Your favorite post-war aircraft

that was compulsive argument i think pissant is one word

pbfoot said:

that was compulsive argument

Click to expand...

Well whatever it was, knock it off.

I just got back from the shops and read PB's post.
Its not very nice to talk about a guys dad like that PB
The bells are ringing, the lights are flashing and the barriers are down but obviously there was no train coming.
Think next time PB before you start deriding a guys parents, many on here have time serving or served dads or have been around in the forces themselves.

Sorry, NS, but I'm not going to tell some arsehole have a go at my dad because the arsehole in question has been proven wrong.

If anyone believes that 50,000 feet per minute is a number my dad made up, just type in "F.6 Lightning climb rate" into Google and note all those sites that say 50,000 feet per minute for the Lightning. There's a lot of them, in fact all those dedicated to the English Electric Lightning say 50,000 feet per minute.

And I have just read an interesting article on the Lightning's speed and ceiling. While it has always been known that the Lightning could reach 60,000 + feet as it's ceiling, the real ceiling was a secret. Now the exact ceiling has still not been released but pilots have been allowed to talk:

"The Lightning's performance is excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb is 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min); the F-4 Phantom managed 32,000 ft/min (10 km/min); the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min); the initial rate of the F-16A is 40,000 ft/min (12 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).


The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m) referring to the altitude, although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark". In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.

Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle is "almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 3,000 feet [600 and 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]".

In British Airways trials, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overtake Concorde on a stern intercept. During these trials Concorde was at 57,000 ft and travelling at Mach 2.2"

So, who thinks the Lightning was mediocre? Put your hand up.

plan_D said:

In British Airways trials, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overtake Concorde on a stern intercept. During these trials Concorde was at 57,000 ft and travelling at Mach 2.2"[/i]

Click to expand...

In 1980 (I think) there were congressional hearings on the poor state of US armed forces after the botched Iran Hostage raid. Kelly Johnson testified and sited this fact as an argument to build the B-1.....

Nice info pD.

plan_D said:

Sorry, NS, but I'm not going to tell some arsehole have a go at my dad because the arsehole in question has been proven wrong.

Click to expand...

My message was directed at pbfoot as well. I know if it was my dad he'd slammed like that, he'd be thankful he wasn't within easy reach of me. I understand your response D, but lets all just let it drop from here, 'k everyone? Excellent.


Good info, by the way.

Notice that the Concorde was going Mach 2.2 at 57,000 feet, ever think the RAF didn't tell anyone the truth about the ability of the Lightning? Mach 2.3 is the official speed of the Lightning - something tells me it was faster than that.

Ive always considered the E.E. Lighting one of the best interceptors and by all accounts there was a few tears shed at flight training school when the last one was paid off.
Everyone loved to stick on the AB's and point it skywards one instructor on the box said it was a big Spitfire with a rocket up its arse.

Great info pD! 8)

Did the Lightning have air to air refueling capability?

And its like a Spitfire with a rocket up its ass? hehehehehe..... I hope the pilots didnt wear pink flight suits...... heheheheheh

Nice info pD, will we ever find out the try capabilities of this great aircraft, I hope it happens sooner rather than later but then wouldn't we all.

read the post's i did not deride his dad but did question the use of of his father as a source all idid was state i preferred the 101 and said the
only ones really qualified to compare the two were exchange pilots of which there are a quite few about but I don't have access to them the main dispute is the climb rate which is for the most part indicated as initial if the a/c could maintain this climb rate it would hold the worlds record for jet powered a/c it doesn't the record being held by some russian a/c which achieved 15000 metres in 1min 10sec +/- now why would this info be held secret by the brits i think the warsaw pact had radar and other means sensitive enough to figure this out plus the fact if this a/c was all omnipotent why wasn't it sold abroad more widely
anything i wasn't able to prove was indicated as second hand info he initiated the the insults called me a liar which i'm not then a moron which i may be I've done my time in the military and hold the supplementary trades in esteem if i want to know how to work on a merlin or allison or pw i'll ask my father but not for info on the other characteristics because that info would not a reliable source

I did read the posts

pbfoot said:

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 )

Click to expand...

That most certainly is what everyone is talking about. Once again, keep the personal crap out of it, guys.

I read the post as well, and you were taunting him pb. Granted, he called you a moron. That's why I wanted both of you to stop. You're gonna stop now, right?

I suggest we continue on with the intended discussion before another one gets locked.

i publicly apologize for an unintended slur against your dad it was not intended as a slam

I believe the pilot in question, Lee, called the Lightning "...a Spitfire with a kick up the arse..." but I may be wrong because I haven't heard/read the quote in a long time. However, I know who you mean although the name does elude me, he flew the Spitfire during the war.

I have already stated that the British government disallowed English Electric selling the Lightning abroad. There was a great uproar in EE when they found out a British diplomat had been warning the German government away from the Lightning.

If a government wants to keep it's aircraft a secret, or the potentials a secret, then they're not going to enter it into competitions to just try and look big. The SR-71s true capability is not known to anyone who didn't work closely with the project, odds are we won't ever know or at least not for a long time.

As said, the Lightning was always recorded as 60,000 + feet ceiling, and it was confirmed by my father who only calibrated the altimeter to 60,000 feet. However, recent interviews and disclosed evidence has shown the Lightning to fly up to at least 88,000 feet.

The F-101 couldn't even reach the alitude of the Tu-95, how can it be comparable to an aircraft that intercepted a Concorde travelling at Mach 2.2 at 57,000 feet, and flying away! The only aircraft on the intercept that did so on the stern intercept...was the Lightning which actually flew past the Concorde.

The comparisons made by Britain and the U.S between the F-104 and the Lightning proved the Lightning to be far superior except in low-level super-sonic acceleration which was "...a dead heat...". The F-104 was superior to the F-101 and the Lightning was superior to the F-104. You haven't disproved anything, you've merely stated that the Lightning isn't in the record books...but you have failed to realise that the British government didn't want anyone to know the ability of the Lightning. Never realised that surprise is the best weapon in war?

You have nothing to back up your argument for the F-101 being anywhere near as capable as the Lightning. In fact, that's laughable. The only thing you produce is a sketchy climb rate that is different throughout all sources on the internet.

Just read my above post ...do you think a F-101 could do that? Certainly not, it could only go 38,000 feet.

And for syscom, does this answer your question? (the picture)

absolutely no comment and its not because a I'm cowed by your "knowledge"
beside fact in the 80's as i participated in a launch( scramble) of 101 's from 416 sqn against the cord as it had strayed well off course entering the CADIZ "coastal air defense zone" the talk afterwords was about the difficulty of not being able to approach from the stern but that it could be "cured with a Genie"

First off, the Concorde that your squadron apparently intercepted was not at 57,000 feet and travelling at Mach 2.2. The F-101 can't fly that high, and can't fly that fast.

Secondly, the Genie is an unguided air-to-air missile with a six mile range. How could the Genie solve any deficiency in the F-101s performance as an interceptor? The fact of the matter is, if this interception did happen, the Concorde was ordered to slow down and 'wait' for the fighters. Because if it was a true threat, the Concorde could have opened throttle, pulled up and left the CF-101s for standing. And the Genie wouldn't have been able to do anything about it because...it was unguided! The guided version (AIR-2B) was abandoned in 1963.

The CF-101B was also equipped with the AIM-4D semi-guided missile with a range of ten miles. However, it's burn-out speed was Mach 2 ...that's too slow to handle the speed of a Concorde, which can fly faster than Mach 2. Add that to the fact at stern intercept the missile would have to be flying faster than Mach 2 to reach it's target before the fuel ran out ...the AIM-4D...ain't goin' to do shit.

So, we have a plane with a maximum speed of Mach 1.87 and ceiling of 38,000 feet and armed with four AIR-2A 'Genie' missiles (cruise speed Mach 3, unguided, 6 mile range) internally and two AIM-4D 'Falcon' missiles (burn-out Mach 2, semi-guided, 10 mile range) intercepting an aircraft capable of speeds above Mach 2, and flying at around 57,000 feet. Please tell me, how the hell is the F-101 goin' to catch it to destroy it? Even more to the point ...how the hell is it goin' to do it from stern intercept?

it was a nuke the ceiling is 54000ft