Talk:English Electric Lightning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Missiles - F1 and T2 carried Firestreak, F3 and later carried Red Top, a more recent Infra-Red AAM that included a head-on attack capability.

F3 and later also had increased fuel capacity, modified wing planform and flat-topped fin.

Testing was an experience, with aircraft loosing cockpit canopies in flight on three occasions before the problem was run to earth. The third occasion resulted in Desmond de Villiers being the world's first open-cockpit supersonic pilot.

The original P1A did not look very much like the definitive squadron aircraft, lacking the distinctive shock cone in the intake (which housed the air-to-air radar) and the dorsal spine.

The P1B prototype XA847 first flew in April 1957 and achieved Mach 2 for the first time on October 1958.

As a teenage air cadet I had the pleasure of spending a weeks camp at RAF Binbrook, at that time the last operational Lightning base with no.5 & no.11 squadrons still flying the type. I went thinking it was an ugly, antiquated heap and came away a huge fan. They were still doing QRF duties (it was the mid-eighties)and to watch them roll down the runway and them scream in an almost vertical climb to about 10,000ft was unbelievably impressive.

Contents

[edit] infobox

why the ghastly purple colour? GraemeLeggett 10:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most powerful plane in formation aerobatics?

What about the Blue Angels' F/A-18s? The F/A-18 article lists a greater thrust for the two engines than the lightning's I don't know if it reflects the Model that the Angels use, and I don't know the version of the Lightning. Maybe this is still true, maybe it isn't..

One of the most powerful planes in formation aerobatics - also it's not said which kind of power is ment: The Lighnting can supercruise, the F/A-18 can't. The Lightning can go well over Mach 2, the F/A-18 can't. - Alureiter 20:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
You seem to referring to performance rather than power their. I'm removing the claim owing to its dubious nature and lack of sources. Dan100 (Talk) 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be accurate to say the Lightning is one of the highest performance planes in formation flying. To be fair the high performance from the 1960 engines is achieved by superb aerodynamics (achieved in part by the over-and-under engine layout and and light-weight construction (e.g. missing out medium and long range radar - high titanium content and machining of parts 'from the (annealed) solid' which made the unit cost so high. Of couse if a Lightning had the 21st c version of the samr Avon engines it would actually be more powerful than an F18 too! Daedelus 13:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde?

'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.'

Seems unlikely. Is there a cite? Guinnog 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Yes, the pilot Flt. Lt. Mike Hale reported by Charles Ross in http://www.lightning.org.uk/archive/0410.php NickS 23:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Max. operation speed: Mach 2.04 (~2170 km/h) {from Concorde}. One of these is wrong. I'm taking out the M2.2 claim for now. Guinnog 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim comes from the intercept pilot - see the article cited above. I can imagine that the operating speed and the trials speeds for Concorde might be different. Um.... http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/concorde/ says Max. operation speed Mach 2.04 but Max. speed Mach 2.23. It is also claimed that this particular Lightning has been recorded as achieving Mach 2.3 NickS 23:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What is less well-known is that the Lightning had a fairly poor safety record. The Starfighter became infamous in Luftwaffe service but the RAF's loss rate - with better air and ground crews - was not much better.

Here is an example of one sad loss.

I had the pleasure of seeing the Lightning XP753 display at Mildenhall in 1983. I even have a video of it somewhere.

Three months later it had crashed with the loss of F/Lt Thompson.

http://www.allenby.info/aircraft/planes/insea/scarboro3.html

"On the 26th of August 1983 there was to be an airshow at Teeside, two Lightnings were to be part of the days show there. One of the Lightnings, the Flight Leaders aircraft, would not start at their base so the other aircraft took off alone. Before take-off the pilot had asked twice if he could perform an impromptu display over Scarborough, these requests were turned down by his Flight Commander due to the fact this display had not been practiced or authorised. The Lightning pilot was a very experienced display pilot who had, at IAT 83 at RAF Greenham Common, won the Superkings Jet Aerobatics trophy earlier in the year. It was never understood why such a top pilot would disobey direct orders not to carry out a display over the town which would sadly end in tragedy. He flew in low over the sea and headed toward the cliffs (I assume that this is the cliffs under the castle), The pilot did not climb and fly over the cliffs but tried a tight turn at cliff level with the aim of flying back out to sea. During this turn the aircraft lost its flying speed, the aircraft then began to roll inverted as it dived into the sea. The pilot tried to eject but he did this as the aircraft was entering the water, not far out from the shore, which sadly killed him instantly. His body was recovered, as was the majority of the aircraft and taken away for examination.It was never understood why such a competant pilot would have carried out his display against the orders of his commanding officer, I am told that if he had completed the display and flown back to base he would have faced certain disciplinary action. Sadly only he will ever know."

[edit] TOC

I would prefer the TOC to float on the right. At 1024x768, all I see on my screen is the header paragraph and the TOC flanked by 3/4 of a screen of empty white space. U-G-L-Y. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Performance Comparison

Article says:

"The Lightning’s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 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 managed 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). Only the later F-15 and MiG-25 had higher rates of climb."

The first sentence is fine. I suggest deleting the rest. The comparison data is mostly wrong and does not agree with information elsewhere on Wikipedia or other sources. The early F-4B Phantom and F-104A/C had only slightly lower climb rates than the Lightning; later models still exceeded 40,000 ft/min. No model MiG-21 could manage 30,000 ft/min. The current F-16C climbs about like the Lightning; the -A was lighter and quicker. The MiG-25 climbs about like an F-4E. Modern operational aircraft that clearly outclimb the Lightning include the Su-27 family, MiG-29, Rafale, Typhoon, F-15, F-18, and F-22. Comparisons are based on air-to-air combat configurations, i.e., internal fuel only (tanks dropped) and typical weapons loads (two to eight missiles of various types depending upon the airplane, plus cannon where applicable).

The service ceiling discussion is similarly weak. The Lightning normally operated to around 65,000 feet. Like its high performance peers (F-4 / F-104), it was capable of zoom climbing for short periods to altitudes approaching 90,000 feet, but controllability and the need to keep the engines lit meant this was done only exceptionally.

Brian Carroll's comment about take-off distance is also taken out of context of a larger discussion comparing his impressions of the two aircraft. How would the Lightning come off if the F-15C carried only 2 AIM-120s and enough internal fuel to hop 900 miles?

Have you seen the numbers for the Thrust / Weight of the F-15C/E? It wouldn't mkae enough of a difference to really do much better, you could check the USAF's website, but I wouldn't recomend it. They don't usually give realistic numbers, prefering to over-estimate any American piece of hardware (except for the F-4 for some reason). Read a NATO Logistical Defence Technologies Assessment. They give the real numbers as recognised by the Defence Agencies of about a dozen NATO nations including the UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia. I think the most recent one is from 1999. 194.80.32.8 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Concorde anecdote needs a source - it is difficult to imagine a Lightning at its maximum speed overtaking a Concorde without running out of gas.

The Lightning was quite an airplane for its time, but enthusiasm should not violate NPOV.

Randall randallcameron@kpmg.com.ye

Very valid criticisms, I agree. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Added source for Concorde claim. Mike Hale is quoted as saying he would use AAR to extend range during exercises, preferring to fly F.3 XR749 despite its shorter range compared to the F.6. XR749 is claimed to have been recorded at Mach 2.3, whereas in http://www.lightning.org.uk/archive/0311.php another pilot describes failing to achieve Mach 2.0 in his F.6 - and reheat failng at 75000 ft. NickS 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The citations are mainly designer, pilot and test pilot quotations - sources to follow probably Sept/Oct 2006

[edit] Operational History - 111 Sqdrn at Leuchars

The section on operational history lists Treble-1 squadron as being equipped with Phantoms BEFORE moving to RAF Leuchars; this appears to be the only squadron listed in the article which flew out of Leuchars. However, as a child I spent a considerable amount of time in the area, and I'm certain someone was flying Lightnings out of Leuchars. I'd always believed it was 111 Squadron, but anyone know who it was?

    • 11 and 23 Sqdns were at Leuchars with Lightnings.

[edit] Should we change the service ceiling to match with the one mentioned in the article

In the preformance section, it mentiones the lightings real service ceiling of 80,000 (25,000 m). Should I change the "Specifications" ceiling to match the one said on the preformace section?

Service ceiling has a specific definition. The Lightning could not achieve the required rate of climb at that altitude. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Leftover Lightnings

A small number of F.6s continued to fly with BAe, used for development work on the Tornado ADV programme, but these too were retired in December 1992.

F.6s XP693 and XR773 were the two ex-Warton Foxhunter Radar Trials machines that eventually went out to S.A. These were potential flyers due to the amount of fatigue life left on the airframe.

XS904 at Bruntingthorpe was also a Warton machine but with very little life left in the airframe. It was also the last Lightning to fly in the UK. It wasn't - it was in South Africa last week!

Video and discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=FXfH8Ej_ADk&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DFXfH8Ej_ADk

81.86.144.210 08:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lightning II

The article has the following statement In July 2006 the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was officially named "Lightning II", a reference to the English Electric Lightning and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. I find it hard to believe that the Americans would name anything with reference to a British fighter and that the name evolves from the P-38. I was going to delete but is their a chance anybody has a citation for this ? MilborneOne 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The American's didn't name the P-38 the Lighting, the RAF did. They took an order of P-38's in the 40's and were going to buy a contract for them but cancelled the order after they had assessed them, as it was demed to be massively incapable of challenging German superiority fighters. For it's brief in-service period, they came to call it the "Lightning" based on it's speed, as the RAF didn't have anything with such heavy firepower that could match the P-38 for speed. The name for the F-35 JCA is, therefore, based on an English designation eitherway. 194.80.32.8 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/g/Talk%7EEnglish_Electric_Lightning_cc68.html"