Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Elp,

Lockheed still owns it and we would love to get more copies ourselves! Snake Reeves and an Italian F-104 pilot did the cartoons and Snake did the report.

F-16.net Sponsor

JR007 wrote:

Elp,

Lockheed still owns it and we would love to get more copies ourselves! Snake Reeves and an Italian F-104 pilot did the cartoons and Snake did the report.

Well we need to at least write a letter to get those guys to put it in their most awesome Lockheed giftshop at least. That should be a slam dunk I would think. Idea

Those artworks are huge piece of history.

Elp,

Here is a link to all the cartoons from the SURE project.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/cartoons%20.htm

WOW ! Thanks !!

Cool toons *L* was Nozzle fail a big problem in the 104? it wasnt in the F-4. at least not on the ones I worked on.

SwedgeII,

Not on the -3, -7, -11, or -19s. I don't know about the early engines.

Glen Reaves was my neighbor who lived behind my family in the late 50's and early 60's. I babysat his girls Glenda and Toni many times while I was in highs school in Palmdale

SwedgeII wrote:

Cool toons *L* was Nozzle fail a big problem in the 104? it wasnt in the F-4. at least not on the ones I worked on.

I don't remember the differences between the nozzle system in the F-4 versus the F-104.

I flew both...the F-104G and the F-4C/D/E.

I had a nozzle failure in the 104 on takeoff from Luke one day...failed open when I came out of burner...a very definite loss of thrust!.

I jammed it back into burner and turned back to the field for an immediate landing.

No biggie...loved the 104.

Wow the Lightning had a bad press in this thread, going to try to even things up a bit Smile

) Yes, the Zipper wins the beauty contest vs the Lightning, but actually, the two aircraft are closer in sheer performance than people around here seem to think.
Faster off the ground than an F-15, Intercepting the U-2 and a record ceiling reached of 88,000 ft....and the worlds FIRST aircraft capable of supercruise.

read on:)

Some questions answered i saw in the thread..
"A unique way of minimising the drag of the twin engine installation was put forward by Petter. This involved stacking the engines vertically (staggered to avoid too much weight aft, with the lower engine forward of the upper), effectively tucking them behind the cockpit, fed from the nose and achieving minimum frontal area. This effectively gave twice the thrust of its contemporaries for an increase in frontal area of only 50%"

"Performance comparison
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 MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).

The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m), although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by the late Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark". In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat."

This is even better...
"
"Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle (which he also flew) that:

Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lighting leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 & 3,000 feet [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]. "

"Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning's development, Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated that, in his opinion, nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope. The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him, the Mirage III included."

The achilles heel of the Lightning was always FUEL Lightning pilots always kept one eye frimly on the fuel gauge.
However, later fighters greatly outclassed the Lightning in terms of range, radar and avionics, and weapons load, and were far more effective air-to-air fighters. The short range of the Lightning - just 900 miles - was particularly crippling.
Ugly?? nah, It actually grows on you:)
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/bac.htm.

The Lightning also intercepted Concorde , British Airways offered one of their birds up to NATO for some trials, the Lightning was the only aircraft capable of intercepting it. I can`t remember what other aircraft were in the mix but it may have been F-16s and Phantoms.

[/img]

No clue on the Lightning, but the F-4 has actually climbed through 101,000ft before. I'm sure it would have been useful for ASAT...

Ah yes I remember, that was a stripped down specially prepped Phantom wasnt it? The stock Lightnings could get to those heights listed above without modification at all, which is impressive for an old gal although carrying an ASAT would be a bit tricky Smile

True enough that the Lightning had short legs, but then again the UK isn't too big to protect either. Between that and aerial refueling it sure seemed to be a nice hot rod for them. Over/under engine configuration made sense too since having an engine go out would not cause any yaw problems. That being said, it did offer a lot for an aircraft of its era- even lended some insight to the future as well. None of this takes anything away from the Starfighter's reputation(hell, it even had a cameo on the old Star Trek series!).

As usual, it all comes down to pilot training and tactics- it's not the crate but the man in it. Wink

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

True enough that the Lightning had short legs, but then again the UK isn't too big to protect either. Between that and aerial refueling it sure seemed to be a nice hot rod for them. Over/under engine configuration made sense too since having an engine go out would not cause any yaw problems. That being said, it did offer a lot for an aircraft of its era- even lended some insight to the future as well. None of this takes anything away from the Starfighter's reputation(hell, it even had a cameo on the old Star Trek series!).

As usual, it all comes down to pilot training and tactics- it's not the crate but the man in it. Wink

True enough, but as the original thread asked, I think I would take the seat in that Lightning if given the choice Smile

One thing it cleared up, was NOT to stack engines as most of the fuselage only had room for ducting for the engines rather than fuel!

Good point, hadn't thought of that. Sure would explain having such short legs...

still loved seeing them taking those 90 degree bat-turns once they were wheels up at the end of the runway! Thumb

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

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