![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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.
why the ghastly purple colour? GraemeLeggett 10:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The header photo is of F2 XN725, (discovered by highlighting the underwing serial in photo software) which is in a transitional state after conversion to F3 prototype (evidenced by the larger squared off fin and small ventral tank) and also while testing the later type of extended cambered wing leading edge as used on the F2A and F6. As such it is quite a rare shot representing many marks of Lightning, but none specifically. Some details here: [1] 12:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek16 ( talk • contribs)
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..
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)
'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) You can't take the pilot's stories as confirmed fact since he could very well be embellishing on good old memories 216.15.83.121 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2008 (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."
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)
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?
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
The citations are mainly designer, pilot and test pilot quotations - sources to follow probably Sept/Oct 2006
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?
There was also TFF (the Station Handling Flight building). A 111 Sqdn aircraft was flown in to LEU as a replacement for 23, but it went into the corner of the BAC hanger for 'Major' and never flew with 23, it was still there after 23 had left and was the 'last 23 sqdn Mk6' to fly out of LEU wearing the Cross of St Andrew on the tail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.11.114 ( talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
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?
No, service ceiling for the Lightning was the maximum height at which the pilot's survival equipment, including notably emergency oxygen, would enable him to survive depressurisation, oxygen failure or ejection. 'Even without the benefit of full power, the aircraft went to 65,000ft, which was my second 'bust' of the limits that day as the maximum height at which our equipment would keep us alive in the event of a pressurisation failure or canopy loss was 56,000ft.' -- Sqn Ldr Clive Rowley MBE, 'Flying the Frightening', FlyPast, March 2006, p60, relating an F2A sortie from Gutersloh in 1976. (His first 'bust' that day was while mock-intercepting his 19 Sqn CO at Mach 1.8: 'The in-service Mach limit for the F2A was M1.7, but we all knew that they had been tested to M2.0.') --Hugo Barnacle 87.114.56.97 ( talk) 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
For Leggett, the P-38 was more than 40mph faster than the Whirlwind and the naming of the P-35 had nothing to do with the English Electric Plane. To the contrary, the English Electric plane was named after the P-38. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.11.246 ( talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
In the performance comparison it states that the operating ceiling was 87,300 feet, in the next paragraph from the same source it says he took a Lightning F3 to 88,000 feet. Both can't be right !. MilborneOne 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's of any use to the article but the MoD has a 'non-effective' Lightning F.1A up for auction here: [2] if anyone's interested. Ian Dunster 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This edit recently appeared:"A destroyed Lightning on a target range appeared on the cover of the Suede album "Sci-Fi Lullabies." My comment was that it didn't appear to be notable or a clear-cut connection to the iconic nature of the EE Lightning. What say you? FWIW Bzuk 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
I think Lightnings appear in the earlier version of the William Golding, "Lord of the Flies," movie, but I won't add this unless someone else can verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 ( talk) 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
None of the entries in this section is backed up by a source - if no sources are forthcoming, the comments should be removed. Even sources were to be found, wouldn't Aircraft in fiction be a more suitable place for this information? -- TraceyR ( talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The EE Lightning design is not the classical design of english jet planes like Meteor, Vulcan or Vampire. Was the Focke Wulf Ta-183 a design model for English Electric engineers ? -- 82.228.20.156 ( talk) 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
While the Lightning had great performance in its day, it seems that certain authors' enthusiasm has conflicted with reality.
The lightning has a worse power/weight ratio than many of the fighters it is claimed to out-accelerate. They make it sound as if it compared favorably to the F-15, yet the F-15 easily has a much higher power/weight ratio in addition to a higher top speed. TwinTurboZ ( talk) 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
“ | We few, we happy few, we band of fighter pilots;
For he today that launches with me Shall be my wingman; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in Earth now abed Shall think themselves accursed they were not such, And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks That flew with us upon Saint Lightning! |
” |
The wikipedia is an objectivist's paradise where we base our articles on what references say. If you have notable references saying otherwise, then by all means add them to the article.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW I think that the English Electric Lightning has much cleaner aerodynamics- the engine intake is where the nose would normally be, and that means it doesn't have drag from the nose as well as from the air intakes from the jet engines. That means that it doesn't need as much power to simply push itself through the air, which in turn means it keeps on terms with other much more powerful engined aircraft.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless, I've screwed up my math, I estimated that the EEL has an effective thrust/weight ratio of somewhere about 0.9; allowing for the fact that all of the power goes on drag; but the cross-sectional area of the EEL is about 3/4 that of other aircraft.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
While a very interesting aircraft and one that British aerophiles justifiably adore, the Lightning was not the most practical weapons system around, even during its heyday. While it had impressive for its time acceleration and could go Mach 2, that's about all it could do - with a weapons load of all of two missiles (that's it, although the export versions had some additional store points on the wing) and a radar that was severely compromised (dish diameter, an important criteria, was limited by that nose intake that someone has above alluded to as being oh so good for performance). Being a pretty tightly packed airframe, fuel load was pretty much nothing - great if you want an aerobatics aircraft for airshows, but of limited utility in a combat aircraft. Basically, the aircraft was designed to be a point interceptor and had much more in common in that regard with the Spitfire than say a modern interceptor trying to counter incoming aircraft armed with nuclear weapons or, heaven forbid, cruise missiles. I recall reading an article by a senior British fighter pilot (it was reprinted in a British book on either the Lightning or the F-106, so hopefully someone can identify the reference) who had served in squadrons flying both aircraft (he flew the Six while on an exchange tour with the USAF) - he remarked how routine F-106 operations were so leasurely with last chance runway checks, etc. that he probably burned more fuel before taking off in a Six than a Lightning had onboard for the whole mission. Even after using all that fuel on the ground, the Six could go up and fly for hours while the Lighting just had enough fuel to make a quick, hurried dash from the parking stand to the runway, takeoff (albeit with great acceleration and minimal time to climbout), make one pass, and come home. He also noted that the unusual configuration of the Lightning also posed maintenance challenges - the vertical engine arrangement made changing the top engine a real bear compared to more conventional aircraft with side-by-side engines (it did have the benefit of reducing yaw in engine out situations) and the skinny tires on the main gear (due to having to be retracted into the ultra-thin wing) had very few takeoffs and landings in them before they had to be replaced. In any case, I really do regret never having the opportunity to see a Lightning show her stuff - I have no doubt it was an impressive sight. jmdeur 15:32 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.60.151 ( talk)
The oft-heard claim that the EE Lightning had hardly any range is nonsense when tested against the figures published on Wikipedia.
All figures below are taken from the relevant Wikipedia articles.
The F4E Phantom II is specified as having a 2600 km ferry range with three external tanks; the Lightning F6 could get 2500 km ferry range. The Lightning F6's specified combat radius of 800 miles is a lot more than the 310 miles of the MiG-21, or the 422 miles specified for the F-4E Phantom II. Yet Wikipedia describes the F-4 Phantom II as a long range fighter!
What do you think people will think if they read Wikipedia's claim that a ‘long range fighter’ capable of Mach 2 has 422 miles combat radius, and then read that Wikipedia says a different Mach 2 fighter from the same era with 800 miles combat radius was crippled by its short range? And then find that both fighters have pretty much the same ferry range?
Doesn't make sense, does it?
Methinks I'm smelling the knee-jerk counterpoint to ‘British is best’ bigotry - someone's doing the automatic ‘British is crap’ thing (I'm assuming whoever it was is a Brit as I am). I decided to look up the actual figures instead of assuming that ‘It's British, so it must be bad/good’ (depending on whether you're a Grauniad or Torygraph reader - joke!).
Data from Wikipedia, all linked, on the Lightning page: the figures show the Lightning was, in F6 form, a long range fighter.
If someone's got better numbers, put 'em on Wikipedia and let's get things done properly.
In the meantime, it looks like misperception corrected from where I'm sat. If someone can show otherwise with reliable published performance figures (range is an aspect of aircraft performance), or other new data, let's see it on Wikipedia.
Or have I missed an important point in my interpretation of the published figures? It's possible - if so, what mistake did I make? I would like to learn if I am in error: I can't see anything wrong with my analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.21.163 ( talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's 800 miles range, not 800 miles combat radius. So, the EE Lightning has an 400 mile combat radius. This is consistent with other sources on the web. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.223.243.6 (
talk)
15:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I removed the comparison of combat radius, until someone can come up with a definitive reference that 800 miles is combat radius, not range. According to vectorsite ( http://www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html ), the 800 miles is range on internal fuel, not combat radius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 ( talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The "RAF specification" for the P-51 was (in it's entirety) no. of guns, their caliber, the engine, delivery date and unit cost. That's all.
An anecdotal remark above suggests that the F-106 had much greater range than the EE Lightning. Perhaps so when comparing particular versions of those aeroplanes: I do not doubt the tale as reported. But looking at Wikipedia, the data doesn't show that clearly. All figures below from Wikipedia.
The F-106A has a combat range of 1800 miles; halve that for combat radius gives a 900 miles combat radius (is that valid, or have I missed a trick?). That is only 12.5% more than the 800 mile combat radius Lightning F6, introduced in 1965. 2,700 mile ferry range for the F-106, 1,560 miles for the EE Lightning - not such a good showing for the Brit there, I think.
So Wikipedia states that they had apparently similar combat ranges, but the F-106 had a much greater ferry range. But under what conditions? Not specified.
I think what these articles need is more good data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.21.163 ( talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I just remind editors this is not a discussion forum, any comments to improve the article welcome but this is not the place for a general discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Blimey, you Brits sure don't like being criticized. Or is it criticised? Your only reaction is to brag about achievements that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.11.246 ( talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This one's for the Brits, I found the Flight Global's archive section on Lightning ← click on the link for more details. Cheers~! ... Dave1185 ( talk) 02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"remembered for its great speed and natural metal exterior" sure, other fighters of the era are remembered for wooden and synthetic metal (Mendelevium or Berkelium) exteriors.
Thebiggestmac ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Pre-war RAF natural metal finish shown at right in a restored Hawker Fury;
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.143 ( talk) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Back in about 1956 when the aircraft was the P.1B there was a national call for name proposals. As boys at school in Ely we sent in the suggestion "Eel", which we thought quite neat both for the alliteration and for the nod to that dangerous creature, the electric eel. For better or worse, this was not chosen and on reflection the Lightning was more brutal than slippery. What I can't recall is the exact date nor who ran the competition: it might have been a newspaper. TSRL ( talk) 09:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is another Lightning at the gates of British Aerospace, Salmsbury, Preston, Lancashire if anyone wants to get the model and serial number for the records. Its been there for years.
Samlesbury Aerodrome Balderstone Lancashire BB2 7LF United Kingdom o Telephone: +44 (0) 1254 812 371 o Fax: +44 (0) 1254 768 000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.224.32 ( talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The radar and gunsight targeting controls were incorporated into the throttle lever and control column in one of the earliest applications of Hands On Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS). [3]
What's with the removing of the HOTAS line - It's shown being used on the video documentary in the YouTube link so I would have thought that would have been 'proof' enough. I never mentioned the Lightning being on the F-16 page in my edit summary, I stated that the use of HOTAS is mentioned on the F-16 page so presumably it's 'notable' enough for the F-16 - so what's with removing a line that states that the Lightning had it - the film in the video is obviously from the early 1960s so it's likely that the Lightning had it before the F-16 and the commentator mentions that it was 'pioneered' by the Lightning.
Surely spec F23/49 is a 1949 spec, hence the /49 date code? Have you any info to the contrary? ER.103 was the original requirement of 1947. GilesW ( talk) 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of Buttler (2005) to hand; can anyone confirm the use of the (tentative) designation "Sea Lightning FAW.1"? Project Cancelled does mention that the first VG Lightning proposal was for a naval variant (later revised into a land-based aircraft proposed for the RAF) but doesn't give any designation for it. It might be better to instead describe the VG Lightning in the article, mentioning both naval and land-based proposals? Letdorf ( talk) 12:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC).
The outline drawing on the F6 Specification section is correctly identified by its Alt Text tag as that of an F1. Coincidentally, there is a line drawing of an F6 in line with the description of the F1 in the Variants section. Should they be swapped? SeniorMoments 81.138.16.193 ( talk) 12:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Does it have one? Any shootouts besides an unmanned British fighter? Several planes' articles have a separate section covering this. Rmhermen ( talk) 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As at 23 August 2010 both surviving F.52s are at King abdul-Aziz Air Base Dharan Saudi Arabia. ex XN770 outside the VVIP terminal and ex XN767 (c/n 95115) in a car park, open for anybody authorised to enter the base to view, but not on public display. Petebutt ( talk) 15:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I see a number of red links have appeared in this article. It is worth reading the WP:RED guidelines before inserting red links to ensure this is an appropriate think to do. Regards, Letdorf ( talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC).
"The Civil Aviation Authority refused a licence for the surviving airworthy examples to perform at air shows in the UK" -- but as there's no citation, and this isn't a subject I know much about, I can't find out why. What were the CAA's reasons? 86.136.249.150 ( talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
"A Lightning flying its optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft less than 3 minutes after brake release.[5] This was—and is—impressive performance."
Flabby writing, telling the reader to be impressed. If he's impressed he doesn't need to be told, and if he's not impressed he sure doesn't need to be told. He won't be impressed if he knows the Sapphire Meteor climbed to 12000 meters in 3 min 10 sec in 1951, and the Skyray climbed to 15000 meters in less than three minutes in 1958.
36000 ft in less than three minutes could be impressive if it's with some payload, and fuel for a couple hours-- but none of us knows what the payload is in this case? Tim Zukas ( talk) 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The following is transferred temporarily to the talk page and to the editor's page as a sandbox project. There are multiple problems with the submission, not the least being a rough translation from Italian. Editors may choose to work on this here: "The Lightning F Mk.53 (F.53) had "multi role" capability, with a full array of air-to-surface weapons and extra fuel. While early series were basically agile point-defence interceptors, very limited avionics, and the lack of a RWR limited effectiveness. Without external tanks and very limited use of in-flight refuelling (usually just for ferry flights), endurance at full throttle was very limited: a mission of 40 minutes was quite normal, and prolongued use of reheat/afterburner at low altitude, resulted in as little as 15 minutes.
Especially when powered by the R.R. Avon 302C (5,671/7,393 kgf) used by the Saudi Lightnings, full power was not needed in some missions. The F.53 was capable of reaching Mach 1 without afterburners, and was able to fly up to 7,620 m on one engine. It could climb to the operational ceiling in 2.5 minutes, and accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2 in 3.5 minutes. Power was not lacking, and everything possible was done to gain a useful load. [2]
Four underwing pylons or (internal pylons) were each capable of holding one or two 1,000 lb bombs, napalm tanks, or SNEB rocket launchers (18x68 mm each). The dual ADEN pack (with 260 projectiles) could replace the forward part of the ventral tank. The Firestreak missile system could be replaced with rockets (2 packs, 22 weapon each, 51 mm caliber), both for air-to-air and air-to-surface roles. As the Lightning fuselage could not easily accommodate more loads, the wings had two unusual dorsal hardpoints: each could be equipped with a fixed 1,180 lt tank, or a 1,000 lb bomb (ejectable with explosive charges) [3]. It was also available the Matra JL-100 combo, with 18 SNEB and 250 lt fuel tank in the same system, up two units for every dorsal hardpoint (totalizing 1,000 l fuel and 72 rockets). The Lightning F.53 was therefore able to be armed with up to 188 rockets (44 internal, 72 over the wings and 72 under), or six 1,000 lb bombs, and still retain very high performance and reasonable endurance. The Lightning F.53 had a total of 3,300 lt internal fuel, plus the external stores (the ventral tank was available in models from 1,100 to 2,770 lt). Usually it was not fitted any IFR probe, while the pilot had a Martin-Baker seat (Mk.BS4C Mk-2, effective from 0 meters and 167 km/h). [4]
The Lightning F.53 could also accommodate a reconnaissance pod, in the place of Firestreak or rocket systems. Every pod had four 70 mm Vinten cameras (Type 360). It could be optimized for reconnaissance missions from 61 to 9,145 meters (200-30,000 ft). For night missions, a flare-launcher system was available. Therefore, the original interceptor became a triple role machine: fighter, attack and reconnaissance. The maximum weight increased up to 18,914 kg, while the empty weight (with gunpacks and Firestreaks) was 13,426 kg. This did not allow the maximum bomb load with the maximum fuel, but it was enough to add air-to-ground capabilities. The takeoff run (at 17,6 t) was 1,006 meters, the landing (with parachute-brake) was 1,097 metres (at 13,154 kg). [5]
The new Lightning F.53 was a much more capable aircraft than the earlier models, but it still had some shortcomings, apart to be relatively costly and complex to operate. One was the lack of an RWR, became much more important, as the new aircraft was a fighter-bomber. Another was the tendency to catch fire in the engine's exhaust/afterburner. Engine fires damaged the controls in the tail with the loss of the aircraft, unavoidable. This was the most frequent cause of losses for the Lightning's operational units, and despite the modifications, it was never entirely corrected. [6]. One of the F Mk.53 lost for engine fire crashed in early 1970, near the Yemen border. Another issue was the lack of Red Top: at least at the beginning, the Lightnings had the previous Firestreaks, as the Red Top was not yet available for export. [5]
From 1967, Lightning F.53s operated from the Khamis base, served by radars based at Usram. The last Lightning was delivered in 1972, during Magic Carpet phase IV. (The "Magic Carpet" was successful and also involved the delivery of 25 Strikemaster Mk 80 and Type 80 ground control radar, while USA provided 10 HAWK batteries.) Only one aircraft (53-697) was lost to enemy fire; it was shot down by ground fire over Yemen on 3 May 1970, just before peace was declared. Saudi Lightnings were known to have suffered losses in 1967, 1968, 1970 (at least two), while one was lost before the delivery and one was lost just after be taken in RSAF service. Another Lightning, a T Mk 55 (55-710) was lost at Warton, in March 1967. [7]
When Dahran airstrip was re-built, Lightnings were sent to Riyadh. When they went back to Dhahran in July 1970, No.2 Squadron (10 F.53) and the LCU (5 F.53 and 6 T.55) were formed. The No. 6 Squadron had F.52 and F.54s (two of the single-seat were lost by accidents), later received five F.53s. Several Lightnings were held on reserve, at Riyadh. When the Carter administration in the U.S. agreed to deliver F-15 Eagles for the RSAF (despite the strong resistance from Israel), the Lightnings were phased out in 1986. In January, 18 F.53 and four T.55 returned to the UK with a direct flight. The most used F.55 had 2,304 flying hours, and the most used T.55 reached 2,484. [7] FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
BTW i usually have ceased to put in 'watchlist' the stuff i edit, just to ignore eventual pruning (that frankly speaking, are not much 'wikilove') Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 16:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposed revision:
"The Lightning F Mk.53 (F.53) had "multi role" capability, configured with a full array of air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons, reconnaissance pod (four 70 mm Type 360 Vinten cameras) and extra fuel. Four underwing pylons or (internal pylons) were each capable of holding one or two 1,000 lb bombs, napalm tanks, or SNEB rocket launchers (18x68 mm each). The dual ADEN pack (with 260 projectiles) could replace the forward part of the ventral tank. The Firestreak missile system could be replaced with rockets (2 packs, 22 weapon each, 51 mm caliber). Two unusual dorsal hardpoints could be equipped with a fixed 1,180 lt tank, or a 1,000 lb bomb (ejectable with explosive charges). [8].
From 1967, Lightning F.53s operated from the Khamis base, served by radars based at Usram. The last Lightning was delivered in 1972, during Magic Carpet phase IV. (The "Magic Carpet" was successful and also involved the delivery of 25 Strikemaster Mk 80 and Type 80 ground control radar, while USA provided 10 HAWK batteries.) When Dahran airstrip was re-built, Lightnings were sent to Riyadh. When they went back to Dhahran in July 1970, No.2 Squadron (10 F.53) and the LCU (5 F.53 and 6 T.55) were formed. The No. 6 Squadron had F.52 and F.54s (two of the single-seat were lost by accidents), later received five F.53s. Several Lightnings were held on reserve, at Riyadh.
Only one aircraft (53-697) was lost to enemy fire; it was shot down by ground fire over Yemen on 3 May 1970, just before peace was declared. Saudi Lightnings were known to have suffered losses in 1967, 1968, 1970 (at least two), while one was lost before the delivery and one was lost just after be taken in RSAF service. Another Lightning, a TMk 55 (55-710) was lost at Warton, in March 1967. Another F Mk.53 crashed in early 1970, near the Yemen border, due to an engine fire, a persistent problem with the aircraft. [7]
When the Carter administration in the U.S. agreed to deliver F-15 Eagles for the RSAF (despite the strong resistance from Israel), the Lightnings were phased out in 1986. In January, 18 F.53 and four T.55 returned to the UK with a direct flight. The most used F.55 had 2,304 flying hours, and the most used T.55 reached 2,484. [7]"FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In the main page still lacks some important infos:
The Lightning F.53 was therefore able to be armed with up to 188 rockets (44 internal, 72 over the wings and 72 under), or six 1,000 lb bombs, and still retain very high performance and reasonable endurance. The Lightning F.53 had a total of 3,300 lt internal fuel, plus the external stores (the ventral tank was available in models from 1,100 to 2,770 lt). Usually it was not fitted any IFR probe, while the pilot had a Martin-Baker seat (Mk.BS4C Mk-2, effective from 0 meters and 167 km/h). [10]
The Lightning F.53 could also accommodate a reconnaissance pod, in the place of Firestreak or rocket systems. Every pod had four 70 mm Vinten Type 360 cameras. This system could be optimized for reconnaissance missions from 61 to 9,145 meters (200-30,000 ft). For night missions, a flare-launcher system was available. Therefore, the original interceptor became a triple role machine: fighter, attack and reconnaissance. The takeoff run (at 17,6 t) was 1,006 meters, the landing (with parachute-brake) was 1,097 metres (at 13,154 kg). The maximum weight increased up to 18,914 kg, while the empty weight (with gunpacks and Firestreaks) was 13,426 kg. This did not allow the maximum bomb load with the maximum fuel, but it was enough to add air-to-ground capabilities. [5]
I expect that those performance above stated and sourced will be added as well. If not, i will feel free to add them as well and without permission from anyone. Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
refs for this section - to aid use of the above. Nigel Ish ( talk) 16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Tried to improve the operational history section for the RAF which is particularly weak, if anybody has any information about each of the main wings (Binbrook, Coltishall, Leuchars, Wattisham) or more on the foreign NEAF/FEAF operations it would help expand this bit. Also I think we need more on the important QRA role that the Lightning did for many years. Any help and references appreciated. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't be sure, but there appears to be a Lightning gate guard at Tabuk RSAF base. (southern aircraft). Lightnings were flying there in the late 70's. Old Aylesburian ( talk) 09:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This article starts off stating that the Lightning was "noted for its great speed." Really? A Mach 2.0 aircraft is hardly noteworthy as posessing "great speed" - the F-106 by comparison had a top speed of Mach 2.3, yet you don't see people going around talking about it's "great speed." Now, the SR-71 or YF-12A - there's a cold war aircraft known for "great speed." Perhaps this article could lose the hyperbole in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 ( talk) 06:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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.
why the ghastly purple colour? GraemeLeggett 10:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The header photo is of F2 XN725, (discovered by highlighting the underwing serial in photo software) which is in a transitional state after conversion to F3 prototype (evidenced by the larger squared off fin and small ventral tank) and also while testing the later type of extended cambered wing leading edge as used on the F2A and F6. As such it is quite a rare shot representing many marks of Lightning, but none specifically. Some details here: [1] 12:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek16 ( talk • contribs)
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..
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)
'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) You can't take the pilot's stories as confirmed fact since he could very well be embellishing on good old memories 216.15.83.121 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2008 (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."
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)
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?
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
The citations are mainly designer, pilot and test pilot quotations - sources to follow probably Sept/Oct 2006
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?
There was also TFF (the Station Handling Flight building). A 111 Sqdn aircraft was flown in to LEU as a replacement for 23, but it went into the corner of the BAC hanger for 'Major' and never flew with 23, it was still there after 23 had left and was the 'last 23 sqdn Mk6' to fly out of LEU wearing the Cross of St Andrew on the tail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.11.114 ( talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
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?
No, service ceiling for the Lightning was the maximum height at which the pilot's survival equipment, including notably emergency oxygen, would enable him to survive depressurisation, oxygen failure or ejection. 'Even without the benefit of full power, the aircraft went to 65,000ft, which was my second 'bust' of the limits that day as the maximum height at which our equipment would keep us alive in the event of a pressurisation failure or canopy loss was 56,000ft.' -- Sqn Ldr Clive Rowley MBE, 'Flying the Frightening', FlyPast, March 2006, p60, relating an F2A sortie from Gutersloh in 1976. (His first 'bust' that day was while mock-intercepting his 19 Sqn CO at Mach 1.8: 'The in-service Mach limit for the F2A was M1.7, but we all knew that they had been tested to M2.0.') --Hugo Barnacle 87.114.56.97 ( talk) 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
For Leggett, the P-38 was more than 40mph faster than the Whirlwind and the naming of the P-35 had nothing to do with the English Electric Plane. To the contrary, the English Electric plane was named after the P-38. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.11.246 ( talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
In the performance comparison it states that the operating ceiling was 87,300 feet, in the next paragraph from the same source it says he took a Lightning F3 to 88,000 feet. Both can't be right !. MilborneOne 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's of any use to the article but the MoD has a 'non-effective' Lightning F.1A up for auction here: [2] if anyone's interested. Ian Dunster 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This edit recently appeared:"A destroyed Lightning on a target range appeared on the cover of the Suede album "Sci-Fi Lullabies." My comment was that it didn't appear to be notable or a clear-cut connection to the iconic nature of the EE Lightning. What say you? FWIW Bzuk 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
I think Lightnings appear in the earlier version of the William Golding, "Lord of the Flies," movie, but I won't add this unless someone else can verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 ( talk) 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
None of the entries in this section is backed up by a source - if no sources are forthcoming, the comments should be removed. Even sources were to be found, wouldn't Aircraft in fiction be a more suitable place for this information? -- TraceyR ( talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The EE Lightning design is not the classical design of english jet planes like Meteor, Vulcan or Vampire. Was the Focke Wulf Ta-183 a design model for English Electric engineers ? -- 82.228.20.156 ( talk) 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
While the Lightning had great performance in its day, it seems that certain authors' enthusiasm has conflicted with reality.
The lightning has a worse power/weight ratio than many of the fighters it is claimed to out-accelerate. They make it sound as if it compared favorably to the F-15, yet the F-15 easily has a much higher power/weight ratio in addition to a higher top speed. TwinTurboZ ( talk) 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
“ | We few, we happy few, we band of fighter pilots;
For he today that launches with me Shall be my wingman; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in Earth now abed Shall think themselves accursed they were not such, And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks That flew with us upon Saint Lightning! |
” |
The wikipedia is an objectivist's paradise where we base our articles on what references say. If you have notable references saying otherwise, then by all means add them to the article.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW I think that the English Electric Lightning has much cleaner aerodynamics- the engine intake is where the nose would normally be, and that means it doesn't have drag from the nose as well as from the air intakes from the jet engines. That means that it doesn't need as much power to simply push itself through the air, which in turn means it keeps on terms with other much more powerful engined aircraft.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless, I've screwed up my math, I estimated that the EEL has an effective thrust/weight ratio of somewhere about 0.9; allowing for the fact that all of the power goes on drag; but the cross-sectional area of the EEL is about 3/4 that of other aircraft.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
While a very interesting aircraft and one that British aerophiles justifiably adore, the Lightning was not the most practical weapons system around, even during its heyday. While it had impressive for its time acceleration and could go Mach 2, that's about all it could do - with a weapons load of all of two missiles (that's it, although the export versions had some additional store points on the wing) and a radar that was severely compromised (dish diameter, an important criteria, was limited by that nose intake that someone has above alluded to as being oh so good for performance). Being a pretty tightly packed airframe, fuel load was pretty much nothing - great if you want an aerobatics aircraft for airshows, but of limited utility in a combat aircraft. Basically, the aircraft was designed to be a point interceptor and had much more in common in that regard with the Spitfire than say a modern interceptor trying to counter incoming aircraft armed with nuclear weapons or, heaven forbid, cruise missiles. I recall reading an article by a senior British fighter pilot (it was reprinted in a British book on either the Lightning or the F-106, so hopefully someone can identify the reference) who had served in squadrons flying both aircraft (he flew the Six while on an exchange tour with the USAF) - he remarked how routine F-106 operations were so leasurely with last chance runway checks, etc. that he probably burned more fuel before taking off in a Six than a Lightning had onboard for the whole mission. Even after using all that fuel on the ground, the Six could go up and fly for hours while the Lighting just had enough fuel to make a quick, hurried dash from the parking stand to the runway, takeoff (albeit with great acceleration and minimal time to climbout), make one pass, and come home. He also noted that the unusual configuration of the Lightning also posed maintenance challenges - the vertical engine arrangement made changing the top engine a real bear compared to more conventional aircraft with side-by-side engines (it did have the benefit of reducing yaw in engine out situations) and the skinny tires on the main gear (due to having to be retracted into the ultra-thin wing) had very few takeoffs and landings in them before they had to be replaced. In any case, I really do regret never having the opportunity to see a Lightning show her stuff - I have no doubt it was an impressive sight. jmdeur 15:32 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.60.151 ( talk)
The oft-heard claim that the EE Lightning had hardly any range is nonsense when tested against the figures published on Wikipedia.
All figures below are taken from the relevant Wikipedia articles.
The F4E Phantom II is specified as having a 2600 km ferry range with three external tanks; the Lightning F6 could get 2500 km ferry range. The Lightning F6's specified combat radius of 800 miles is a lot more than the 310 miles of the MiG-21, or the 422 miles specified for the F-4E Phantom II. Yet Wikipedia describes the F-4 Phantom II as a long range fighter!
What do you think people will think if they read Wikipedia's claim that a ‘long range fighter’ capable of Mach 2 has 422 miles combat radius, and then read that Wikipedia says a different Mach 2 fighter from the same era with 800 miles combat radius was crippled by its short range? And then find that both fighters have pretty much the same ferry range?
Doesn't make sense, does it?
Methinks I'm smelling the knee-jerk counterpoint to ‘British is best’ bigotry - someone's doing the automatic ‘British is crap’ thing (I'm assuming whoever it was is a Brit as I am). I decided to look up the actual figures instead of assuming that ‘It's British, so it must be bad/good’ (depending on whether you're a Grauniad or Torygraph reader - joke!).
Data from Wikipedia, all linked, on the Lightning page: the figures show the Lightning was, in F6 form, a long range fighter.
If someone's got better numbers, put 'em on Wikipedia and let's get things done properly.
In the meantime, it looks like misperception corrected from where I'm sat. If someone can show otherwise with reliable published performance figures (range is an aspect of aircraft performance), or other new data, let's see it on Wikipedia.
Or have I missed an important point in my interpretation of the published figures? It's possible - if so, what mistake did I make? I would like to learn if I am in error: I can't see anything wrong with my analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.21.163 ( talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's 800 miles range, not 800 miles combat radius. So, the EE Lightning has an 400 mile combat radius. This is consistent with other sources on the web. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.223.243.6 (
talk)
15:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I removed the comparison of combat radius, until someone can come up with a definitive reference that 800 miles is combat radius, not range. According to vectorsite ( http://www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html ), the 800 miles is range on internal fuel, not combat radius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 ( talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The "RAF specification" for the P-51 was (in it's entirety) no. of guns, their caliber, the engine, delivery date and unit cost. That's all.
An anecdotal remark above suggests that the F-106 had much greater range than the EE Lightning. Perhaps so when comparing particular versions of those aeroplanes: I do not doubt the tale as reported. But looking at Wikipedia, the data doesn't show that clearly. All figures below from Wikipedia.
The F-106A has a combat range of 1800 miles; halve that for combat radius gives a 900 miles combat radius (is that valid, or have I missed a trick?). That is only 12.5% more than the 800 mile combat radius Lightning F6, introduced in 1965. 2,700 mile ferry range for the F-106, 1,560 miles for the EE Lightning - not such a good showing for the Brit there, I think.
So Wikipedia states that they had apparently similar combat ranges, but the F-106 had a much greater ferry range. But under what conditions? Not specified.
I think what these articles need is more good data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.21.163 ( talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I just remind editors this is not a discussion forum, any comments to improve the article welcome but this is not the place for a general discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Blimey, you Brits sure don't like being criticized. Or is it criticised? Your only reaction is to brag about achievements that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.11.246 ( talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This one's for the Brits, I found the Flight Global's archive section on Lightning ← click on the link for more details. Cheers~! ... Dave1185 ( talk) 02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"remembered for its great speed and natural metal exterior" sure, other fighters of the era are remembered for wooden and synthetic metal (Mendelevium or Berkelium) exteriors.
Thebiggestmac ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Pre-war RAF natural metal finish shown at right in a restored Hawker Fury;
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.143 ( talk) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Back in about 1956 when the aircraft was the P.1B there was a national call for name proposals. As boys at school in Ely we sent in the suggestion "Eel", which we thought quite neat both for the alliteration and for the nod to that dangerous creature, the electric eel. For better or worse, this was not chosen and on reflection the Lightning was more brutal than slippery. What I can't recall is the exact date nor who ran the competition: it might have been a newspaper. TSRL ( talk) 09:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is another Lightning at the gates of British Aerospace, Salmsbury, Preston, Lancashire if anyone wants to get the model and serial number for the records. Its been there for years.
Samlesbury Aerodrome Balderstone Lancashire BB2 7LF United Kingdom o Telephone: +44 (0) 1254 812 371 o Fax: +44 (0) 1254 768 000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.224.32 ( talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The radar and gunsight targeting controls were incorporated into the throttle lever and control column in one of the earliest applications of Hands On Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS). [3]
What's with the removing of the HOTAS line - It's shown being used on the video documentary in the YouTube link so I would have thought that would have been 'proof' enough. I never mentioned the Lightning being on the F-16 page in my edit summary, I stated that the use of HOTAS is mentioned on the F-16 page so presumably it's 'notable' enough for the F-16 - so what's with removing a line that states that the Lightning had it - the film in the video is obviously from the early 1960s so it's likely that the Lightning had it before the F-16 and the commentator mentions that it was 'pioneered' by the Lightning.
Surely spec F23/49 is a 1949 spec, hence the /49 date code? Have you any info to the contrary? ER.103 was the original requirement of 1947. GilesW ( talk) 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of Buttler (2005) to hand; can anyone confirm the use of the (tentative) designation "Sea Lightning FAW.1"? Project Cancelled does mention that the first VG Lightning proposal was for a naval variant (later revised into a land-based aircraft proposed for the RAF) but doesn't give any designation for it. It might be better to instead describe the VG Lightning in the article, mentioning both naval and land-based proposals? Letdorf ( talk) 12:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC).
The outline drawing on the F6 Specification section is correctly identified by its Alt Text tag as that of an F1. Coincidentally, there is a line drawing of an F6 in line with the description of the F1 in the Variants section. Should they be swapped? SeniorMoments 81.138.16.193 ( talk) 12:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Does it have one? Any shootouts besides an unmanned British fighter? Several planes' articles have a separate section covering this. Rmhermen ( talk) 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As at 23 August 2010 both surviving F.52s are at King abdul-Aziz Air Base Dharan Saudi Arabia. ex XN770 outside the VVIP terminal and ex XN767 (c/n 95115) in a car park, open for anybody authorised to enter the base to view, but not on public display. Petebutt ( talk) 15:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I see a number of red links have appeared in this article. It is worth reading the WP:RED guidelines before inserting red links to ensure this is an appropriate think to do. Regards, Letdorf ( talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC).
"The Civil Aviation Authority refused a licence for the surviving airworthy examples to perform at air shows in the UK" -- but as there's no citation, and this isn't a subject I know much about, I can't find out why. What were the CAA's reasons? 86.136.249.150 ( talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
"A Lightning flying its optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft less than 3 minutes after brake release.[5] This was—and is—impressive performance."
Flabby writing, telling the reader to be impressed. If he's impressed he doesn't need to be told, and if he's not impressed he sure doesn't need to be told. He won't be impressed if he knows the Sapphire Meteor climbed to 12000 meters in 3 min 10 sec in 1951, and the Skyray climbed to 15000 meters in less than three minutes in 1958.
36000 ft in less than three minutes could be impressive if it's with some payload, and fuel for a couple hours-- but none of us knows what the payload is in this case? Tim Zukas ( talk) 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The following is transferred temporarily to the talk page and to the editor's page as a sandbox project. There are multiple problems with the submission, not the least being a rough translation from Italian. Editors may choose to work on this here: "The Lightning F Mk.53 (F.53) had "multi role" capability, with a full array of air-to-surface weapons and extra fuel. While early series were basically agile point-defence interceptors, very limited avionics, and the lack of a RWR limited effectiveness. Without external tanks and very limited use of in-flight refuelling (usually just for ferry flights), endurance at full throttle was very limited: a mission of 40 minutes was quite normal, and prolongued use of reheat/afterburner at low altitude, resulted in as little as 15 minutes.
Especially when powered by the R.R. Avon 302C (5,671/7,393 kgf) used by the Saudi Lightnings, full power was not needed in some missions. The F.53 was capable of reaching Mach 1 without afterburners, and was able to fly up to 7,620 m on one engine. It could climb to the operational ceiling in 2.5 minutes, and accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2 in 3.5 minutes. Power was not lacking, and everything possible was done to gain a useful load. [2]
Four underwing pylons or (internal pylons) were each capable of holding one or two 1,000 lb bombs, napalm tanks, or SNEB rocket launchers (18x68 mm each). The dual ADEN pack (with 260 projectiles) could replace the forward part of the ventral tank. The Firestreak missile system could be replaced with rockets (2 packs, 22 weapon each, 51 mm caliber), both for air-to-air and air-to-surface roles. As the Lightning fuselage could not easily accommodate more loads, the wings had two unusual dorsal hardpoints: each could be equipped with a fixed 1,180 lt tank, or a 1,000 lb bomb (ejectable with explosive charges) [3]. It was also available the Matra JL-100 combo, with 18 SNEB and 250 lt fuel tank in the same system, up two units for every dorsal hardpoint (totalizing 1,000 l fuel and 72 rockets). The Lightning F.53 was therefore able to be armed with up to 188 rockets (44 internal, 72 over the wings and 72 under), or six 1,000 lb bombs, and still retain very high performance and reasonable endurance. The Lightning F.53 had a total of 3,300 lt internal fuel, plus the external stores (the ventral tank was available in models from 1,100 to 2,770 lt). Usually it was not fitted any IFR probe, while the pilot had a Martin-Baker seat (Mk.BS4C Mk-2, effective from 0 meters and 167 km/h). [4]
The Lightning F.53 could also accommodate a reconnaissance pod, in the place of Firestreak or rocket systems. Every pod had four 70 mm Vinten cameras (Type 360). It could be optimized for reconnaissance missions from 61 to 9,145 meters (200-30,000 ft). For night missions, a flare-launcher system was available. Therefore, the original interceptor became a triple role machine: fighter, attack and reconnaissance. The maximum weight increased up to 18,914 kg, while the empty weight (with gunpacks and Firestreaks) was 13,426 kg. This did not allow the maximum bomb load with the maximum fuel, but it was enough to add air-to-ground capabilities. The takeoff run (at 17,6 t) was 1,006 meters, the landing (with parachute-brake) was 1,097 metres (at 13,154 kg). [5]
The new Lightning F.53 was a much more capable aircraft than the earlier models, but it still had some shortcomings, apart to be relatively costly and complex to operate. One was the lack of an RWR, became much more important, as the new aircraft was a fighter-bomber. Another was the tendency to catch fire in the engine's exhaust/afterburner. Engine fires damaged the controls in the tail with the loss of the aircraft, unavoidable. This was the most frequent cause of losses for the Lightning's operational units, and despite the modifications, it was never entirely corrected. [6]. One of the F Mk.53 lost for engine fire crashed in early 1970, near the Yemen border. Another issue was the lack of Red Top: at least at the beginning, the Lightnings had the previous Firestreaks, as the Red Top was not yet available for export. [5]
From 1967, Lightning F.53s operated from the Khamis base, served by radars based at Usram. The last Lightning was delivered in 1972, during Magic Carpet phase IV. (The "Magic Carpet" was successful and also involved the delivery of 25 Strikemaster Mk 80 and Type 80 ground control radar, while USA provided 10 HAWK batteries.) Only one aircraft (53-697) was lost to enemy fire; it was shot down by ground fire over Yemen on 3 May 1970, just before peace was declared. Saudi Lightnings were known to have suffered losses in 1967, 1968, 1970 (at least two), while one was lost before the delivery and one was lost just after be taken in RSAF service. Another Lightning, a T Mk 55 (55-710) was lost at Warton, in March 1967. [7]
When Dahran airstrip was re-built, Lightnings were sent to Riyadh. When they went back to Dhahran in July 1970, No.2 Squadron (10 F.53) and the LCU (5 F.53 and 6 T.55) were formed. The No. 6 Squadron had F.52 and F.54s (two of the single-seat were lost by accidents), later received five F.53s. Several Lightnings were held on reserve, at Riyadh. When the Carter administration in the U.S. agreed to deliver F-15 Eagles for the RSAF (despite the strong resistance from Israel), the Lightnings were phased out in 1986. In January, 18 F.53 and four T.55 returned to the UK with a direct flight. The most used F.55 had 2,304 flying hours, and the most used T.55 reached 2,484. [7] FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
BTW i usually have ceased to put in 'watchlist' the stuff i edit, just to ignore eventual pruning (that frankly speaking, are not much 'wikilove') Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 16:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposed revision:
"The Lightning F Mk.53 (F.53) had "multi role" capability, configured with a full array of air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons, reconnaissance pod (four 70 mm Type 360 Vinten cameras) and extra fuel. Four underwing pylons or (internal pylons) were each capable of holding one or two 1,000 lb bombs, napalm tanks, or SNEB rocket launchers (18x68 mm each). The dual ADEN pack (with 260 projectiles) could replace the forward part of the ventral tank. The Firestreak missile system could be replaced with rockets (2 packs, 22 weapon each, 51 mm caliber). Two unusual dorsal hardpoints could be equipped with a fixed 1,180 lt tank, or a 1,000 lb bomb (ejectable with explosive charges). [8].
From 1967, Lightning F.53s operated from the Khamis base, served by radars based at Usram. The last Lightning was delivered in 1972, during Magic Carpet phase IV. (The "Magic Carpet" was successful and also involved the delivery of 25 Strikemaster Mk 80 and Type 80 ground control radar, while USA provided 10 HAWK batteries.) When Dahran airstrip was re-built, Lightnings were sent to Riyadh. When they went back to Dhahran in July 1970, No.2 Squadron (10 F.53) and the LCU (5 F.53 and 6 T.55) were formed. The No. 6 Squadron had F.52 and F.54s (two of the single-seat were lost by accidents), later received five F.53s. Several Lightnings were held on reserve, at Riyadh.
Only one aircraft (53-697) was lost to enemy fire; it was shot down by ground fire over Yemen on 3 May 1970, just before peace was declared. Saudi Lightnings were known to have suffered losses in 1967, 1968, 1970 (at least two), while one was lost before the delivery and one was lost just after be taken in RSAF service. Another Lightning, a TMk 55 (55-710) was lost at Warton, in March 1967. Another F Mk.53 crashed in early 1970, near the Yemen border, due to an engine fire, a persistent problem with the aircraft. [7]
When the Carter administration in the U.S. agreed to deliver F-15 Eagles for the RSAF (despite the strong resistance from Israel), the Lightnings were phased out in 1986. In January, 18 F.53 and four T.55 returned to the UK with a direct flight. The most used F.55 had 2,304 flying hours, and the most used T.55 reached 2,484. [7]"FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In the main page still lacks some important infos:
The Lightning F.53 was therefore able to be armed with up to 188 rockets (44 internal, 72 over the wings and 72 under), or six 1,000 lb bombs, and still retain very high performance and reasonable endurance. The Lightning F.53 had a total of 3,300 lt internal fuel, plus the external stores (the ventral tank was available in models from 1,100 to 2,770 lt). Usually it was not fitted any IFR probe, while the pilot had a Martin-Baker seat (Mk.BS4C Mk-2, effective from 0 meters and 167 km/h). [10]
The Lightning F.53 could also accommodate a reconnaissance pod, in the place of Firestreak or rocket systems. Every pod had four 70 mm Vinten Type 360 cameras. This system could be optimized for reconnaissance missions from 61 to 9,145 meters (200-30,000 ft). For night missions, a flare-launcher system was available. Therefore, the original interceptor became a triple role machine: fighter, attack and reconnaissance. The takeoff run (at 17,6 t) was 1,006 meters, the landing (with parachute-brake) was 1,097 metres (at 13,154 kg). The maximum weight increased up to 18,914 kg, while the empty weight (with gunpacks and Firestreaks) was 13,426 kg. This did not allow the maximum bomb load with the maximum fuel, but it was enough to add air-to-ground capabilities. [5]
I expect that those performance above stated and sourced will be added as well. If not, i will feel free to add them as well and without permission from anyone. Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
refs for this section - to aid use of the above. Nigel Ish ( talk) 16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Tried to improve the operational history section for the RAF which is particularly weak, if anybody has any information about each of the main wings (Binbrook, Coltishall, Leuchars, Wattisham) or more on the foreign NEAF/FEAF operations it would help expand this bit. Also I think we need more on the important QRA role that the Lightning did for many years. Any help and references appreciated. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't be sure, but there appears to be a Lightning gate guard at Tabuk RSAF base. (southern aircraft). Lightnings were flying there in the late 70's. Old Aylesburian ( talk) 09:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This article starts off stating that the Lightning was "noted for its great speed." Really? A Mach 2.0 aircraft is hardly noteworthy as posessing "great speed" - the F-106 by comparison had a top speed of Mach 2.3, yet you don't see people going around talking about it's "great speed." Now, the SR-71 or YF-12A - there's a cold war aircraft known for "great speed." Perhaps this article could lose the hyperbole in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 ( talk) 06:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)