that states the F-101 at 49,000 feet try the whole f*cking internet! They're all different!
And p*ss ant, fag boy, my father isn't the source for 50k a minute, the whole freakin' world is. Look it up for yourself, you p*ss ant. The only experience you've had with the RAF was f*ck all, you tit. No real member of any armed service would downgrade the actions of another. I'd love to watch my dad bitch slap your tiny little ass all over the biggest room on the f*ckin' planet.
You want to know his trade, f*ck wit? Aircraft electrician for 24 years, aircraft trained on? Lightning, Chinook, Nimrod, Puma, Tecano, Dominie, Chipmunk, Jet Stream, Jet Provost, Wessex, Sea King and Whirlwind.
Oi, tit boy, before you start havin' a go at the f*ckin' Lightning learn some facts. Your pussy ass little smelly c*nt wouldn't know a Lightning if it fired a Red Top up your fag arse ...no shut the f*ck up about the Lightnign before I actually get annoyed and you show everyone on here how much of a little pussy ass fag you are.
Who the f*ck do you think you are insulting my dad? A veteran of Northern Ireland, Falklands and the Gulf. He's seen more combat than you WISH you had, you fag f*ck face. I knew you were an asshole ...but I kept stumped for such a long time to give you a chance...but oh my f*ckin' god. You're just un-f*cking-believable.
And p*ss ant, fag boy, my father isn't the source for 50k a minute, the whole freakin' world is. Look it up for yourself, you p*ss ant. The only experience you've had with the RAF was f*ck all, you tit. No real member of any armed service would downgrade the actions of another. I'd love to watch my dad bitch slap your tiny little ass all over the biggest room on the f*ckin' planet.
You want to know his trade, f*ck wit? Aircraft electrician for 24 years, aircraft trained on? Lightning, Chinook, Nimrod, Puma, Tecano, Dominie, Chipmunk, Jet Stream, Jet Provost, Wessex, Sea King and Whirlwind.
Oi, tit boy, before you start havin' a go at the f*ckin' Lightning learn some facts. Your pussy ass little smelly c*nt wouldn't know a Lightning if it fired a Red Top up your fag arse ...no shut the f*ck up about the Lightnign before I actually get annoyed and you show everyone on here how much of a little pussy ass fag you are.
Who the f*ck do you think you are insulting my dad? A veteran of Northern Ireland, Falklands and the Gulf. He's seen more combat than you WISH you had, you fag f*ck face. I knew you were an asshole ...but I kept stumped for such a long time to give you a chance...but oh my f*ckin' god. You're just un-f*cking-believable.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Feel the love! Anybody else feel the love? 
Nah, didn't think so.
Boys, I know we're all a little steamed right now but can we can the personal sh*t please? I'm beggin' ya! Please?
Nah, didn't think so.
Boys, I know we're all a little steamed right now but can we can the personal sh*t please? I'm beggin' ya! Please?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
