Fastest rate of climb?
Ken Doerr
Electric Lightning feature historically?
Best regards, Ken Doerr
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lindsay
holds it, having taken it off a modified F-15 Eagle (the Streak Eagle). As
for the English Eletric Lightning, wouldn't know sorry.
Linz
Ken Doerr <ken....@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:80e3ar$ffo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
>Electric Lightning feature historically?
>
>Best regards, Ken Doerr
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
IIRC it the lightning never held any time to height records. Seems
like the F-104 had 'em then the F-4 took them away. Then the Mig-25,
F-15, P-42.
Right now I'd put my my money on the F-15E, clean, with the -229s.
Unless you count the F-22 but I think it's debatable, at least on the
higher altitude records. Of course then you have to consider the
Typhoon too but I doubt they'll go for any records with it.
TEW
Ken Doerr wrote in message <80e3ar$ffo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
>Electric Lightning feature historically?
>
>Best regards, Ken Doerr
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I can't remember the Lightning getting any time to height records, but as an
in production/service fighter aircraft it was right up there with the best
if not the best! IIRC it could do something like 30,000 feet a minute (which
translates to about 600mph - vertically!) The F15 was about the next
aircraft with that sort of climb capability, and it entered service a good
15 or so years after the Lightning.
D. Scott Ferrin
<thomas...@NoeSpammPllease.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
>Ken Doerr wrote in message <80e3ar$ffo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
>>Electric Lightning feature historically?
>>
>>Best regards, Ken Doerr
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>
>I can't remember the Lightning getting any time to height records, but as an
>in production/service fighter aircraft it was right up there with the best
>if not the best! IIRC it could do something like 30,000 feet a minute (which
>translates to about 600mph - vertically!)
I think you need to check your math. 30k feet is roughly six miles
which translates to 360 mph.
The F15 was about the next
>aircraft with that sort of climb capability, and it entered service a good
>15 or so years after the Lightning.
Wrong again. F-4 could do it as could the F-104 and probably several
others.
>
>
>
Craig C.
> The F15 was about the next
>>aircraft with that sort of climb capability, and it entered service a good
>>15 or so years after the Lightning.
>Wrong again. F-4 could do it as could the F-104 and probably several
>others.
From what I can remember, the F-16 was the first that would
accelerate through Mach1 going vertical, Various forms of the F15 and
I believ several of the newer Russian a/c also can do this.
I worked on a proposal to set several time to altitude records with a
modified F-16. We estimated that we could get a particular -16 from
brake release to 40K feet in less than 60 seconds, doing certain
things to the a/c. Allas, budget problems stopped the program before
we were allowed to try.
Craig
BUFDRVR
>like the F-104 had 'em then the F-4 took them away. Then the Mig-25,
>F-15, P-42.
Hey, hey, hey, wait a minute, the T-38A once held the time to climb record. Not
sure when or for how long, but I distinctly remember being told in T-38
academics that she was once a world record holder.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Chris and Judy Matras
Saw a show on the Wings channel a few days ago.
F-15 50,000 fpm
Su-29 65,000 fpm (I might have the A/C wrong, but is was Russian)
Now that's FAST!
--
Chris and Judy Matras |
Grumman AA5-A Cheetah _|_
____/___\____
___________[=o=]___________
e/ o \e
satya
electronics, armament etc..that holds the world record in this category. The
flanker family as such has high performance in this area.
Chris and Judy Matras <cjma...@logicsouth.com> wrote in message
news:382B6346...@logicsouth.com...
TToggir
somebody will come along and correct me, BUT I THINK the US Navy F8 Bearcat
fighter held the climb- to- altitude record up until the late 50's or early
60's when it was topped by the F-104 or F-106.
This time period would put it ahead of the E.E.L. in rate of climb performance.
OK aviation history buffs, is this correct?
jimmc...@my-deja.com
(I know, just kidding!)
Jim McLaughlin
In article <80e3ar$ffo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
POSSE 00
>Ok guy's, I'm operating on memory here-something I once read, and I'm sure
>somebody will come along and correct me, BUT I THINK the US Navy F8 Bearcat
>fighter held the climb- to- altitude record up until the late 50's or early
>60's when
The U. S Navy F8F-2 Bearcat held the "release of brakes" to 10,000 Feet record
for years. That record was broken by a Navy FJ-3 Fury in the 50s (1957?) Hook
magazine of the Tailhook Association, Inc. published an article concerning how
these records were achieved sometime during the past year or so.
Speed is life and check everywhere,
Marv Garrison <Pos...@aol.com>
Ken Duffey
Guys & Gals, You can talk all you want and speculate about what might
have been - 'my plane is the best', AFAIK, IIRC etc
The bottom line is that the stripped-down Su-27 Flanker, designated P-42
to commemorate the defence of Stalingrad in 1942, currently holds 27
OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED BY THE FAI, time-to-height records.
It took all these records from the similarly stripped-down F-15 'Streak
Eagle'
You can get a list of some of the records at http://propro.ru/flankers/
Their server seems to be down at the moment, so I can't point you to the
exact page - just take a look.
So, unless your favourite plane has an official record, butt out !
Neh, neh, neh-neh neh !!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.lindenhillimports.com/flankers.htm
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Cook
wrote:
Well the Harrier will hold the time to height record for the lower
regions while the hotrodded aircraft are tearing down the runway the
harrier is rising, wonder at what height is the crossover?.
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Eurofighter website:-
TEW
D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message ...
>>I can't remember the Lightning getting any time to height records, but as
an
>>in production/service fighter aircraft it was right up there with the best
>>if not the best! IIRC it could do something like 30,000 feet a minute
(which
>>translates to about 600mph - vertically!)
>
>
>I think you need to check your math. 30k feet is roughly six miles
>which translates to 360 mph.
O.K, O.K. I made some major boo boos..:-) The Lightning's climb rate was
actually double that - something like 50,000 feet per minute when it got
cooking . I knew it was around 600 mph vertical lbut I didn't check
backward as to how many feet per minute that was.
>
>
> The F15 was about the next
>>aircraft with that sort of climb capability, and it entered service a good
>>15 or so years after the Lightning.
>
>Wrong again. F-4 could do it as could the F-104 and probably several
>others.
If my 30,00 feet per minute figure was correct (which it isn't)
A production Lightning could outstrip an F 4 in the climb easy (Not saying
it was a better aeroplane, just a phenomenal interceptor). I don't know the
exact figure for the 104 , but I think it was less (although the f104 was
also pretty outstanding in the climb/sprint interceptor stakes as well)
"The overall impression was that both aircraft had very similar performance
and handling characteristics, both were a joy to fly. Considering the age
difference, the Lightning's performance was totally outstanding when
introduced into service, and when it finally bowed out, it could still
out-climb most of its successors. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft
per minute. The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft per minute; the
Phantom F-4M managed 32,000 ft per minute; the MiG-21 could only manage
36,090 ft per minute; the F-16A's initial rate was 40,000 ft per minute, and
the Tornado F.3's 43,000 ft per minute. So the Lightning reigned supreme.
Only later was it surpassed; the F-15 Eagle, and the MiG-25 both have
initial climb rates as good or better. The Lightning's time to FL 360 in
re-heat was 2.5 minutes, in this respect the Eagle produced a similar
figure, though this could vary depending upon its configuration."
(From Damien Burke's excellent website at
http://www.totavia.com/jetman/lightning/memories.html)
TEW
satya wrote in message <80fuuu$dbc$1...@news.laserlink.net>...
>Actually, it's the P-42, a stripped down Su-27 (Flanker) with no
>electronics, armament etc..that holds the world record in this category.
The
>flanker family as such has high performance in this area.
..and it was a stripped down F15 (Streak Eagle) That held it beforehand..(No
armament, stripped down electronics, special paint job).
Strider
Ferrin) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:47:08 GMT, Ken Doerr <ken....@talk21.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
>>Electric Lightning feature historically?
>>
>>Best regards, Ken Doerr
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>
>
>IIRC it the lightning never held any time to height records. Seems
>like the F-104 had 'em then the F-4 took them away. Then the Mig-25,
>F-15, P-42.
>
>Right now I'd put my my money on the F-15E, clean, with the -229s.
>Unless you count the F-22 but I think it's debatable, at least on the
>higher altitude records. Of course then you have to consider the
>Typhoon too but I doubt they'll go for any records with it.
How about the a stripped Mig-29? It愀 able to climb vertically with
one engine turned off. Ought to climb very well with both on. =)
/Strider
D. Scott Ferrin
The difference is the P-42 had engines that were quite a bit more
powerful than the inservice ones. It would be like putting F-110-129
IPEs in the Streak Eagle.
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>jimmc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Space Shuttle -- 160 nm in 8 minutes.
>>
>> (I know, just kidding!)
>>
>> Jim McLaughlin
>>
>> In article <80e3ar$ffo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Ken Doerr <ken....@talk21.com> wrote:
>> > What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
>> > Electric Lightning feature historically?
>> >
>> > Best regards, Ken Doerr
>> >
>> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> > Before you buy.
>> >
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>Guys & Gals, You can talk all you want and speculate about what might
>have been - 'my plane is the best', AFAIK, IIRC etc
>
>The bottom line is that the stripped-down Su-27 Flanker, designated P-42
>to commemorate the defence of Stalingrad in 1942, currently holds 27
>OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED BY THE FAI, time-to-height records.
>
>It took all these records from the similarly stripped-down F-15 'Streak
>Eagle'
>
>You can get a list of some of the records at http://propro.ru/flankers/
>
>Their server seems to be down at the moment, so I can't point you to the
>exact page - just take a look.
>
>So, unless your favourite plane has an official record, butt out !
>
>Neh, neh, neh-neh neh !!!!!
Yeah and th U-2 hold a world record for hauling a couple thousand
pounds to 49,000 ft. Like nothing else could do that. Gimme a break.
I'll admit though that it would be tougher to beat the Flanker's
records than that one but it could be done. Same with the Mig-29's
altitude record. Why they don't want to break them is anybody's
guess. I guess they don't think they get enought ROI.
g_al...@hotmail.com
<snip>
Surprised Walt hasn't chimed in by now. As he's stated in the past, he
could get to 45kft in 90 sec. from brakes off in an operational F-104A
with the J79-19 engine installed (admittedly, the hottest performer of
the series). There's no question that the 104 and Lightning were in a
class by themselves at the time of introduction, at least as far as pure
jets went.
BTW, Damien's figure for the Mirage IIIE looks way too high; I suspect
this is either max. rate, or else IRoC with the rocket attached. I've
seen figures down in the teens for jet only, which seems more
believable. The Mirage IIIs have much too low wing-loading and too
little thrust to shine in IRoC; for that, you want small wings and high
thrust, which is why the Lightning/F-104 are so good. With roughly the
same static uninstalled t/w ratio (I shouldn't be using static
uninstalled t/w ratio, but Ps. Lacking that, we'll just have to use
it), the Mirage F1 outclimbs the III mainly because of its smaller wing.
If you took the wings off the F-15 and Su-27, they'd be even better in
IRoC, but there are certain operational disadvantages to that:-)
Guy
Gary Watson
off the runway.I remember being at a Tiger meet in Leuchars in '66 and the
Lightning would do a 90 degree pitch at the end of the runway. Our CF 104s
would take quite a bit of airspace to make the 90 degree pitch due to the
lack of a wing. It always struck me at the time that the EEL was very
similar to the 104 in climb speed but beat it to altitude due to its quicker
rotation. Great looking aircraft and one of the world's most unique
designs - are there any still flying?
Gary Watson
<g_al...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:80hsg3$8i8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
wal...@oneimage.com
>>IIRC it the lightning never held any time to height records. Seems>>like the F-104 had 'em then the F-4 took them away. Then the Mig-25,
>>F-15, P-42.
>
>sure when or for how long, but I distinctly remember being told in T-38
>academics that she was once a world record holder.
The only record I know of held by the T38 was a 'sustained altitude' record
set by Jaqueline Cochrane somehwere around 56000 feet. After I read about that
I got a F102 up to 59000 while on a test hop. (Maneuver not on the test card
but what the hell . . ."
Walt Bj ftr plt ret
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>I think the main aspect of the Lightning was its ability to rotate so quick
>off the runway.I remember being at a Tiger meet in Leuchars in '66 and the
>Lightning would do a 90 degree pitch at the end of the runway. Our CF 104s
>would take quite a bit of airspace to make the 90 degree pitch due to the
>lack of a wing. It always struck me at the time that the EEL was very
>similar to the 104 in climb speed but beat it to altitude due to its quicker
>rotation. Great looking aircraft and one of the world's most unique
>designs - are there any still flying?
>
>Gary Watson
If you want to see a rotation check this out. Awesome.
BUFDRVR
>set by Jaqueline Cochrane somehwere around 56000 feet.
No, that wasn't it. I'm pretty sure we were told it was the time to climb
record.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
I gotta admit: the first time I saw a "line" F-15 do a quick roll down
the runway (about 150 feet or so) then immediately rotate like that,
I thought for sure he was going to nose over backward, stalled, and
pancake into the runway upside-down.
He didn't, of course...he just kept going up - and if I had to judge
his ground speed when he yanked on the stick, I would have said MAYBE
60 or 70 knots. Amazing indeed, compared to our F-4s. (Which was no
slacker in getting off the ground, either!)
- John
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
Way back when Hill AFB first got F-16s they put on a demonstration for
the public to show them the new plane that was replacing the F-4s
there. I was just a kid but I remember I thought this particular F-16
was just taxiing by and then all of a sudden he popped the nose up,
the engine got REAL loud, and up he went. I will never forget that.
D. Scott Ferrin
>D. Scott Ferrin <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> The F15 was about the next
>>>aircraft with that sort of climb capability, and it entered service a good
>>>15 or so years after the Lightning.
>
>>Wrong again. F-4 could do it as could the F-104 and probably several
>>others.
>
>From what I can remember, the F-16 was the first that would
>accelerate through Mach1 going vertical, Various forms of the F15 and
>I believ several of the newer Russian a/c also can do this.
>
>I worked on a proposal to set several time to altitude records with a
>modified F-16. We estimated that we could get a particular -16 from
>brake release to 40K feet in less than 60 seconds, doing certain
>things to the a/c. Allas, budget problems stopped the program before
>we were allowed to try.
>
>Craig
The thing is there's all kinds of record-breaking possibilites. Stick
the -229A in either an F-15 or -16 and you could break the time to
height records. The SR-71 could have got back the sustained altitude
record. Lots of planes could beat that record the U-2 set of hauling
a couple thousand pounds to 49k ft. Makes me wish poeple were still
interested in breaking records. I'll bet the Typhoon or Rafale could
set some new ones but would be very surprised if they went after any.
Pardon the expression but I'd bet my left nut they don't try to set
any records with the F-22. Ah well....
John Cook
Cost!!!!!. ;-)
TEW
Gary Watson wrote in message ...
>I think the main aspect of the Lightning was its ability to rotate so quick
>off the runway.I remember being at a Tiger meet in Leuchars in '66 and the
>Lightning would do a 90 degree pitch at the end of the runway. Our CF 104s
>would take quite a bit of airspace to make the 90 degree pitch due to the
>lack of a wing. It always struck me at the time that the EEL was very
>similar to the 104 in climb speed but beat it to altitude due to its
quicker
>rotation. Great looking aircraft and one of the world's most unique
>designs - are there any still flying?
>
flying (along with Hunter T8s and a Buccaneer S2). For a big stack of cash
you can go and have a weeks holiday that involves flying in all of them (low
level, high speed in Bucc, aerobatic in Hunter, 90 degrees upwards in the
Lightning).
I grew up near RAF St Athan in South Wales, a maintenance base that used to
get any and all RAF aircraft dropping in every now and then. There used to
be a lot of Lightnings there in the early 80's, when they were using them as
stop gap interceptors while waiting for the Tornado F3. They would come
whistling over the house, about a second ahead of the most unbelieveable ear
bleeding noise you ever heard when they were doing there fast downwind legs.
Fantastic aircraft, wish I could go back in time thirty years, join the RAF
and fly them.
Ah well, I'll just have to save up and go to South Africa..
Rick
the fastest aircraft to break ground was the F-16, it beat the Blue's,
Tornado, Stealth, and F-14 Demo team. I don't know about time to climb, but
when I rode in the back of one of Shaw's Vipers, we did a vertical climb to
18k and it was pretty damn quick with airspeed still well over 200IAS at
time of level off.
Rick
D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <382e43ef...@news.xmission.com>...
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 01:32:02 GMT, wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 04:28:07 GMT, sfe...@xmission.com (D. Scott
>>Ferrin) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:26:28 GMT, "Gary Watson" <wat...@home.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think the main aspect of the Lightning was its ability to rotate so
quick
>>>>off the runway.I remember being at a Tiger meet in Leuchars in '66 and
the
>>>>Lightning would do a 90 degree pitch at the end of the runway. Our CF
104s
>>>>would take quite a bit of airspace to make the 90 degree pitch due to
the
>>>>lack of a wing. It always struck me at the time that the EEL was very
>>>>similar to the 104 in climb speed but beat it to altitude due to its
quicker
>>>>rotation. Great looking aircraft and one of the world's most unique
>>>>designs - are there any still flying?
>>>>
Craig C.
lots snipped...
>Cost!!!!!. ;-)
>John Cook
Actually cost doesn't have that much to do with it anymore. Part of
our proposal was that the F-16 would be prepared during off hours by
volunteer employees. the a/c would be stripped of all non-essential
equipment other than items needed for ferry flights. We ground guys
would drive a couple of company vehicles with all the support
equipment from Fort Worth to the location. All on our vacation
time...the only external support would have been arranging for ANG
a/c to do a scheduled set of crosscountries to escort our a/c to and
from the site. the site we picked already had the few things that we
couldn't supply....rescue trucks and crews and trap capability. Only
stuff that would have been done on the payroll was all the weight and
balance computations and performance analysis, the pilots's test time
and fuel. For the attempt itself, the FIA fees, fuel and travel
expenses for the crew and a few explosive bolts. We had estimated
something less than 250k$ for everything.
Craig
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>Well, I just went to NAS Pensacola yesterday, and I can tell you that by far
>the fastest aircraft to break ground was the F-16, it beat the Blue's,
>Tornado, Stealth, and F-14 Demo team. I don't know about time to climb, but
>when I rode in the back of one of Shaw's Vipers, we did a vertical climb to
>18k and it was pretty damn quick with airspeed still well over 200IAS at
>time of level off.
>
>Rick
Yeah, but we were talking about real fighters; full-size jets like the
F-4 and F-15, not little kiddie cars! In the above only the Tornado
and F-14 qualify.
<snicker>
- John T.
Rick
the Air Force survived since your departure. Sometimes I think you are a
halfway intelligent person, then you seem to converse out of your anus and
wipe that thought away. And yes, I have watched F-4's and F-15's as well as
F-16 all take off together in Dahrhan and Tyndall and I stick to my guns
that the F-16 is off the deck the fastest.
Rick
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
<382eef0f...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>...
Kurt Plummer
> You are absolutely right, the F-14/F-16/F-18 all suck. Wow, how hell has
> the Air Force survived since your departure. Sometimes I think you are a
> halfway intelligent person, then you seem to converse out of your anus and
> wipe that thought away. And yes, I have watched F-4's and F-15's as well as
> F-16 all take off together in Dahrhan and Tyndall and I stick to my guns
> that the F-16 is off the deck the fastest.
>
> Rick
Hey Rick,
Dunno if they're all 220'd now or not but for awhile the F100-100 was the F-15's
primary engine and it had some significant spool up lag that /had/ to be
'obeyed'. At least until the DEEC tests on the C in the mid 80's this made a
lot of Eagles a lot slower than 'optimum' with even Hornets (notoriously slow
but running on new 404's) outspeeding them to the Mach.
AFAIK, the only 15's routinely authorized to hit the War Emergency sidepanel
switch to bring back the full 25Klbst were the Zulu birds in Germany and Holland
and that too might make a difference.
There will be a certainly be a 'mass' (and drag) penalty for the larger airframe
but with equivalent engines and (just barely) 'sufficient' gas, the Eagle should
still win, just on wingloading (50-60lbs vs. 60-70lbs) and T/Wr (1.15/21 to
1.4+). Allowable pitch angles with the ventrals might also play an effect.
Indeed, during Streak Eagle they had to use an alligator clip 'holdback' device
hooked up to a /tank/ and the aircrafts arrestor hook structure to prevent the
bird from skidding down the runway. When it DID pop the chocks, it was off the
ground in 400'.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Soviets have the same kinds of engines
(AL-37/41 and whatevers on the Foxhound) as we do (in the IPE/EFE class) and
could 'compete' with whatever records an F-15 might like to reset, simply by
doing a similar one-offmanship.
The one I'd /most/ like to see is a 'lightweight' (empty tanks) Raptor.
In /dry thrust/ it has the same power as an F-15 in full AB and it has ZERO
pylonage, by design. Drop those 25Klbs worth of go far down to 6-8Klbs and I
doubt seriously if you'd be able to use full AB without transiting the gear
limits.
The F-119 being nearly a turbojet it might require a fairly flat climbout to
build smash and compressor maxes but once the Mach slid by, it is one of the few
jets which could (and does best) climb supersonically. It would also do better
in an absolute-altitude run since flameout would likely be a LOT higher.
Edwards could undertake such a trick any damn day of the week with an EMD bird
and ZERO 'stripping' and probably beat every Streak Eagle record ever set. At
least on the median-high levels (25-70K) it would be Very Hard for the Soviets
to beat as well, assuming you used similar classifications within the FAI system
(Service -ready- bird and no boost or alteration to the engines).
Unfortunately, there's only what, three? of the aircraft and only the last is to
'production standards' structural weight. We are also so full of ourselves that
we would see through the glory to the politics and thus 'lose the moment' of
justifiable pride.
Sigh, Kurt Plummer
P.S. I read somewhere that the bird is no longer 'nuclear hardened'. I wonder
if that implies some vulnerability to SEE at xx' AGL?
John Cook
>John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>lots snipped...
Sorry Craig, I was being a little sarcastic, where the original poster
mentioned that he would bet his left nut the F22 would not be allowed
to break any records, I mentioned Cost as one area that the F22
excels.
Now what the hell am I going to do with D. Scott Ferrin's left
nut!!!!.
cheers
John Cook
g_al...@hotmail.com
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >The only record I know of held by the T38 was a 'sustained altitude'
record
> >set by Jaqueline Cochrane somehwere around 56000 feet.
>
> No, that wasn't it. I'm pretty sure we were told it was the time to
climb
> record.
>
> BUFDRVR
Score one for both your memories (Cochran set 8 records in the
a/c, 6 of which were women's speed records). On Feb. 19th, 1962, a
T-38A (61-0849) piloted by Maj. Walter F. Daniel set four time to height
records previously held by the F-104A. These were
3,000m, 35.624 sec.
6,000m, 51.429 sec.
9,000m, 64.76 sec.
12,000m, 95.74 sec.
Unfortunately for the T-38, and presumably the reason no one remembers
these now, is that they were all broken within two weeks by a Navy
Phantom, to wit:
Feb. 21, 1962
3,000m, 34.52 sec. (pilot John W. Young, later astronaut)
6,000m, 48.78 sec.
March 1, 1962
9,000m, 61.62 sec.
12,000m, 77.15 sec.
Craig C.
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:04:24 GMT, valc...@dhc.net (Craig C.) wrote:
>>John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>lots snipped...
>Sorry Craig, I was being a little sarcastic, where the original poster
>mentioned that he would bet his left nut the F22 would not be allowed
>to break any records, I mentioned Cost as one area that the F22
>excels.
>Now what the hell am I going to do with D. Scott Ferrin's left
>nut!!!!.
>cheers
>>>Cost!!!!!. ;-)
>>
No offense take at all....That was part of the beauty of what we had
planned. The particular aircraft was slated to be moved to a museum
and hung in one of the galleries. Even though it was one of the
lightest F-16 ever built, a lot was going to be stripped out of the
fuselage.
BTW...I don't need anymore nuts around here....I work with enough
every day..... :)--
Craig
BUFDRVR
>these now, is that they were all broken within two weeks by a Navy
>Phantom,
Thanks, I was beginning to think my UPT memories were all made up :)
JPH
time-climb records. It may make you feel good, BUFDRVR, to know that there
are also several B-52's listed on the same page (but not for time to climb
records). Also a B-1 from my last base (although they misspelled Abilene),
B-58's, SR71, and a U-2.
--
JPH
http://www.flash.net/~texan/
BUFDRVR <buf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991115120231...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
D. Scott Ferrin
>Indeed, during Streak Eagle they had to use an alligator clip 'holdback' device
>hooked up to a /tank/ and the aircrafts arrestor hook structure to prevent the
>bird from skidding down the runway. When it DID pop the chocks, it was off the
>ground in 400'.
And through Mach 1 in 23 seconds.
>
>The problem, as I see it, is that the Soviets have the same kinds of engines
>(AL-37/41 and whatevers on the Foxhound) as we do (in the IPE/EFE class) and
>could 'compete' with whatever records an F-15 might like to reset, simply by
>doing a similar one-offmanship.
Possibly but I'd think if you had -229As (37k lbs) in a stripped Eagle
it would be tough for them (isn't the F-15 lighter than the Su-27?)
>
>The one I'd /most/ like to see is a 'lightweight' (empty tanks) Raptor.
>
>In /dry thrust/ it has the same power as an F-15 in full AB and it has ZERO
>pylonage, by design. Drop those 25Klbs worth of go far down to 6-8Klbs and I
>doubt seriously if you'd be able to use full AB without transiting the gear
>limits.
>
>The F-119 being nearly a turbojet it might require a fairly flat climbout to
>build smash and compressor maxes but once the Mach slid by, it is one of the few
>jets which could (and does best) climb supersonically. It would also do better
>in an absolute-altitude run since flameout would likely be a LOT higher.
>
>Edwards could undertake such a trick any damn day of the week with an EMD bird
>and ZERO 'stripping' and probably beat every Streak Eagle record ever set. At
>least on the median-high levels (25-70K) it would be Very Hard for the Soviets
>to beat as well, assuming you used similar classifications within the FAI system
>(Service -ready- bird and no boost or alteration to the engines).
My opinion has always been that they won't set any with the F-22
because what would the politicians say if a stripped Su-27 with a
couple 44k -41s took the records back? Not to say it WOULD happen but
who's to say it couldn't?
Gregory W Shaw
snip
>
> Way back when Hill AFB first got F-16s they put on a demonstration for
> the public to show them the new plane that was replacing the F-4s
> there. I was just a kid but I remember I thought this particular F-16
> was just taxiing by and then all of a sudden he popped the nose up,
> the engine got REAL loud, and up he went. I will never forget that.
Before the HAFB road at the south end of the runway was closed to
parking, we used to sit in the field at the south end and watch the lawn
darts takeoff. By the time they crossed the field boundary they were
pretty high up, but we got some pretty nice pictures of them from below.
About ten years ago, while helping escort a tour group of Swedish
rotarians, I had a chance to tour the HAFB tower. While we were standing
out on the balcony, the tower arranged for a pair of 555th F-15 Eagles
to do a very fast flyby then vertical pullup. Even after attending a
number of HAFB airshows, including one that a Thunderbird T-38 went down
in the field about 1/2 mile from where I was standing, that F-15 flyby
is still the most memorable display I have seen.
Still miss seeing the F-105s flying out of hill.
Greg Shaw
BUFDRVR
>are also several B-52's listed on the same page
Back in mid-'96 a 2 B-52's from my squadron set a world record for unrefueled
distance carrying X amount of weight. The sortie wasn't even considered to be
that big of a deal. Take off from Barksdale, fly to Alaska, turn around, fly to
the Utah Test Training Range (UTTR) drop x (can't remember how many) amount of
Mk-82's and set a record. We've still got the certificate from whoever (FAI ?)
mounted in the squadron.
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>D. Scott Ferrin <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>> Way back when Hill AFB first got F-16s they put on a demonstration for
>> the public to show them the new plane that was replacing the F-4s
>> there. I was just a kid but I remember I thought this particular F-16
>> was just taxiing by and then all of a sudden he popped the nose up,
>> the engine got REAL loud, and up he went. I will never forget that.
>
>Before the HAFB road at the south end of the runway was closed to
>parking, we used to sit in the field at the south end and watch the lawn
>darts takeoff.
When has that stopped anybody ;-)
By the time they crossed the field boundary they were
>pretty high up, but we got some pretty nice pictures of them from below.
It's a wonder I've never wrecked my car on that stretch. There's been
several times when an F-16 has come screaming over just as I passed
underneath.
>
>About ten years ago, while helping escort a tour group of Swedish
>rotarians, I had a chance to tour the HAFB tower. While we were standing
>out on the balcony, the tower arranged for a pair of 555th F-15 Eagles
>to do a very fast flyby then vertical pullup. Even after attending a
>number of HAFB airshows, including one that a Thunderbird T-38 went down
>in the field about 1/2 mile from where I was standing, that F-15 flyby
>is still the most memorable display I have seen.
>
>Still miss seeing the F-105s flying out of hill.
Me too. You could always tell the difference between the F-4s and
F-105s. I always went outside to look at the F-105s. Didn't bother
with the F-4s.
>
>Greg Shaw
Wingedhoof
>F-15's
>primary engine and it had some significant spool up lag that /had/ to be
>'obeyed'. At least until the DEEC tests on the C in the mid 80's this made a
>lot of Eagles a lot slower than 'optimum' with even Hornets (notoriously slow
>but running on new 404's) outspeeding them to the Mach.
Most are NOT -220'd yet. USAFE is -220'd and PACAF is almost halfway there
(Elmendorf yes, Kadena in work), but all CONUS jets are still waiting.
As for the "lag time" on -100s, depends on who you talk too. Before the -220s
and -229s were around to compare, most thought the -100s had a pretty brisk
accel. The -220 cut that time in half and the -229 shaved a fraction more.
>AFAIK, the only 15's routinely authorized to hit the War Emergency sidepanel
>switch to bring back the full 25Klbst were the Zulu birds in Germany and
>Holland
>and that too might make a difference.
The "Vmax" switch was put there to make and aircraft spec point very early in
the test program. All it does is raise Fan Turbine Inlet Temperature about 22
degrees C which will slightly increase thrust without actually going for a goal
such as the 25K you mention. It only works when the throttles are at MAX and
the jet is well into supersonic speeds. It has absolutely no effect outside
those conditions. Ironically, a tightly-built engine (min clearances, clean
airfoils, etc) potentially can produce more thrust "normally" than a beater in
Vmax. Oh, the switch guard for Vmax is wired shut too.
>Indeed, during Streak Eagle they had to use an alligator clip 'holdback'
>device
>hooked up to a /tank/ and the aircrafts arrestor hook structure to prevent
>the
>bird from skidding down the runway. When it DID pop the chocks, it was off
>the
>ground in 400'.
The Streak Eagle was tied down with explosive bolts. No chocks. The engines
were way overtrimmed, turning most of their stall margin into thrust. That so,
the throttles had to be "walked" carefully up to MAX before the attempt could
begin. Without the explosive-bolt-tie-down, the airplane would have been
skidding down the runway long before MAX could have been obtained.
Interestingly, the A-model used to test the -229s and a clean stock
-229-powered E-model routinely came close to matching that takeoff distance. I
could mention the STOL/MTD aircraft for takeoff distance, but that is a subject
for another day.
Howard Austin
>
> Score one for both your memories (Cochran set 8 records in the
> a/c, 6 of which were women's speed records). On Feb. 19th, 1962, a
> T-38A (61-0849) piloted by Maj. Walter F. Daniel set four time to height
> records previously held by the F-104A. These were
>
> 3,000m, 35.624 sec.
>
> 6,000m, 51.429 sec.
>
> 9,000m, 64.76 sec.
>
> 12,000m, 95.74 sec.
>
> these now, is that they were all broken within two weeks by a Navy
>
> Feb. 21, 1962
>
> 3,000m, 34.52 sec. (pilot John W. Young, later astronaut)
>
> 6,000m, 48.78 sec.
>
> March 1, 1962
>
> 9,000m, 61.62 sec.
>
> 12,000m, 77.15 sec.
>
> Guy
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
An interesting point about this T-38 flight was that the aircraft had only
600 pounds of fuel aboard at brake release,flamed out while still
climbing. The aircraft was lightened in every way possible, even the rear
canopy plexiglass was replaced with aluminum.
Howard Austin
Mary Shafer
> Score one for both your memories (Cochran set 8 records in the a/c,
> 6 of which were women's speed records). On Feb. 19th, 1962, a T-38A
> (61-0849) piloted by Maj. Walter F. Daniel set four time to height
> records previously held by the F-104A. These were
One of the pilots that set the F-104 records was a young fellow named
Einar Enevoldson. He retired from Dryden as a test pilot about ten
years ago and is still working here part-time as a contractor. Our
last two F-104s, an F-104G and a TF-104G, retired shortly thereafter,
marking the end of US government Starfighter service.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
Drew
>
> >
> > Score one for both your memories (Cochran set 8 records in the
> > a/c, 6 of which were women's speed records). On Feb. 19th, 1962, a
> > T-38A (61-0849) piloted by Maj. Walter F. Daniel set four time to height
> > records previously held by the F-104A. These were
> >
> >
> > 6,000m, 51.429 sec.
> >
> > 9,000m, 64.76 sec.
> >
> > 12,000m, 95.74 sec.
> >
> > Unfortunately for the T-38, and presumably the reason no one remembers
> > these now, is that they were all broken within two weeks by a Navy
> > Phantom, to wit:
> >
> > Feb. 21, 1962
> >
> > 3,000m, 34.52 sec. (pilot John W. Young, later astronaut)
> >
> > 6,000m, 48.78 sec.
> >
> > March 1, 1962
> >
> > 9,000m, 61.62 sec.
> >
> > 12,000m, 77.15 sec.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> An interesting point about this T-38 flight was that the aircraft had only
> 600 pounds of fuel aboard at brake release,flamed out while still
> climbing. The aircraft was lightened in every way possible, even the rear
> canopy plexiglass was replaced with aluminum.
>
> Howard Austin
How the hell do you fly a T-38 with two dead engines? It's a rock, no
flight controls.
JPH
http://www.af.mil/news/Mar1996/n19960313_960244.html
--
JPH
http://www.flash.net/~texan/
BUFDRVR <buf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991115192542...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Ken Duffey
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:38:07 +0000, Ken Duffey <k...@nerc.ac.ukx>
> wrote:
>
> >jimmc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> Space Shuttle -- 160 nm in 8 minutes.
> >>
> >> (I know, just kidding!)
> >>
> >> Jim McLaughlin
> >>
> >> In article <80e3ar$ffo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> Ken Doerr <ken....@talk21.com> wrote:
> >> > What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
> >> > Electric Lightning feature historically?
> >> >
> >> > Best regards, Ken Doerr
> >> >
> >> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> > Before you buy.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> Before you buy.
> >
> >Guys & Gals, You can talk all you want and speculate about what might
> >have been - 'my plane is the best', AFAIK, IIRC etc
> >
> >The bottom line is that the stripped-down Su-27 Flanker, designated P-42
> >to commemorate the defence of Stalingrad in 1942, currently holds 27
> >OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED BY THE FAI, time-to-height records.
> >
> >It took all these records from the similarly stripped-down F-15 'Streak
> >Eagle'
> >
> >You can get a list of some of the records at http://propro.ru/flankers/
> >
> >Their server seems to be down at the moment, so I can't point you to the
> >exact page - just take a look.
> >
> >So, unless your favourite plane has an official record, butt out !
> >
> >Neh, neh, neh-neh neh !!!!!
>
> Yeah and th U-2 hold a world record for hauling a couple thousand
> pounds to 49,000 ft. Like nothing else could do that. Gimme a break.
> I'll admit though that it would be tougher to beat the Flanker's
> records than that one but it could be done. Same with the Mig-29's
> altitude record. Why they don't want to break them is anybody's
> guess. I guess they don't think they get enought ROI.
I agree - a few of the latest generation a/c could probably beat the existing
records - but two things stand in the way - cost and the fact that the record
has to be beaten by a significant amount to qualify.
Imagine the embarassment of spending millions prepping your a/c for an
attempt on a record, only to have it fail to beat it by a clear, officially
acceptable margin. The bad PR would be horrendous !
Also - as with say, athletics records, the percentage increase is getting
smaller each time - so it is getting more and more difficult to set new
records- especially if the margin by which you have to beat it stays the
same.
IIRC - isn't the seaplane record still held by a Macchi-Castoldi MC-72 ?? set
in the 1930's
Now who is going to go to the expense of beating that ??
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.lindenhillimports.com/flankers.htm
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Craig C.
>IIRC - isn't the seaplane record still held by a Macchi-Castoldi MC-72 ?? set
>in the 1930's
>Now who is going to go to the expense of beating that ??
I would imagine any of the people that are participating in the new
series that is planed for next year I think...Something like the
Schnieder 2000 Cup. I have seen a couple of blurbs here and there on
various newsgroups that I follow. Last count that I saw was on the
order of at least a dozen participants.
Craig
Howard Austin
> > An interesting point about this T-38 flight was that the aircraft had only
> > 600 pounds of fuel aboard at brake release,flamed out while still
> > climbing. The aircraft was lightened in every way possible, even the rear
> > canopy plexiglass was replaced with aluminum.
> >
> > Howard Austin
>
> How the hell do you fly a T-38 with two dead engines? It's a rock, no
> flight controls.
It's easy, just install an electric hydraulic pump along with all the
other modifications.
Don't be so nasty.
Howard Austin
jtarver
Mary Shafer <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:u04semh...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov...
> Someone wrote:
>
> > Score one for both your memories (Cochran set 8 records in the a/c,
> > 6 of which were women's speed records). On Feb. 19th, 1962, a T-38A
> > (61-0849) piloted by Maj. Walter F. Daniel set four time to height
> > records previously held by the F-104A. These were
>
> Einar Enevoldson. He retired from Dryden as a test pilot about ten
> years ago and is still working here part-time as a contractor. Our
> last two F-104s, an F-104G and a TF-104G, retired shortly thereafter,
> marking the end of US government Starfighter service.
Einar will always be my favorite NASA test pilot.
John
Mary Shafer
He's certainly up in the top three or four for me. A good engineer,
which explains why he's such a good pilot
He was up in my office yesterday, have come by to collect the guy in
the next cubicle over to go fly the X-38 simulation. He may have
retired from being a DFRC test pilot but as long as he's hanging
around here working as an engineer for a contractor we'll put him to
work flying, if only in the sim. The same is true for a pilot who
left the pilot's office and went into project management--he's been
flying the X-33 simulation for Ken since Ken put the model into the
GHAME simulation code.
tonylea...@gmail.com
tonylea...@gmail.com
Jim Wilkins
news:e5b04a18-ba84-440c...@googlegroups.com...
the F-15. Can you produce something better?
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.php
"Considering the age difference, the Lightning's performance was
totally outstanding when introduced into service, and when it finally
bowed out, it could still out-climb most of its successors. Its
initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute. The Mirage IIIE
climbed initially at 30,000 ft per minute; the Phantom F-4M managed
32,000 ft per minute; the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft per
minute; the F-16A's initial rate was 40,000 ft per minute, and the
Tornado F.3's 43,000 ft per minute. So the Lightning reigned supreme.
Only later was it surpassed; the F-15 Eagle, and the MiG-25 both have
initial climb rates as good or better."
-jsw
269st...@gmail.com
> What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
> Electric Lightning feature historically?
>
> Best regards, Ken Doerr
>
Daryl
of a Lightnings performance. Even the F-104 couldn't reach 50k a minute
climb. The best a production model 104 could do was 48K while the
Lightning barely broke 20K.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Jim Wilkins
news:omi2su$peu$1...@dont-email.me...
"The Lightning's optimum climb profile required the use of
afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would
be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h) IAS before
initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h). This would
yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s)."
"A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft
(11,000 m) in under three minutes."
Keith Willshaw
>
> What killed the Electric Lightning? The F-104 and the over estimation
> of a Lightnings performance. Even the F-104 couldn't reach 50k a minute
> climb. The best a production model 104 could do was 48K while the
> Lightning barely broke 20K.
>
1) The lightning was never expected to achieve 50 thousand feet per
minute. The spec (ER 103) called for a max combat altitude of 35
thousand feet and a mach number of 1.5. The Lightning handily exceeded
that with a ceiling of 50,000 ft and Mach 2.0
2) It was designed specifically as a high altitude missile armed
interceptor that in wartime could reach soviet nuclear bombers before
they got within weapons range of V Bomber bases. It stayed in service
until the late 1980's and the F-104 never entered service with the RAF.
The aircraft that replaced it in the intercept role were the Phantom
FGR.2 and Tornado F3.
In service it was intended to be complemented by the Gloster Javelin in
the medium to long distance all weather intercept role, the nearest US
aircraft would be the F-102. In retrospect the RN Sea Vixen would have
been a better choice being faster and more stable. In the event the
improvement in performance of later marks of Lightning saw the Javelin
withdrawn from service in 1965.
Note that in 1962 a Lightning successfully intercepted a U-2 at 65,000
ft and in 1984 a Lightning managed to reach 88,000 ft in a ballistic climb
Exercises in Germany showed the he F-104 and Lightning to have broadly
comparable climb rates of 20k per minute. Neither could achieve anything
like 40 k per minute. Optimum time for an operational Lightning to reach
36,000 ft was 3 minutes. It could get there quicker but only under full
afterburner which basically meant declaring a fuel emergency.
YF-104 time to climb records set in 1958 are as follows, these aircraft
were specially prepared an not service aircraft
3,000 metres (9,800 ft) in 41.85 seconds
6,000 metres (19,700 ft) in 58.41 seconds
9,000 metres (29,500 ft) in 81.14 seconds
12,000 metres (39,400 ft) in 99.90 seconds
15,000 metres (49,200 ft) in 131.1 seconds
20,000 metres (65,600 ft) in 222.99 seconds
25,000 metres (82,000 ft) in 266.03 seconds
The F-104 did have rather better range than the Lightning and the F-15
was of course superior to both.
The F15 Streak Eagle set the following records
3,000 metres (9,800 ft) in 27.57 seconds
6,000 metres (19,700 ft) in 39.33 seconds
9,000 metres (29,500 ft) in 48.86 seconds
12,000 metres (39,400 ft) in 59.38 seconds
15,000 metres (49,200 ft) in 77.02 seconds
20,000 metres (65,600 ft) in 122.94 seconds
25,000 metres (82,000 ft) in 161.02 seconds
KeithW
Jim Wilkins
news:omift6$6fg$1...@dont-email.me...
Warning. Was Britain able to arrange anything comparable?
-jsw
Jim Wilkins
the F15's up to 12,000 meters.
Keith Willshaw
> Warning. Was Britain able to arrange anything comparable?
> -jsw
>
>
staright into NORAD and is part of BMEWS along with Thule Air Base,
Greenland and Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. A US Liason officer is
permanently stationed at Fylingdales. The structure for all this was set
up under the terms of the UK/USA agreement which mandates cooperation in
signals intelligence between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. Allegedly it was one of the few
locations outside the USA connected into the Stone Ghost network.
Greg Hennessy
<keithw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The F-104 did have rather better range than the Lightning and the F-15
>was of course superior to both.
>
Came across this in a search last week.
https://obittree.com/obituary/us/colorado/greeley/adamson-funeral--cremation-services/walter-bjorneby/2662433/
Wherever he is, hope there is a J79-19 on full chat getting him there.
G
--
?¡aah, los gringos otra vez!?
Peter Stickney
God Speed, Walt!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTms_G1yYPc
--
Pete Stickney
“A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures.” ― Daniel Webster
59ro...@gmail.com
> What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
> Electric Lightning feature historically?
>
> Best regards, Ken Doerr
>
>
jdigh...@gmail.com
> What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
> Electric Lightning feature historically?
>
> Best regards, Ken Doerr
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
It is also well known that the Lightning was the only fighter to intercept Concord over the North Sea at Mach 2.23 at 57,000ft. Other aircraft to try this were F104, F4, F14, F15, F16 and Mirage III. Although some of these aircraft are better performed on paper, in reality all fell short of the Lightning when it came down to intercepting a target.
I also know that trials were done with the Lightning against the F104 in time to altitude and the Lightning won them all except the run from sea level where they were equal. It was a considerable fighter and matches many fighters in the air today and beats some into the bargain. It certainly has the right to be talked about in the same breath as the fighters of today. English Electric were blocked from further development of this aircraft by their government, so it could well have been improved into a substantially better weapons system.
I understand that no official time to altitude work was done with the EEL, but anecdotally, it would fly to 9,000m in under 60 seconds and was known to reach 36,0000ft in 90 seconds from breaks off in full combat trim. A pilot who flew both the F4 and Lightning was asked to compare the two. He said that the F4 had a (for the time)wonderful weapons system, but performance wise, the F4 was like a Mack Truck whilst the Lightning was a Ferrari.
Regards
John Dighton (jdig...@hotmail.com)
Daryl
climb rate with a Mach 2.3+ speed and could climb without afterburner
and maintain speed and a lot of other wonderful things. But truth be
told, it's thrust to weight ratio with afterburner was only .78 with a
zoom ceiling of 70K. Meaning there is no way in hell it could intercept
a U-2 at altitude. But the critiques are all over the place on this
bird so I have no idea what is correct or what isn't. I do know that it
lost out to some pretty good birds across the board including the F-104,
F-4 and Tornado in various Air Forces. I think what really hurt it was
it's range. It didn't have any. Even the 104 had better range.
So grain of salt on this one.
Jim Wilkins
news:76331b3f-3a9b-4b68...@googlegroups.com...
The Wiki doesn't support your claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning
(11,000 m) in under three minutes."
Keith Willshaw
> The Wiki doesn't support your claims:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning
> "A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft
> (11,000 m) in under three minutes."
>
> Rumor gives the SR-71 a top speed of Mach 5.
>
>
The F3 had the best performance being fitted with higher rated engines
but its fuel consumption was so high that you practically had to declare
bingo fuel on reaching max altitude. Given that it was specifically
designed to be able to intercept and shoot down first wave Soviet
Nuclear bombers before they could reach the V-Bomber bases this was
considered acceptable. In a hot war it was unlikely there would be any
base to return too. Their job as to buy time for the Valiants, Victor
and Vulcans to get out of the blast radius. Welcome to the reality of
the cold war.
At what was then RAF Middleton St George in the early 60's you could see
Lightnings and the Javelins operating in support of the Victors and
Vulcans operating as it was one of the designated V Force dispersal
sites. The Javelin FAW was being phased out in favour of the lightning
F2 and F3. Once the Polaris boats took over the deterrence role the base
was closed and became Teesside Airport
In the 1960's it was the only UK based fighter that could reliably
intercept US's. In 1984 Mark Hale and Brian Carroll were both able to
intercept U2's at 66,000 ft and carried out zoom climbs to well over
85,000 ft.
The F-6 had more fuel on board than the F3 so had better range and
weapons but the extra weight meant that performance was down a little
from the F3.
The first fighter that had a clear advantage in the climb was the F-15C
which given that it was a much later design was unsurprising. The F-104
was considered to be about the equal of the Lightning F3. They regularly
flew exercises in the against the West German F-104's and USAF F-4's.
The F-4 had much better legs and a heavier missile load than the
Lightning which is why the RAF adopted the F4K's ordered by the RN when
the old Ark Royal was scrapped. This was so successful that a further
120 aircraft were ordered. By this time the ability to carry a big radar
and a mixed armament of Radar and Optically guided missiles with a long
loiter time was more important than climb rate. The Lightning was a good
aircraft but the mission had changed.
The SR-71 was clearly superior. in terms of level flight as would have
been the XB-70.
KeithW
Jim Wilkins
> time was more important than climb rate. The Lightning was a good
> aircraft but the mission had changed.
>
> The SR-71 was clearly superior. in terms of level flight as would
> have been the XB-70.
>
> KeithW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier
The TSR-2 and Avro Arrow weren't the only victims.
The YF-12A Mach 3 interceptor survived as the SR-71.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
alan.m...@gmail.com
> What aircraft has the fastest rate of climb? Where does the English
> Electric Lightning feature historically?
>
> Best regards, Ken Doerr
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.