English Electric Lightning

As a Brit, I can only say after the Spitfire our designs manage to throw up some of the ugliest flying machines ever. The Lightning isn't close to ugly in comparison to some.

Love to see it in DCS but this really was a proper old fashioned interceptor, a rocket, and I can't see the appeal of intercepting as a game, where much of it is a ground calculation for a narrow window and the weapons are probably less accurate than a modern Hydra.

Apparently it was interesting to fly.

I agree, but to the Spitfire I would add Tempest and Sea Furry.

We are blessed to have one based in France, and I have to say it’s always an air show highlight :thumbup:

This thing is so ugly it doesn’t deserve the right to fly :D

 

LMAO!! Now THIS is something that only flew because it is so ugly the earth rejected it!!:megalol:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/7/3/0517371.jpg

The Lightning certainly has some aerodynamic issues that make it a handful to fly, but to say that a Draken is comparable in performance (i.e. acceleration and climb) is not really a true statement. The Lightning could given an F-15 trouble in climb/acceleration. I don't ever remember seeing the Draken cited as being a world class climbing aircraft. I think of the Lighting as an F-104 with more power/weight and maneuverability, but less stability and a much less capable weapons/radar.

 

I would love to see the Draken (one of my all time favorite aircraft), the Lightning, and the F-104 in DCS World. To date, I have enjoyed all three aircraft in The SFP1/WoX/SF2 series games. But after a taste of the Viggen, I really want to see a DCS Draken. As a die-hard air-to-air virtual pilot, the Lightning and F-104 are extremely appealing, too. The problem is that DCS tends to pick one variant, usually the latest/best and will never get around to releasing other versions. Aircraft like the Lighting, F-104, and MiG-21 went through some radical revisions that really changes the way you fly/employ the aircraft in combat. The Lightning in particular was very hard to fly in its initial production form and was progressively improved. So it is nice to fly the different versions, especially the first and the last to contrast the refinement in flying qualities. The F-104A vs the F-104G wasn't as big a change, but still had some significant changes in stability and power-weight. The MiG-21F-13 is really quite a bit different from a MiG-21bis between increased weight, increased thrust, upgraded avionics/weapons, canopy changes, etc. I would love to fly every variant in between, too, especially the PF and PFMA.

Well most sources i can find give the Saab J35 a Climb rate in the ball park of 10 500m/min.

So its by no means a slouch when it comes to climb rate.

The Lightning was unmatched from brakes off to 50,000 feet until the F15 showed up.

There is a famous tale of a Lightning intercepting a U2 on a exercise. A dangerous thing to do as the pilot in question had no pressure suit and was relying on the aircraft to maintain cabin pressure.

The Lightning was renowned as one of the most fun but challenging jets to fly.

It would be a interesting addition in DCS.

I think the Buccaneer would be a nicer choice for DCS :)

I think the Buccaneer would be a nicer choice for DCS :)

+1 that man!

Buccaneer would be a much wiser choice

and to those saying the Lightning is ugly, no she's a beauty!

I think the Buccaneer would be a nicer choice for DCS :)

+1

+1 that man!

 

Buccaneer would be a much wiser choice

 

and to those saying the Lightning is ugly, no she's a beauty!

Ugly but interesting :thumbup:

And it would be very challenging or next to impossible to use in single player:

http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages1_files/Technical_files/0_IntWepSys-1.html?

A bucc would most welcome here....

So that'll be HMS Victorious, Eagle and Ark Royal.... If you thought landing on the Stennis was hard.. :megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::pilotfly::joystick:

Ugly but interesting :thumbup:

 

And it would be very challenging or next to impossible to use in single player:

http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages1_files/Technical_files/0_IntWepSys-1.html?

Well the upcoming F14, by the looks of it will be scripted as two crew/ AI being the secondman. So, it seems a plausible. Be good for Caucasus, low level hit and run attacks and carrier born ops. So, more scope of operations over the lightning - if anything I'd prefer the Jaguar over the lightning.

This aircraft is an interesting piece of engineering. The result was awesome at the time, and it was before the area-rule trend. BTW the belly tank was kept because luckily it enhances supersonic aerodynamics.

I've read that the main issue of the stacked engine was maintenance difficulties.

I've also read that during a modern exercise, an high altitude aircraft has to be intercepted. The lightning was the only one type to succeed due to its natural performances, all other gen 4 fighters missed or were too late.

Problems: Razbam is not the de-facto maker of such module, and I'm not sure that the specific role and capabilities of this aircraft would be interesting enough in gameplay aspects.

I step away from my computer for a couple of weeks to go on holiday and this is what I come back to? What's with all the Lightning bashing?

Beautiful aircraft, I even managed to get to sit in one once, to say it is cosy is an understatement, there is not much spare room in it, and I was a skinny teenager at the time :)

The prototype was the first aircraft to go supersonic without using re-heat, it had no afterburning engines and achieved M1.3 in 1958

All marques could have guns, they were fitted inside the forward belly fuel tank, the F.Mk1 and F.Mk2 both had guns mounted in the nose above the intake, they were deleted for the F.Mk3 but were added with the modified forward ventral fuel tank, the F.Mk6 also did not have guns fitted to the airframe and used the same method as the F.Mk3.

Forward of the ventral tank was the weapons pack which could be replaced to utilise different weapons, It could use the Firestreak & Redtop IR homing air to air missiles which could be slaved to the radar for tracking before launch, a rocket pack for air to ground attack, and a reconnaissance pack with various cameras.

Matra also made a combined over wing fuel tank that had a 2" SNEB rocket launcher on the front of it, similar to the one that could be mounted to the under wing pylon.

Well those two engines makes it heavier, more expensive and reduces its endurance significantly.

 

So i dont see whe the French should be jealous about it.

Having more engines does not automatically mean better it just means its a less efficient design as it requires more thrust for comparable performance.

 

For example if we compare the Lightning and the Saab J35 Draken.

 

They both use the Avon engine.

They both do Mach 2.

they had comparable range

(slightly better If carrying Exteral Fuel tanks),comparable climb performance and armaments capacity

 

 

(and superior armaments load for those upgraded in the 1980s with two extra pylon

which gave it 6 weapons pylons with 4 able to carry External fuel tanks or missiles).

 

But the Lightning has two engines instead of 1 and weighs significantly more

 

(Empty the Lightning is almost twice the weight as the Draken).

 

In my eyes this makes it an ineffecient design rather then a better one and its a similar case with the mirage III as its engine is actually less powerful then the Avon but still capable of similar performance.

 

The Lightning was not a bad interceptor but if i had to pick between similar aircraft of that era (J35 Draken,Mirage III,F-104)

to serve as the main Fighter for an airforce the Lightning would be my last pick.

It's not quite the same Avon engine though, the one fitted to the Saab has a bit more thrust than the one fitted to the Lightning.

There was also a prototype RR engine made that was to replace the Avons in the Lightning that had a good bit more thrust to it but the project got cancelled and the engine was scrapped. There was a lot that could have been done to upgrade the lightning but the govt. at the time did not want to spend money on manned fighters as the future was rockets and missiles.

There was also an upgraded radar ready to be fitted but again the project got cancelled, BAC had proposed fitting AIM 9 sidewinders to the Lightning and had done a lot of the preliminary work to fit them to the F.Mk6, it was English Electric and BAC that funded the development of the ground attack version for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Still, at high altitudes the Vulcan pilots liked to boast that they could out turn the Lightning.

- if anything I'd prefer the Jaguar over the lightning.

Now you're talking.. That and the Bucc.:pilotfly::joystick:

For me, the lightning would be a very good addition to DCS. I love the shape, the design, the time... And the climb performance is awesome! Check here:

Quax

Gesendet von meinem HTC One M9 mit Tapatalk

All marques could have guns, they were fitted inside the forward belly fuel tank, the F.Mk1 and F.Mk2 both had guns mounted in the nose above the intake, they were deleted for the F.Mk3 but were added with the modified forward ventral fuel tank, the F.Mk6 also did not have guns fitted to the airframe and used the same method as the F.Mk3.

 

 

Not sure that is totally correct.

The F.3 only had a small ventral tank and couldn't use that large Ventral gun pack at all. That diagram, shows an F.53 which I have only ever known as an export version of the F.6 (despite some sources calling it an F.3) and the only version to have that ground attack capability and under wing pylons.

Some F.3s were used to prototype the F.6 and given the bigger ventral pack and an interim F.3A designation before it was changed to F.6. - and some F.3s were just converted to F.6 later.

Not sure that is totally correct.

 

The F.3 only had a small ventral tank and couldn't use that large Ventral gun pack at all. That diagram, shows an F.53 which I have only ever known as an export version of the F.6 (despite some sources calling it an F.3) and the only version to have that ground attack capability and under wing pylons.

 

Some F.3s were used to prototype the F.6 and given the bigger ventral pack and an interim F.3A designation before it was changed to F.6. - and some F.3s were just converted to F.6 later.

You may well be right, those pictures are taken from the weapons manual for the F53 but I had been looking through the weapons manual for the F3, T5 and F6 (AP 101B-1003, 5 & 6-15B) just before it and it had included a similar diagram showing just the ventral gun pack and as it was also in the F53 diagram just used it.

The text does mention the F.6 for the gun pack with no mention of the F3 or T5, sloppy reading on my part.

Anyway here is the diagram from the other manual

You may well be right, those pictures are taken from the weapons manual for the F53 but I had been looking through the weapons manual for the F3, T5 and F6 (AP 101B-1003, 5 & 6-15B) just before it and it had included a similar diagram showing just the ventral gun pack and as it was also in the F53 diagram just used it.

The text does mention the F.6 for the gun pack with no mention of the F3 or T5, sloppy reading on my part.

 

Anyway here is the diagram from the other manual

 

The 2 front line squadrons at Binbrook (5 & 11) throughout the 70's, mk3 were missile only and mk6 had the belly guns in ventral tank. We never hung anything under the wings (apart from the odd recalcitrant liney) and offered a prayer up when equipping the overwing fuel tanks - usually only for overseas deployments.

It may well have been possible to change - but never done and the jockeys never trained for anythoing other than A/A.

And from your earlier post - if you think the cockpit was cramped - should try fitting with 2 people hanging upside down in there to replace the computer red plug under the floor behind where the bang seat would sit.

Beautiful aircraft. Given that DCS is somewhat lacking in simulating a full combat experience (bad missile FM, no DC, basic AI etc.), but it absolutely excels at minutely simulating the flight model and systems of an aircraft, I think this would be a hell of an interesting / quirky airplane to fly around and appreciate the FM.

Besides, the MiG-21 and F-5 are also pretty useless in AA without a GCI.

And from your earlier post - if you think the cockpit was cramped - should try fitting with 2 people hanging upside down in there to replace the computer red plug under the floor behind where the bang seat would sit.

Seems to be a familiar comment about working on the Lightning, I don't fancy doing an inlet check, I would never get past the radar.

Certainly an engineer was not considered by the designers. If you did not have your arm ripped apart by locking wire daily you were on holiday. But it did teach you to work blindfolded and be totally ambidextrous.

As for entering intake, you squeezed your head sideways in at the top by the standby pitot then pushed and let your weight carry you down and in. Surprising the size of some who could get in. Wonder if I still could?

When you really did not want to do it was after a bird strike to check the intake vanes. Several heavies had to be pulled out due to collapse over the years. Counted something as a right of passage.

Why is the Lightning discussed so detailed in the Razbam forum, was it announced as a module somewhere?

A wish for Razbam to do it.

So most of everyone likes that extra belly...its extra miledge...superior to the mig-21 and dont forget those extra tanks above the wings.No other planes is like that except perhaps the old good jag.

The over wing tanks fairly restrict the speed of the Lightning, not that it runs out of thrust, it runs out of elevator control and that limits it's max speed to M0.9 ish

One pilot was reminiscing about trying to catch a Victor tanker that had gotten ahead during a ferry flight from the Med and he managed to push his speed up to M0.95 before he ran out of elevator deflection, the aircraft tries to pitch down as speed increases with the over wing tanks fitted, they can however be jettisoned.

He did indeed manage to rendezvous with the tanker before he ran out of fuel :)

He did mention that the Victor could maintain a higher cruise speed than the Lightning with over wing tanks on.