Talk:English Electric Lightning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Reminices

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.

[edit] infobox

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

[edit] Most powerful plane in formation aerobatics?

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

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

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

[edit] Concorde?

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

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

[edit] TOC

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

[edit] Performance Comparison

Article says:

"The Lightning’s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min); the F-4 Phantom managed 32,000 ft/min (10 km/min); the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min); the initial rate of the F-16A is 40,000 ft/min (12 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min). Only the later F-15 and MiG-25 had higher rates of climb."

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

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

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

Have you seen the numbers for the Thrust / Weight of the F-15C/E? It wouldn't mkae enough of a difference to really do much better, you could check the USAF's website, but I wouldn't recomend it. They don't usually give realistic numbers, prefering to over-estimate any American piece of hardware (except for the F-4 for some reason). Read a NATO Logistical Defence Technologies Assessment. They give the real numbers as recognised by the Defence Agencies of about a dozen NATO nations including the UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia. I think the most recent one is from 1999. 194.80.32.8 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You sound over-enthusiastic about the Lightning and have a very biased slant on your posts. Even British sources such as Jane's list the F-15 as having higher performance than the lightning. 216.15.83.121 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Randall randallcameron@kpmg.com.ye

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

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

[edit] Operational History - 111 Sqdrn at Leuchars

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

    • 11 and 23 Sqdns were at Leuchars with Lightnings.

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

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

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


[edit] Leftover Lightnings

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

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

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

Video and discussion:

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

81.86.144.210 08:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lightning II

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

The American's didn't name the P-38 the Lighting, the RAF did. They took an order of P-38's in the 40's and were going to buy a contract for them but cancelled the order after they had assessed them, as it was demed to be massively incapable of challenging German superiority fighters. For it's brief in-service period, they came to call it the "Lightning" based on it's speed, as the RAF didn't have anything with such heavy firepower that could match the P-38 for speed. The name for the F-35 JCA is, therefore, based on an English designation eitherway. 194.80.32.8 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The naming was on its predicted performance, as delivered in (42) they were slower than the Westland Whirlwind twin engine fighter delivered in 1940 with four 20 mm cannons. The Lightning order was cancelled. GraemeLeggett 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering the United Kingdom's hefty participation in the program, it's certainly plausible that the name hearkens back to the English Electric machine as reasonably as it does the P-38. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.211.143 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Service Ceiling

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 think there's a difference between (temporarily) reaching an altitude and being able to operate the aircraft continuously at that altitude. The difference is less than 1%, and individual aircraft may have had slightly differing capabilities. Or the pilot may have exceeded the offical operating ceiling just to see how high he could go - some people are like that. NickS 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The official operating ceiling was 60,000 ft.WolfKeeper 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, there's a video of a Lightning that includes a short gun camera clip of one firing a Red Top here:[1] (at 1m 37s) - the sky is black and the horizon is clearly curved. Ian Dunster (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lightning F.1A For Sale

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)

[edit] Pop culture

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 would agree that it is not notable or relevant. MilborneOne 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a link between EE Lightning and Focke-Wulf Ta-183 ?

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)

At first look I would not have thought so, their is only so many combinations of design. The Ta 183 has a single intake at the front for one engine, the lightning has a single intake at the front for two engines. If you want to feed two fuselage-mounted engines with a lot of air you either have one intake at the front, two either side somewhere at the front. I suspect one hole at the front was more to do with engine efficiency in the earlier engines, you dont see many holes in the front design on modern aircraft with newer turbofans. Also remember the Petter had to mount an intercept radar at the front somewhere and it ended up in the middle of the intake not a consideration for aircraft like the Ta 183. Also note that Petter came from Westland and not from one of the companies that produced as you put it classical designs like Hawker. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No more so than there is a link between the Lightning and the Gloster E.28/39, an aircraft designed in 1939/40, before the Ta-183. Just because two aircraft have a superficially similar layout or appearance does not mean that there is any evolutionary link, I don't see much merit in trying to link two unrelated subjects. The Lightning was from the next generation of aircraft than the Meteor, and 2 more than the Vampire. The former was a subsonic, swept wing, visual intercept gun-fighter, the latter a straight-winged first generation jet fighter; to reach its design objectives, it could not follow the "classical" lines of the former. The Lightning's layout was a unique solution to a common problem; how to get the greatest thrust (i.e. the largest engines) into the minimum frontal area. Emoscopes Talk 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspect performance claims

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)

Methinks thou dost tred in dangerous grounds. Hast thou not heard? Dost thou not knowest of the exalted status of the great Her Majesty's Fighter the Left Honourable Sir English Electric Lightning, P.1, F.1, F.2, F.3, T.4, T.5, F.6? Stronger than a C-5, faster than a speeding F-15, Able to leap tall Moons in a single bound?
Or hast thou forgot the immortal words of ACM Henry V?
“ 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!

 ”
BillCJ (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Climb performance tends to be dominated by P/W and wing loading - since climb speeds are generally lower than critical mach the relative performance between designs due to drag is minimized. So if we take the MTOW and wet thrust numbers from the specs section we get TW of 0.79, good but hardly spectacular. In fact, it's only slightly better than the Orenda powered Sabre, let alone aircraft of it's own era. I don't want to dismiss the aerodynamics by any means, but even looking at the "raw numbers" suggests the Lightning's initial climb rate might not be the number we're looking for. I'd prefer FAI numbers for this, time-to-climb is MUCH more indicative of climb performance that ICR (you can zoom climb a Cessna...). According to the Thunder City site they did 6,000m in 70 seconds, or about 29,000 ft in 1.15 minutes, a rate around 25,000 ft/min which sounds far more realistic to me. Their second attempt only got 17,500 ft/min, but that was due to a blown afterburner. The P.42 did the same climb in 37 seconds, although it is likely they used a cable start for that one. In any event, it seems the IRC number is somewhat "overblown" for comparison purposes. Maury (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the FAI database, the Thunder City performance seems very bad. here you can see that it was outperformed by a T-38! I'll keep looking for more numbers. Maury (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The aircraft you're comparing it with are 20 years newer though and with better engines (with the exception of the Sabre, but that's a transonic aircraft and so would be expected to punch above its weight on a subsonic climb due to better propulsive efficiency of a lower speed exhaust jet.) Sure, this aircraft is shaded by the F-15 in pretty much every department, largely due to that aircraft's lighter and more powerful engines, but even then, it's not that far behind (except for stuff like range ;-) ). It's not that it dances, it's that it dances as well as it does.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:13, 12 March 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)

[edit] Notes on range

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)


[edit] EE Lightning vs F-106 range

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)