Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Both aircraft had same missions as originally built! Had very similar performance, but were totally different designs! I think it?s a toss up?
http://www.lightning.org.uk/home.html has some cool info and pics.

F-16.net Sponsor

Hmmm. Lightning.... As mentioned somewhere else.... don't they, like leak gobs of fuel when they are sitting ready to fly as a form of S.O.P.? Also, what about a leaky upper engine over a hot lower engine? Yikes!!! Fortunately we have come a long way and learned a lot of things in the jet age. Very Happy

The F-104 is -to me- a "big fat" loser, this ain't a fighter, it's like a US version of the MiG-21, but the MiG-21 had beat its a$$, that's my thoughts.
I choose the lightning anytime.

At least the Lightining had maneuverablity... The short thin wings on the Starfighter meant it had to take a bit longer turns

KarimAbdoun,

Kinda funny you say that, as the F-104 is still in service with the Italians. That is what’s sitting on 5 minute alert to protect Rome with AIM-9s and the Italian AIM-7s.

I will be putting my spurs on and flying with the boss Tuesday from KAEX to KCHS. That’s the old England AFB to Charleston AFB, if you’ve never done a flight plan.

So easy youngster, before you say an ugly POS is better than the Zipper, which is still operational, is more fun to fly, and still holds the world low altitude speed record.

Any day you wanna go do some ACM, or just race… Bring your pug nosed Lighting, if you can get it running, and I’ll bring the Zipper. Fights On!

Gums, did I take easy enough on the kid?

*L* I was wondering when one of the Zipper drivers would chime in!! Also I was wondering how those Over wing tanks work on the Lightning, Can you eject them? seems like they would smash into the Stabs!!

These are the same aircraft that are being retired, it's just not as capable as a lightning. All I am saying is that aircraft wouldn't hold on enough against a Lightning.

JR007, all I am saying is that the Starfighter ain't a true star up in the skies, everybody has their different opinions about single subjects, so I hope we still could be "forum friends"?

The advantages of a Starfighter that I like is:

1- Excellent acceleration.
2- High speeds in low level flight.
3- Good handling.
4- "Good" air-to-air combat performance.

Well the other thing about that flight plan he mentioned. If it was a war jet instead of an airshow jet, they could do it with a "P suit" ( not unlike the U-2, SR-71, early space shuttle suit ) Go way above 50,000 ft. ( closer to 70,000 ft ) and have a compete contempt of engagement of something like a Lightning.... or much else. Oh yeah and "super cruise" ( go above Mach 1 with no burner for good fuel econ ). The only thing that gives me the heebeegeebees about the F-104 is looking at it's landing profile Shocked

, But then again, most F-104 pilots that believed in the jet above all else, are super honcho pilots that are on a bit of a higher level than most other fighter pilots. It is a plane that forgives nothing but offers a lot.

I am going to mention another "Lighting" so stick with me for a sec... One thing I always laugh about, when I see someone mention how manuverable the F-22 is. So what and who cares? The biggest advantage of the F-22 is yes it's stealth, but also its speed vs. fuel economy and contempt of engagement which makes it a far better strategic striker than the JSF will ever hope for. Why to I mention this with the F-104 being the topic here? Because a lot of amatuers are oversold on a jets ability to manuver WVR at the expense of all else....which is wrong thinking. What the F-104 offers is a complete contempt of engagement and if it was mod'd out with todays sensors would be deadly. You can't shoot something down if it just took a shot at you and is already zoom climbing back on its perch at above 50,000ft and setting up for another attack.

There was a Pak F-104 that was shot down that forgot all that and went low to mix it up. If you are dumb enough not to use a jets strength.... well then, you are a dead pilot and you asked for it. The F-104 is not strong in every single item, but it is strong on speed, extreme altitude, and if it had a smokeless engine, you wouldn't see it nose on, until it was too late. Oh yeah... and easy to maintain.

Make mine new build UCAV F-104 with AMRAAMs and I will put the fear of god into anyone in an event that will make non F-22 users feel very very vulnerable. It comes in fast, ( "Wow" all the sudden "Its there!" ) at 70,000 ft plus, has more "shooter range" ( always relative with a missile shot ) because of the speed and altitude of the shooter ) fires 2x AMRAAM and zips out RTB and you don't get a shot at it.

After an enemy gets beaten on with something like that, I can send in the piloted aircraft to clean up.... if there is anything flying to clean up after getting "Rodney Kinged" like that. Oh yeah and the airframe new build would be dirt cheap.

Bac lightning could also super-crusie, had a higher climb rate, and a higher service ceiling and was more maneuverable and a slightly HIGHer top speed at altitude. However it had more limited armament, and was slower ?in the weeds?. It was ONLY retired back in 1998. You should have heard/read some of the comments of the now F3 drivers when comparing the performance of the two aircraft. They weren?t very kind to the F3!!! The lightning also had a thrust to weight ratio greater then 1 to 1!!!

* According to one story, late in the Lightning's service life a relatively inexperienced US Air Force pilot in an F-16 tried to take on a very experienced RAF pilot in a Lightning F.3, and found that the "old dog" repeatedly frustrated his missile attacks. The Yank pilot kept at it, and in the after-action analysis he was asked what he thought he was trying to accomplish. He replied: "I was going for a 'Fox Four'. I was trying to get alongside, open my canopy, and club the son of a bitch to death." ?I doubt that a Lightning in itself would have been a match for an F-16, and certainly if worst came to worst an F-16 could simply have run the Lightning out of gas. But though I am not a pilot I do play the piano a bit, and I suspect that flying a combat aircraft is much like playing a piano -- skill makes a big difference.? As quoted from a ?Lightning site? Not that 104?s had and LESS problems with range!!! *L*

KarimAbdoun,

Trust me, you freaking got my attention when you called the fighter I will fly tomorrow a “big fat” loser… And yes if you had ever flown either jet I might think a little more of your comments. Having worked/talked with lighting drivers, and having done years of ACM, and being front seat qualed in the Zipper, I can tell you I think you’re more than a little off plumb.

As far as the lighting’s climb, speed, etc, why was it the Zipper that held those records, and still does for low altitude?

I wouldn’t choose to fight an a/c as maneuverable as the Viper or Eagle with a Zipper, but with the current BVR missiles it carries, you darn right I’d go for the merge without a second thought.

No worries though, I never hold grudges for lack of experience. So hang loose and keep posting, just study a little harder next time so you don’t get smoked before the merge…

FYI this pic is at Flight Idle...

I always post what I know for sure from thorough research but to be honest, I know little about the Zipper except its world speed record, so I apologize again!

I like the Zipper, actually I like most J-79 powered aircraft!! I think the lightning and Zipper match up pretty evenly even though they are about as different as black and white. Unlike some of the Euro fighter Vs Euro threads that have basically the same Canard forward designs.

Quote:

I wouldn’t choose to fight an a/c as maneuverable as the Viper or Eagle with a Zipper, but with the current BVR missiles it carries, you darn right I’d go for the merge without a second thought.

1 v 1 sure but as a whole team effort, elements, 2 each blowing on through every 30 seconds and using the F-104 as it is supposed to be used, WVR doesn't have to be in the game plan as a turn and burn sense. Not telling you anything you don't know. Just thought I would mention that. Very Happy

A well trained 104 team and you should be able to do things within your own comfort level, and certainly make any bomb carriers scatter like cockroaches.

Elp,

Figured you had seen these, but thought I would post them. These came from a Lockheed Manual known as the SURE Report. It's great reading to help you learn how to live and fight in a Zipper, which is almost over as we will be the last operator in the World as of 2005.

Oh yeah, the flight Tuesday was great with the new MFD's we have, they are kick alpha!!! That was the first time I've flown an MFD in a fighter, and did it help to make life easier.

I'm not a pilot, or even in the military, but I love planes and aviation and I love to learn. That being said, there are several things I like more about the Zipper than the lightning.

First, I love the Zipper's looks! Cool

Sharp, clean lines - it looks like it's going mach 2 when it's on the ground. No offense to the Lightning fans out there, but I just don't quite see the beauty in a Lightning. The stubby nose and (in my humble opinion) blocky appearance seem to break up the clean lines of a "pretty" jet.

Second, and very important, is simplicity. The Zipper only has one engine which makes it much easier to maintain and operate - less to repair and less for the pilot to think about in the middle of an engagement. Before anyone brings up the advantage of having a "backup" engine, I have thought about that, but I think the advantages of cost savings and (I assume) lower fuel consumption of a single engine. I also think it's amazing that the Zipper does everything it does with a single engine while the Lightning needs two engines, especially considering when it was designed! Smile

Third, what's up with the over-under engine placement on the lightning? Confused

If the upper engine is damaged or has a catastrophic failure, doesn't this create the chance that combustibles might leak onto the lower engine? Also, if the lower engine suffers a fire or serious failure, wouldn't this present a serious threat to the upper engine? Either scenario seems to end with an unequal number of takeoffs and landings for the pilot. Shocked

Wouldn't a side by side engine configuration be better in these regards?

Fourth, external fuel tanks. I still haven't heard, can those overwing external fuel tanks on the Lightning be jettisoned in flight? Would you have to pull some negative G to make sure they separate properly? Just looking at those things balancing on the mount points ON TOP OF THE WING Shocked

gives me the heebe-jeebies, let alone thinking of pulling some G's in a fight! There's something that just doesn't seem right about that configuration to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the Zipper should be able to get rid of the external fuel tanks in flight without a problem.

Fifth, there has to be a reason that the Zipper is still in service six years after the Lightning was retired. I suspect JR007 could elaborate on these, as I don't know enough to say for sure. I am sure, however, that it's more than just a coincidence.

Last, but certainly not least, is Patriotic American Pride! Very Happy

I love my country, and the Zipper was born and bred in the USA!

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. Anything I can learn from everyone is greatly appreciated!

On a side note, JR, you have just about the best life I know of! Mr. Green

Thanks for showing us poor civilians who dream of getting our pilot's licences and flying Cessnas that it is possible to achieve something higher! You have given me a goal to strive for that I might otherwise thought impossible and for that, I am grateful. Fly fast and fly safe!

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

F-104 vs BAC Lighting - Another 'what if?'