Talk:English Electric Lightning/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Reminiscence

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.

infobox

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

infobox

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)

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)

IIRC, in the mid-fifties Rolls-Royce developed an engine of greatly increased power that was designed to be interchangeable with the Avon - IIRC, it was the Rolls-Royce Thames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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."

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)

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

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.

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)

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)
UK 'Service Ceiling' is the altitude at which the rate-of-climb has fallen to 100ft/min
UK 'Operational Ceiling' is the altitude at which the rate-of-climb has fallen to 1,000ft/min
The highest an aircraft can get to is the 'Absolute Ceiling' and by then the rate-of-climb has fallen so low it may take half an hour or more to get the last 250ft-500ft. The Absolute Ceiling is usually therefore the highest altitude an aircraft can maintain height at. Operationally of course, this is of little use, so the other figures are the ones usually quoted.

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)

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)

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).
The initial semi-official US name for the P-38 was Atlanta but the RAF name of Lightning was adopted instead. The same applied to the XP-51, as the US name was initially Apache, but again, the RAF name of Mustang was subsequently adopted by the US. Other RAF names later adopted by the US were; Havoc, Liberator, Catalina and Commando.
Often this was because the British aircraft-orders exceeded the US ones (this was before Pearl Harbor) and so the RAF names were used in the factories as a form of shorthand. Also, in dealing with the-then USAAC (the RAF was sending information on US-built aircraft performance to the US Government, which was then passed on to the manufacturers) any references to US-built aircraft would have used the RAF names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.24 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (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)

Hardly likely that the EE Lightning was named after the P38 as only the British called it the Lightning; to the USAAF it was the P38. Nothing more, nothing less. EE called it the Lightning because of its extremely high performance for its day, in particular its crisp handling and sparkling top speed, and the fact it could break Mach one with dry engines.::2001:630:63:140:E1F8:83A4:EA53:DE52 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Doesnt sound notable to the aircraft - citation or not. MilborneOne (talk) 00:22, 30 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)

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)

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 forgotten the immortal words of ACM Henry V?
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)

There are some interesting YouTube videos on the Lightning here: [3] Ian Dunster (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly watching a movie of a Lightning (or any really interesting aircraft) doing its thing is like watching a movie of a beautiful woman undressing - it's just not quite the same thing as being there in person.Jmdeur (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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)


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)

First, I'd pretty much dismiss Wiki as the definitive source of information on any subject - anything you read there is basically just proof of whoever is more persistent on rewriting history (and from what I've seen our British friends are mighty persistent). My quick check shows that the combat radius of the Lightning was around 500 nm (several articles on the web say this too) while that of the F-106 was 900 nm (this is even listed in Wiki's F-106 article so it must be right!) - now unfortunately I don't have the mission profiles of each of these numbers handy to make sure this is an apples to apples comparison, i.e., how much loiter is in there, how much supersonic time, and so on, but it would certainly seem to indicate that one airplane is going to be flying a lot longer than the other and it will probably have stars and bars on its wings (just looking at the two airframes, I suspect the Lightning is getting the benefit of the doubt here - I still think a Six would be able to keep it up far longer than twice the time a Lightning would). As I said in my comments above, the Lightning was a remarkable aircraft, but let's be logical - if it had all of the capabilities British aerophiles claim, the planet would have collapsed under the collective weight of all of the export models sold. Even the U.S. knows a good thing when they see it - ever wonder why the B-57 looks so much like a Canberra? How about the T-45, looks pretty Hawk-like to me! Jmdeur (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
.. all of the export models sold
Actually the export success for the Lightning (and SR.177) was rather scuppered by the Lockheed bribery scandals back in the 1960s. The Luftwaffe was going to buy the SR.177 and there had been interest from other countries in the Lightning, but Lockheed took most of the potential Lightning customers, most buying the F-104, (and a few the Mirage III) instead, only Saudi Arabia actually buying Lightnings, and whose pilots loved them. One suspects that subsequently the Luftwaffe, and the other countries that bought the F-104, may well have wished they had bought the Lightning after all.
BTW, I'm not sure why all the references to the Lightning's 'short range' - it was intended to refuel them from Victor and Valiant tankers stationed at certain offshore 'racetrack' points around the country. Short range isn't that important when you have airborne tankers available, which at the time the RAF did. With over-wing tanks and flight refuelling they managed to ferry Lightnings to both Germany and to Malta, even Singapore, so what's the big deal. It was designed as an interceptor, not as a long-range bomber escort. It was designed to intercept over the sea incoming Soviet nuclear-armed bombers, flying quite possibly over neutral countries, from-which the UK would likely get no early warning, leaving any defences unable to be activated until possibly the last minute. The purpose was to hold-off the incoming Soviet bombers long enough for the V Force bombers on Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) to get into the air. That was why the Lightning had such an outstanding climb performance, it needed it, otherwise there could quite likely be nowhere left for it to land afterwards, everywhere would have been wiped out. In the 1950's the government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Solly Zuckerman, was asked how many nuclear warheads it would take to knock the UK completely out of any nuclear war. Zuckerman's reply was something like 'Five, or seven to be on the safe side' so any likely Soviet nuclear attack on Britain was taken VERY seriously.
It is also as well to point out that at the time the Lightning was designed the air-to-air missile had not yet made an appearance and the primary armament of fighter aircraft was still the gun. Hence Petter's team designed the Lightning with generous wing area in order to give it traditional fighter maneuverability, i.e., it was a traditional 'dogfighter' above all-else. This large wing area also meant that it was capable of high (for the time) altitudes, and fighting at them. Some later jet fighters sacrificed this 'dogfighting' capability because of the successful introduction of air-to-air missiles, which it was thought by some, rendered the gun and maneuverability obsolete. Some of these later fighters were so unmaneuverable that they had trouble getting out of their own way. In short, if it came to using its gun(s), the Lightning pilot could confidently take on just about any other jet fighter in the world - see here: [4]
As an aside, considering Petter's team started designing the Lightning in 1949 (F.23/49), long before any other supersonic fighter was on the drawing board, for an aeroplane that's origins go back that far it was certainly an extremely successful design, especially from a pilot's point of view, which is more than can be said for some of its competitors.
Interesting hypothesis that the reason no one bought Lightnings was that Lockheed bribed a couple of willing German and Dutch officials (not to mention the Italians - although this has to be the first time that I've heard some Wiki-ite claim the Lightning would be a match for the C-130 as a transport - as apparently Lightnings were routinely buzzing SR-71s up at 80k according to the stuff that I've read on Wiki, anything is possible apparently for the Lightning). Of course, the Luftwaffe used the 104s to drop bombs - given the Lightnings very meager payload of missiles and fuel, it might be able to get a couple training bombs off the ground (not sure where you'd hang them) and take them to the bombing range (if it were in the parking lot next to the runway). I'm just curious where you would propose hanging them (the bombs) off the airplane - possibly the overwing tank stations? Even so, you'd think there'd still be plenty of other customers (like say the Canadians, Australians, etc.) - as mentioned above, the U.S. even bought Canberras and more recently Goshawks, so if Lightning were indeed the greatest fighter ever built, we would have bought them or at least stolen some of those great ideas like stacking the engines vertically, putting fuel tanks in the flaps or whereever, etc.
Your next train of thought is equally stimulating - guess the Lightning needed that fantastic rate of climb (only surpassed by the Saturn V if I believe all of the stories on Wiki) so it could get to those refueling points before running out of fuel on the way to stopping the Soviets. The Six was air refuelable too, but we assumed our tankers would be off refuelling the bombers on the way to bomb the crap out of the Soviets for starting WWIII, so we built interceptors with enough range to get to the incoming targets on their own. With the Lightning's range, you were likely to be holding off those Russian bombers while they were shooting the final at your fighters' home bases...good luck with that. I must say that I do like the idea of the overwing fuel tanks solving the range problem, must have been fun punching those puppies off before going into combat - but wait, I thought they were bolted on, so they would be of absolutely no use in a combat situation (thanks for bringing them up though). Sixes had wing tanks too - ours were supersonic capable so as not to compromise our interceptors getting out to where they needed to go as quickly as possible, wonder if yours were...
Design of our F-102 was only started a few months after that of the Lightning, yet she was designed around missile armament, so don't quite understand why they weren't considered for the Lightning from the beginning - especially as you Brits were so far out there on the cutting edge technologically with the Lightning. Kind of funny for such a revolutionary aircraft that the lowly Hun beat the Lightning as the first supersonic fighter in the world.
As for being built with enough wing area to be a great dogfighter, I thought the Lightning was built to stop all of those Soviet bombers (after getting aerially refueled - the Lightnings, not the Soviet bombers) coming over to hit Britain? Seems like devoting all that effort on something that didn't add mission capability was a silly thing for the designers to do. You know, maybe the designers could have spared some of that effort to figure out how to give the aircraft a decent fuel and weapons load, perhaps even a little thought about a fire control system (you never hear how great the Lightning's FCS was in a heavy ECM environment, which given all the junk about how great an airplane it was otherwise makes me think, well, that it really wasn't all that well designed for it's actual primary mission). Getting back to punching holes in the sky, I mean really how manueverable did it have to be to dogfight a four-engine turboprop, even with contrarotating props? By the way, talking about wing area, ever see an F-106? It presented quite a handful to opposing fighters during DACT too - of course, that big beautiful wing could be filled with lots of fuel, giving the bird tremendous unrefueled range compared to other interceptors - you know, like the Lightning.
Anyway, fun stuff - but you need to identify yourself to abide by Wiki rules, such as they are. Jmdeur (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in a Lightning versus F-106 debate here, but I'd just like to point out that this Flight article describes in detail the Lightning F.53's air-to-ground capability, with two underwing hardpoints capable of carrying two 1000 lb bombs each. And yes, they also claimed that it could carry 1000 lb (retarded) bombs on the overwing pylons too! Letdorf (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
The overwing pylon had ejector mounts that blew the jettisoned tanks or stores off and over the wing. Also the UK is a relatively small island with no part more than ~75 miles from the sea,so climb performance was more important than range, as due to the likely route of attacking Soviet bombers there was unlikely to be more than a few minutes warning in-which to scramble the interceptors - see four-minute warning. The fact is that the Lightning was a superb interceptor and was still usable as-such into the late 1980s. That it wasn't developed as much as it could have been was due to British government vacillating rather than any technical reason.
BTW, see Lockheed bribery scandals for the reason for the 'success' of the F-104 - they had to bribe countries to get them to use it.
Actually the F-102 wasn't even supersonic when first designed. That was one of the gripes about it and which lead to the re-designed F-106. The Lightning (P.1) was supersonic from the beginning, and without using reheat - see supercruise. The Lightning had a removable underbelly nose pack that could accommodate either FFAR or the later Red Top. But it was designed with a gun from the beginning as the gun was reliable whereas early AAMs were not.
Another way of looking at it is to see the number of attempts the US made to get a decent fighter in the time that the Lightning was in service. F-102>F-105>F-104>F106> et.al. That is took till the introduction of the F-15 to get a US fighter with comparable flight performance to the Lightning says much about the Lightning/P.1s original design. [[5]
Comparing aircraft that are designed by different countries with different needs is fraught with danger as what one country regards as essential, another country may not, e.g., range, manoeuvrability. The UK has an excellent record in producing first rate combat aeroplanes, since the Camel and SE5A in WWI, through the Hurricane and Spitfire in WWII, and then the Hunter and Lightning. None of these aircraft had 'sufficient range' according to the US but all could generally fly the pants off contemporary US fighters, which generally weren't manoeuvrable enough to get out of their own way. The only first-rate fighters the US has ever built are the Mustang (built for the RAF to an RAF specification) and the later Sabre from the same company. The Phantom II was hardly in the same league as a Lightning as a fighter even if it was bought for the RN and later transferred to the RAF, that was only because the corresponding UK designs were cancelled.

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.

The Lightning was built for the UK and RAF and for them overall performance has always been more important then range, as there is little point in getting to an opponent if he can then outfly you and shoot you down. Fighters can always either be moved up to areas nearer the action or be flight refuelled or carry drop tanks to increase range and endurance. A 'long range' fighter has certain compromises usually in size and weight that restrict performance compared to an interceptor. This hampers manoeuvrability and is one of the reasons that these types can not outfly other 'traditional' European fighters. These less manoeuvrable types are usable in the sort of 'Mickey Mouse' wars that have been fought against second- and third-rate aerial opponents such as in Korea and later Vietnam. They wouldn't cope well against first-rate opponents of the other kind. The fact is that the Lightning was enjoyable and exhilarating to fly and many pilots would forgive any other 'shortcomings' because the aircraft was capable of taking-on any likely first-rate opponent and give the pilot a good chance of surviving the encounter.
The only reason I first added a reply here was because I was getting fed up with the ill-informed opinionated crap that was being written about the Lightning and other UK aircraft, viz various 'criticisms' that are almost entirely absent in the corresponding article on US types. I can think of most of the good and bad points of many of the US combat aircraft built since around 1939 and could describe these criticisms, but that would be from the viewpoint of the UK and would not necessarily be valid for the use the US intended for them. The same applies to US views on UK aircraft. It's 'horses for courses'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.188 (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think the writer above has stumbled onto something, but doesn't quite want to make the leap in logic that it points to. The Six has nearly twice the ferry range, but only marginally more combat radius than the Lightning? I believe the Six indeed had a combat radius on the order of 900 nm - I also believe somewhere along the way somebody confused combat range and radius for the Lightning and the correct radius number is....500 nm as I note above (although I think halving the above 800 nm figure, which is probably a range not radius, is an even more likely figure). BTW, I never did look up the book mentioned above with article by the RAF pilot who flew both aircraft and made the apparently unbelievable comment concerning the small fuel capacity of the beloved Lightning based on his own misguided experiences over several years of flying both aircraft - it was, I believe, a book on the Lighting, had a yellow dustjacket, had a large squarish format, and was published in the 1980s in the UK.Jmdeur (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Did some hunting on the web, and I think (no guarantees, my copy is still in a box somewhere) the book where an RAF pilot himself bemoans the short range of the Lightning vis a vis the Six is Bruce Barrymore's English Electric/BAC Lightning published by Osprey in 1984. By the way, while looking for this, I stumbled across a British site that points out that the original combat radius specification for the Lightning was on the order of 130 nm (http://www.neam.co.uk/lightning.html)! Jmdeur (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I dont really understand the points being made but the Lightning has always had a reputation for having a poor range and a lot of work was done to get more fuel on board with added extras like overwing fuel tanks for ferrying and an additional ventral fuel tank. The main reason for the F6 was to squeeze more range out of the aircraft and it was originally known as the F3(ERV) "Extended Range Version". Also remember it didnt really need a large combat range all it had to do was dash like mad up the North Sea fire missiles at approaching soviet bombers and return home, not enough fuel to do anything fancy like dog fighting. MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Bang on! That was the point in my original post from a year ago in response to all the comments about how the Lightning was such a world beater - the Lightning was built as a point interceptor with remarkably limited capabilities, probably the closest American equivalent would be the F-104A which other than killing lots of pilots really didn't accomplish much. At least the Lightning managed to avoid the pilot killing in droves (I suppose, I have no idea what its accident record looks like). I came back a year later and see not one but two sections devoted to counter claims that it has the combat radius of a true area interceptor, the F-106, by comparing the combat RADIUS of the F-106 to the combat RANGE of the Lightning. Jmdeur (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that as late as the 1970s/early 1980s, the performance of the Lightning was still classified, and I can remember reading serious aviation books and publications which would only give (for example) the service ceiling as 60,000ft+. Other figures were freely admitted to be estimated so getting reliable figures depends on whether accurate figures are now available. Performance figures for such aircraft as the Harrier and even the early Tornado (then called MRCA) were published at the time, but for some reason, not the Lightning. I do remember though that the rate-of-climb was quoted for the Lightning in a 1960s edition of The Observers Book of Aircraft (a reputable publication) as 60,000ft per-minute. I remember this figure because it was the same as the quoted service ceiling, and meant that the Lightning could (supposedly) reach its highest altitude in around a minute.
Does make you wonder why someone would classify the performance of what a twenty or thirty year old design, especially a mediocre one - maybe the MOD just wanted to make the lives of British aerophiles easier. I mean if there are no published hard figures, it's very easy to claim that the thing climbed like the Saturn V, flew higher than the SR-71, could outmaneuver a Fokker triplane, had the range of the F-106, etc. To be honest, I can't imagine Soviet bomber crews worrying too much about running up against the Lightning (they were probably relieved they wouldn't be seeing an F-101B or even a CF-101B) - I mean, it would have to almost be permanently attached to a tanker to stay in the air for any length of time which would have to have neutralized its superior maneuverability at least a little, not to mention compromise that Saturn V climb performance. It didn't have much in terms of weapons or fire control (oh sure, it might be able to give a good airshow performance for the incoming bomber crews, but I'm not sure that would slow them down that much). Now, the Tornado - there's a super fighter that the Brits can be proud of. Silly us, we were wasting our time building pieces of crap like the F-14 and F-15, when we could have been building Tornados under license...I can't say too many bad things about the Harrier, as I worked on the engineering of the AV-8B back in the day. It may have started as a rather rough performer (again no range - no payload), but once we got a decent wing on it and did some other design work, it really turned out rather well.Jmdeur (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah because the original Harrier was so terrible in the Falklands (no losses in air to air combat), get your facts right dummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.99 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Lightning was still in active service with the RAF as an interceptor until 1988 - that seems like reason enough to keep its performance classified so long. By the way, do you have anything constructive to contribute to this discussion page? I'm sure there must be more appropriate places than this for expressing a general disdain for British military aircraft. Letdorf (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
I mean, it would have to almost be permanently attached to a tanker to stay in the air for any length of time - erm, no - that's what the Quick Reaction Alerts were for. You see Britain had the world's first integrated air defence radar system so the intercepting aircraft didn't have to hang around in the air doing standing patrols in order to detect incoming bombers. The radar system did that, and the fighters were then scrambled (an RAF term) to intercept them - see Ground-controlled interception (GCI) - another RAF term. Britain had all this in 1939, when the US didn't have a usable working radar, never mind a complete air defence system. So the fighters only needed enough fuel to be vectored (another RAF term) onto the attacking bombers, fire their guns or missiles, and then land, refuelling and re-arming as necessary. So range and endurance was less important. That's what a decent air defence radar system gives you and it must have been a good idea as just about every country in the world now has one, based on the original British system. Oh, and BTW, the first AWACS system was British too, using a radar-equipped Wellington to vector RAF fighters onto German E-boats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.207 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2009 (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)

The North Sea and the route over-which (from top-right) a Soviet air attack would have likely been made
Blimey, you Brits sure don't like being criticized - LOL! - actually, most of us don't mind valid criticism. It's the comparison of performance where national needs are different. Who says that in 1950 when the Lightning was being designed there was any need for a 1,500 (or whatever) mile range. Britain is an island where no point is more than 75 miles from the sea, and so any interceptions over the sea are only going to occur within a relatively short distance from the airfields. Any likely Soviet nuclear air attack would have come over the neutral Scandinavian countries - who might not be inclined to inform us of the fact - and then across the North Sea, so why on earth would an RAF interceptor need a 1,500 mile range. Its performance against the opponent that counts in this situation, and that meant getting there as fast as possible and doing the business. And if any Soviet bombers got through then fuel problems would have been the least of the Lightning pilot's worries, as he wouldn't have had anywhere left to land.
The Lightning wasn't designed for patrolling vast areas of North America or any other large area of land. That's not what it was for, and criticising it for this 'failing' is absurd. I could just as easily criticise any equivalent US aircraft for being, compared to the Lightning, so un-manoeuvrable as to be unable to get out of its own way. From a pilot's point of view, the Lightning was probably the best interceptor in the world for most of its operational life. That's what it was designed for. Stopping the British Isles from getting nuked by Russian bombers.
BTW, Lightnings were ferried out to as far away as Singapore so range doesn't appear to have affected the RAF's use of them in other parts of the world. The RAF also had numerous air bases all around the world (many of which the US now uses), so one only needed to get them out there in the first place. You don't need range so much if you already have access to airfields in the vicinity.
The Lightning was a pretty-good aeroplane for what the RAF wanted it to do. That's all that matters, not what anyone else might have wanted it for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The F-106 had an excellent range for patrolling Alaska or the North Atlantic. The Lightning, despite its ridiculously short endurance, did perfectly well at defending the North Sea approaches and its assigned corridor of northern Germany (to protect NATO air bases). On North Sea QRA duty, it would hook up with a Victor tanker en route to the intercept. Over Germany, it didn't have to go far enough to make fuel endurance a problem. Sqn Ldr Clive Rowley MBE, in 'Flying the "Frightening" ', FlyPast, March 2006, remarks that his Lightning F2A of 19 Sqn, Gutersloh, 1976, carried 10,200lb / 4,626kg fuel (that is about 1,250 gal, more than half the maximum load of a wartime Avro Lancaster bomber), which was enough to get you around - though he does add that without the ventral tank, carrying only 5,000lb fuel, you could blow the lot in 10 minutes. (He did this as OC Lightning Training Flight, in F3 XR716, on 14 April 1987. The reason for doing it was that at that load the Lightning had a start-up weight of 32,000lb, 14,515kg, and the engines were rated for 32,000lb thrust - I'm not a pilot and you probably have to be a pilot to realise what an interesting proposition that is.) He also remarks that his first two-seat familiarisation flight in the Lightning, in 1973 with instructor Flt Lt Paul Holmes, was a take-off and climb to 36,000ft in just over 2 min from brake release. That is pretty damn good - it is more than the Tornado could do ten years later, and it even compares quite well with the F-15 - and was routine for the Lightning.
Hugh Trevor, in 'Dolphins and Cobras', FlyPast, September 2011 (the dolphin and the cobra were the symbols of 19 and 92 Sqns), quotes Lightning drivers from RAF Germany in the 1970s who found they could compete well with any other NATO jet in mock combat. The trickiest opponents were the Luftwaffe F-104 high and fast, and the French Mirage III or Belgian Mirage V low and slow, but neither of them held an outright winning hand. The F-4 Phantom, US or German, was just a plaything, mouse to the Lightning's cat. You negated its powerful radar simply by turning so it was on your beam, where its closing speed came down to its own airspeed, so the doppler radar literally couldn't 'see' the Lightning and couldn't lock on till it was so close it couldn't use its missiles. A turning dogfight then ensued, which the Lightning always won. Notably, the F-106 was only deployed to Germany for a short period. (And never gained a single export order.) It is very obvious why. Like any delta (including the B-58 Hustler and the Avro Vulcan) the F-106 could outwit a Phantom at high altitude, but unlike the smaller and nimbler Mirage it could not survive at low or medium altitudes in any environment where it might encounter opposing fighters. The Lightning could, easily; the F-106, with its over-specific performance envelope, its dodgy fire-control computer and its virtually useless AIM-4 Falcon missile (which never scored a single kill over Vietnam despite many combat firings from F-4 Phantoms), could not. The Smithsonian's 'Air & Space' magazine remarked in a cover story on the F-106's Convair stablemate, the B-58, that it 'went nowhere fast'. Despite the F-106's long career - as long as the Lightning's, but served out almost entirely at home, in perfect safety, where it wouldn't meet any opposition too handy or hairy, not on the down-and-dirty German front line where the actual contest for the freedom of the world went on, you could say much the same for the F-106. - Hugo Barnacle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.164.23 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
In exercises in Germany the Lightning pilots found that the only aircraft that could sometimes out turn a Lightning was the Fiat G.91, a subsonic ground attack aircraft.
Oh, and BTW, the Lightning must have been one of the first (if not the first) aircraft to have a pressurised under-wing refuelling system (for fast turnarounds after landing from a 'Scramble') of the type that later found itself indispensable for quick refuelling during pit stops on Formula One racing cars. IIRC, this system of refuelling was also fitted to the Hawker Hunter and the need for fast refuelling and rapid turnaround is one of the reasons that both types also had quickly removable gun packs for fast re-arming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Back to range again, according to a Flight advertisement by BAC, the Lightning was able to shut down one engine to increase range/endurance, and due to the engine configuration there were no asymmetric handling problems. Don't know if this method was ever used operationally though.
BTW, this 1957 Flight article on the P.1/Lightning by Bill Gunston might interest some of you; [6] - it also mentions that an engine could be safely shut down to increase range.
Also JFYI, the P.1/Lightning was, in effect, area ruled but because the wings were of a considerable aerodynamic chord and were distributed over much of the overall length of the aircraft, the 'wasp waist' wasn't needed. Because of this the addition of the ventral stores/fuel tank actually further improved, rather than reduced, performance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Mach 1.7 was the initial clearance speed the Lighting F.1 and F.1A were cleared to on service entry. "The aircraft is easily capable of exceeding its airspeed and Mach number limitations of 650 knots/1.7M and care must be taken to avoid flying beyond these limits."
The initial limitation of 650 knots and Mach 1.7 was because the aircraft entered service while the manufacturer and Boscombe Down were still test flying it. Beamont mentions that a rumour went round that the Lightning was an "only Mach 1.7 aeroplane" and he traced its source to some French test pilots who had been invited to fly the Lighting and who had been briefed on the initial cleared speeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Flight Global

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)

natural metal

"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)

I think the above quote refers to the unpainted metal exterior (referred to as "natural metal" in scale modelling terminology) used on Lightnings until the mid-1970s or so, which was unusual for an RAF fighter of that era. Letdorf (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
The Lightning's natural metal finish was unusual for the period but not for the RAF as a whole. In the 1930s the normal finish for fighters was silver-doped, with the colourful squadron markings that later re-appeared for a short time on the RAF's fighters in the immediate after-war (WWII) period.
A natural metal (i.e., unpainted aluminium) finish is less popular in the UK than the US simply due to the weather, the frequent rain making keeping the aircraft's finish in good condition (so that it looks smart) more time consuming. That's for peacetime use, for wartime, the geographical proximity to potential adversaries makes camouflage a necessity, it being relatively easy to pick out bright silver aircraft on an airfield potentially vulnerable to ground attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.207 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
56 Sqn Lightning and 1932-36 predecessor in a 1961 Flight here: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre-war RAF natural metal finish shown at right in a restored Hawker Fury;

Hawker Fury K5674, painted in No. 43 Squadron RAF Colours (2011)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.143 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming the beast

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)

Still not located the competition, but the P.1 received its official name at the end of October 1958 [8]TSRL (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Lightning

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)

Thanks, ZF580 F53 has been added to the list. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

HOTAS

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.

Spec F23/49

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)

The first draft of F23/49 was issued in September 1949. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
F.23/49 was written around the P.1. The Experimental Requirement 103 was for an experimental supersonic aircraft with the provision for development into an operational fighter, and it was this requirement that the P.1 was designed to - see [[9]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.207 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Sea Lightning"

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).

Incorrect outline drawing on F6 Specification section

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)

Might be a good idea... in the meantime I have made the caption of the image visible. Letdorf (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

combat record

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)

F.52s

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)

Redlinks

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).

Reasons for CAA refusal?

"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)

Probably the need to meet all the requirements for a complex aircraft in CAP632 at least, having meet all the criteria ex-military aircraft need additional permission to exceed 250 knots - a speed not difficult to break in a Lightning. Also shed loads of regulations to meet if you actually want to display it near to the public. All far to difficult and expensive and you need to convince the design authority BAe to get involved or delegate responsibility. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As a guess, the Lightning would be classed as a 'Complex' aircraft which basically means what it says. The airframe and systems are probably deemed to be beyond the capabilities of any likely private group or organisation to support and maintain safely. The airframe is very tightly-packed internally and some maintenance is horrendously involved. For example, it is possible to remove the wings from the aircraft, but the process is very time consuming and some private owners have resorted to cutting the wings off just to be able to transport the aeroplane. As an aside, the mainwheel tyres were inflated to 350lbs/in and were rated for 7 (seven) landings only, so anyone contemplating flying one would need to budget-in replacing the tyres every few flights. Expensive.
In addition, I suspect that the majority of surviving Lightnings were well used during their time in service and could be thought likely to suffer from fatigue problems at some time in the future and this may well be what the CAA is afraid of. The prospect of an aeroplane like a Lightning losing a wing at an airshow while doing 600 mph is probably not one that the CAA would like to contemplate. So for the CAA the Lightning is probably too risky to allow anyone, other than an air force with its greater resources, to operate.
It's different for an organisation like the now seemingly-defunct Thunder City, as South Africa is much less densely populated than here in the UK and so the risk of injury to third parties is much smaller. Plus they have (or had) the resources, due to them already having a number of fast jets to maintain. I suspect it would be very difficult for any UK group starting from scratch to convince the CAA of their ability to maintain and fly the aeroplane safely. They would probably have difficulty raising the (seriously large) amount of money needed to maintain the aircraft to the CAA's approval. And I suspect that Thunder City may well have bought-up most of the remaining Lightning spares, so that becomes another problem - in the CAA's eyes using twenty, thirty, or even forty-year old spare parts on an aircraft that can do over Mach 2 may well not seem like a good idea to them.
As regards them ever flying again, I hope they do though, as I remember a Lightning screaming over my head, with condensation making the shock waves visible due to it's high Mach number, at Biggin Hill Airshow back in around 1976. It would be nice to see them back doing what they did best again. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
An interesting US Gov DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HANDBOOK: FLYING QUALITIES OF PILOTED AIRCRAFT pdf online here [11] with a mention of the 'excellent' handling qualities of both the Lightning and TSR2. (page 251) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


For anyone considering attempting to get a Lightning airworthy with a view to flying one in the UK I've done some digging-around and basically the situation is this: The Lightning is not permitted to fly in the UK because BAe (formerly BAC) as the type's Design Authority withdrew their support for the Lightning back around the time the Lightning was retired from RAF service, c.1988. Without the support of a relevant Design Authority the CAA is not permitted to authorise aerial operations by any 'Complex', i.e., non-homebuilt or 'Simple', aircraft. Apparently BAe were willing to transfer the Design Authority to Marshall Aerospace (and they, in turn, were willing to take it on) but the problem was the overall cost as opposed to the likely returns for the latter company. The cost to any owner/operator of a Lightning in order to get Marshall's to take on the responsibility of maintaining the design is likely to be astronomic if spread over the relatively-few likely operators, there being relatively few Lightning airframes that it would be feasible to make airworthy. So Marshalls would have to charge large sums to too-few customers in order for it to be worthwhile to them.
So, to anyone wishing to get a Lightning back in the air in the UK I would advise that they see about banding together with any other Lightning groups and see if they can raise the (admittedly large) sums required to make it economical for Marshall's to take on the responsibility for the Lightning. As a business, you can guess that they would need to be fairly sure that they don't lose money in the process, so the sums are likely to be large. Other than that, there is no CAA 'ban' on the type. It would just be very expensive.
BTW, the Vulcan XH558 is allowed to fly in the UK because it has Design Authority backing - I can't remember who it is, but it may be the successor to Hawker Siddelely. ISTR, that the BofB Flight's Lancaster (also an Avro type) has the same DA provider.
Perhaps anyone interested in getting Lightnings back in the air should seek the support of someone like Bernie Ecclestone for perhaps a five-Lightning display team, then he can have spectacular air displays over his Formula One Grands Prix before the races start. Alternatively, try Marshalls themselves, or perhaps even Rolls-Royce. I bet there are not many companies with their own supersonic air display team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The tragic loss of one of Thunder City's Lightnings during a display has probably also done a lot of "damage" to the chances of any authority approving the type for flight. BTW Thunder City's entire fleet is for sale. Roger (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Design Authority for the Vulcan is BAE Systems, as you say the successor to HS, in fact the successor to most British aircraft manufacturers. Besides the airframe, there also has to be support for the engines from their design authority.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Vulcan XH558 Approval for a Permit to Fly is here (PDF); [12] which shows what sort of support an ex-MoD aeroplane such as a Vulcan or Lightning requires for flight in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
A lot of information about the CAA reasoning for not giving the Lightning a permit to fly is in the Thunder City accident report for zu-bex http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20&%20incid/reports/2009/8706.pdf it cites two main reasons the in-service safety record was worse than similar military aircraft and that as a complex aircraft it did have support from the manufacturer BAe). A copy of the CAA letter on the subject is attached to the report. The South African authorities decided to ignore the CAA advice and I would recommend a read of the accident report which shows perhaps they were wrong to do so. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
For anyone who's interested the accident report concludes that the Thunder City crash was due to an internal fuel leak that occurred on the previous flight. This was noticed by others after it landed and was parked for the display but was dismissed by the pilot as 'normal'. On the accident flight the aircraft took off and a fire occurred in the rear fuselage, followed rapidly by complete loss of all hydraulic pressure and subsequent loss of control - the elevator PFCU is situated in the area the fire occurred. At this point the pilot decided to eject. Upon initiating the ejection sequence a high-pressure gas pipe responsible for jettisoning the canopy burst due to internal corrosion around the area of a ferrule connecting the pipe to a T-junction, and the canopy lock remained engaged on one side. This prevented the normal seat ejection sequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Impressive" time to climb

"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 Sapphire Meteor had about double the usual thrust due to the two AS Sapphires replacing the Derwents and had been specially modified, so that's not a fair comparison. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, to be "fair" we should only compare aircraft carrying the same payload with fuel for the same mission. But we can't do that, so we're stuck with "unfair" comparisons. (Or does someone have details for the Lightning's weight when it's climbing to 36000 ft in three minutes?) Tim Zukas (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a source that says all the variants could make 40,000 feet in 2 min 30 secs which doesnt imply anything special with the aircraft just standard production aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Does it say how much fuel/payload the standard production aircraft was carrying? Tim Zukas (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Lightning = "Fifteen-tons of screaming aluminium" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There's some video of a Thunder City two-seat Lightning attempting a climb-to-altitude record back in 2005 here: [13] - watch the altimeter (top left). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
For anyone who can't be bothered to watch it, the rate-of-climb is about 1,000 ft per-second, and although the climb was only to 32,000ft, that's still pretty good performance even today. The Lightning was the two-seat T.5. ZU-BEX that crashed in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Programme on YouTube featuring Roland Beamont and also with AVM Johnny Howe speaking about the Lightning. Howe is the originator of the first-flight-in-a-Lightning quote, on being interviewed afterwards about how his flight went, he replied; "Super, I was with it all the way - until I let the brakes off!" [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Huge text dump

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).

not that i was expecting greetings and laudes, but atleast, as you removed the text, can you actually give also some remarks about the 'issues' met with this 'text dump'? So swift to remove (let's call it as 'censorship'?), but too swift to explain *why* in details. What are exactly the critical points met? And i ask for them, as i surely did not know them. And this attitude of 'firing without make questions' is boring. The 'deleter' needs to explain why he did it, or it should be basically a vandalizing.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
See: There are multiple problems with the submission, not the least being a rough translation from Italian; see also other issues that include: composition ("all in all"), style ("recce"), formatting ("citation forms, especially multiple citations from the same source"). Note, however, the changes are already being accommodated in this edit, and with pruning, it can be placed back into the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
Also: WP:NOTVANDAL. And accusing other editors of censorship isn't on. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
that's fine. But you could do it also in the main, without removing entirely the stuff. We are not afraid. Then what kind of problems do you see, apart that? can you underline them? Paragraph, something?

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)

The sheer amount of information is daunting, and leaving it intact in the article was problematic as it just wasn't easy to read with so many typing, spelling and formatting issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
Comments: One problem with this attempted addition to the operational history, (ignoring the normal style and translation problems) is that relatively little of it (less than half) is related to the actual operational history - less than half, with much of the rest being more relevant to the description section. The article itself is a bit of a mess anyway, with a large chunk on performance lurking incorrectly in the operational history, and very little citing.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:21, 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)

Better than the original but still has some fluff like served by radars based at Usram not sure what that means. That said the Bzuk version might be worth putting in the article and we can help clean it up as part of normal editing, certainly dont agree to add the original text dump. Just a comment for Stefanomencarelli you have been asked before not add large dumps of text in articles, if you use the talk page and ask for help with correcting the bad english and suggestions for improvement it would be a lot easier for other editors to help and I hope show what is required. A quick 'I have created this draft can you guys help me sort it out' would get a better result then the current text dump approach. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
but this is not 'be bold'. And i do not see how bad could be my english anyway, to deserve a quick revert. Nor i must ask the permission to editing to anyone, or this is not Wikipedia any longer. Discarding even my sources is not fair as well. And forgetting to add some stuff at your will is not fair either. As example, why there is not mention about the JL-100 combo, the performances and so on. Nothing is added to the Lightning page, so you are wondering why i do not ask to anyone to edit? Because this would be not just an help, but rather a censorship. Why F Mk 53 has no performances added? Why there is not mention of JL-100? And BTW, why you fellow wikipedians wait until i do something in aviation pages before to 're write' them? Lightning page should have been 'corrected' without my intervention, but it was not so. It was since 2 april that nobody modified that page, look what is happened since yesterday. This is a bit unfair to my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no censorship; please stop referring to it as such. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There's a disclaimer before every single edit box on Wikipedia: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you aren't prepared some some of your entries to be reverted, rewritten, or modified by other editors, this is probably the wrong site for you. If you care to note the edit history, I've had some of my edits reverted or cancelled out in the last 48 hours on this very article; nobody gets thier own way 100% of the time, as this society works by WP:Consensus - the opinions of many as to what is the correct way to conduct affairs of the site and to improve quality. "so you are wondering why i do not ask to anyone to edit" We're not asking you not to edit, or trying to censor you, but we have sandboxes and talk pages for a reason - that's where rough work belongs. Rough work shouldn't be pumped out live, as poor language, inproper formatting, and questionably-phrased statements then look unprofessional to the readership - E.G. We should be putting our best, refined quality forwards in the live version, not the first drafts (especially with language difficulties), as poor quality work ultimately lowers readership and looks bad for the whole project. I make use of talkpages and sandboxes for proposals, huge content dumps and error-checking, why demand to be any different? Kyteto (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
More polishing needed. Take the first paragraph:
The Lightning F Mk.53 could take on more than the interceptor role. It could be configured with air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons, reconnaissance pod (four 70 mm Type 360 Vinten cameras) and extra fuel. Each of the four underwing pylons could take one or two 1,000 lb bombs, napalm bombs, or SNEB rocket launchers (with 18 or 36 68 mm rockets in each). A dual ADEN pack (with 260 rounds) could be fitted instead of the forward part of the ventral tank bulge. The Firestreak missile system could be replaced with a 2 inch rocket rockets (2 packs of 22 rockets) or a five camera pack. Two overwing hardpoints could be equipped with a fixed 260 Imp gal (1,180 lt) fuel tank, or a 1,000 lb retarded bomb (ejected with explosive charges) a SNEB pack or a combination fuel tank and SNEB rocket pack.[9] copyedit with reference to."Multi-mission Lightning" Flight International 2 September 1968 p372 (nice cutaway a few pages later, the Italian source is possiblyy superfluous.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 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)

The reconnaissance pod and underwing bombs and rockets are already described in the article, so re-ading them would be unnecessary duplication. Note that the overwing rockets or bombs only seem to be proposals by BAC, which could be added to an "advanced F.53" - see the Flight International article. In fact they were almost certainly never fitted, particularly given the short life of the Lightning in the ground-attack role (which they relinquished in 1971 when Saudi received F-5s). Performance of the Lightning is also already discussed in great detail in the relevant sections.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears we've been ignored anyway. So much for WP:Consensus. Kyteto (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

refs for this section - to aid use of the above.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.lightning.org.uk/histf2f2a.html
  2. ^ Gianvanni, Paolo. "Lightning sul deserto." RiD Magazine, Chiavari, March 2010, p. 82.
  3. ^ De Montis, Marco. "Lightning." RiD Magazine, Chiavari, May 2006, p. 84.
  4. ^ Gianvanni, Paolo. "Lightning sul deserto." RiD Magazine, Chiavari, March 2010, pp. 84–86.
  5. ^ a b c Gianvanni, Paolo: 'Lightning sul deserto, RiD Magazine, Chiavari, March 2010 p. 85.
  6. ^ Gianvanni, Paolo. "Lightning sul deserto." RiD Magazine, Chiavari, March 2010, p. 86.
  7. ^ a b c d Gianvanni, Paolo: 'Lightning sul deserto, RiD Magazine, Chiavari, March 2010 p. 87. Cite error: The named reference "p. 87" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ De Montis, Marco. "Lightning." RiD Magazine, Chiavari, May 2006, p. 84.
  9. ^ De Montis, Marco. "Lightning." RiD Magazine, Chiavari, May 2006, p. 84.
  10. ^ Gianvanni, Paolo. "Lightning sul deserto." RiD Magazine, Chiavari, March 2010, pp. 84–86.

RAF operational history

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)

  • Will look for the bits of FEAF from my side and add in accordingly, hopefully without more rubbish input from the expresso sipping one. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RSAF Survivor?

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)

It's this one [15]. Anyone passing, haha? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Separating Fact from Fiction

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)

Noted for its great speed is what thepublic perception was - it doesnt say it was the fastest, so rather than loose it it needs a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Never mind - here's some video of Lightnings making transonic low passes at an airshow back in 1987 just in case you've never seen aircraft flying at around Mach 0.95 - 0.99 (from around 4:19) without using reheat; [16] - the visible shockwaves are from the thickest part of the wing and from the canopy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A 1963 Flight news item showing the shock waves of a Lightning at Mach 0.98 here: [17] - compare with the linked film above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.125 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Electric_Lightning/Archive_1&oldid=1143537230"