Talk:English Electric Lightning/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about English Electric Lightning. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ferry tanks and delta wings

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

260 imperial gallons (1,200 l) ferry tanks on pylons over the wings

260 gal each, or total?

While the notched delta wing lacked the volume of a standard delta wing

Right, what's up with this? The wing is basically a delta with a cutaway, which seems to be a very bad idea. Filling in the notch would allow a rear span wise spar, which would greatly aid aeroelasticity issues. It would also increase volume, which would be useful for fuel. And it would offer a location for flaps. Do any of the references go into why a complete delta was not used? I see no obvious downsides.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly because a delta wing would not give the manoeuvrability required, i.e., turning circle, etc. "... the-then popular delta shape was rejected on the grounds that it would give inadequate control in the pitching plane, especially at extreme altitude and in the approach..." - from article by Bill Gunston in a 1961 issue of Flight here: [1]

BTW, according to Gunston in the linked 1961 article, the Lightning F.1A would do 1,500 mph, Mach 2.27, and it's service ceiling was 'well over 60,000ft' - here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The overwing tanks held 260 imperial gallons in each tank. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, the Napier Double Scorpion installation was intended to further improve climb and acceleration because at that point it had not been decided if reheat would be used in the P.1. Once performance with reheated Avons was established the rocket motor was deemed unnecessary, so it was not continued-with.

A 1970 Flight article on the Lightning QRA role with 29 Sqd and with their CO, Wg Cdr Brian Carroll, mentioned here; [3]

English Electric Lightning F.3 of 29 Squadron at RAF Wattisham in 1972

According to Roland Beamont the original Lightning specification called for a 150 nautical mile radius of action as it was primarily intended for defending the V bomber bases. Beamont successfully argued for the range to be increased, and it later was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The note provided on the delta should be expanded;

"Neverthe- less, the then-popular delta shape was rejected on the grounds that it would give inadequate control in the pitching plane, especially t extreme altitude and in the approach. The P.I was given a tailplane"

This is key. The design Gunston is referring to is the tail-less delta, which was then very much in vogue. However, these aircraft had very poor pitch performance, their control surfaces were generally too close to their CoG to get any sort of moment arm. The solution is to use a conventional tail, like that on the MiG-21, or to use canards, like later marks of the Mirage. It does not, however, address the planform in this case, because the design added a tail. I've never heard anyone complain about the pitch performance of the F-15, which is a tailed delta.

Does anyone have any other "hits" out there? Someone must have recorded this in depth.

Also, on a related note, one source states that Farnborough practically demanded they use a T-tail, but this was rejected. Does anyone know why Farnborough was pressing for the T-tail design? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the T-tail was thought necessary because of the perceived notion of a low tailplane operating in what was then thought to be disturbed/stagnant air due to the shock wave formed by the wing. It was thought to be ineffective due to this and so a high tailplane was though advisable. BTW, English Electric later had their own supersonic wind tunnel and also their own computer facility for modelling supersonic airflow - English Electric also made computers, e.g., the later English Electric DEUCE etc., so they stayed with the low tailplane as originally designed. The Delta wing was used by Fairey in their alternative proposal for the ER.103 - F.23/49 which later became the Fairey Delta 2.

At the time the P.1/Lightning was being designed the only two aircraft in the world that had exceeded Mach 1 were the Bell X-1 and the prototype North American XP-86, so there was almost no practical experience or data on what the air would actually do to a full-sized aeroplane at around and above Mach 1. Both these aeroplanes had mid-mounted tailplanes.

BTW, according to Bill Gunston the Lightning was the first fighter designed anywhere - around 1947-49 - specifically for supersonic performance, or at least the first that was actually built - ER.103 specifically asked for an aeroplane that could be developed into an operational fighter which then became F.23/49. It actually precedes the Hawker Hunter and the Supermarine Swift and F-100 Super Sabre in design. So the RAE were just playing safe, as they thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Lightning's wing trailing edge just overlaps the tailplane leading edge, or it would if it came all the way inboard. The notched delta gives aerodynamic clearance to the tailplane, and mechanical as well as aerodynamic clearance in flap-down configuration. You don't really want your flaps to foul your all-moving tailplane on approach. A straight wing trailing edge like the MiG-21's or the F-15's sort of wouldn't work in this particular design. And on the F-15 you'll notice they had to more or less hang the tailplane out off the back end, most of it aft of the engine nozzles, to get clearance. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The RAE's insistence on a high tail was almost certainly due to the influence of captured German transonic wind tunnel research that had been performed on a model of the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 which was probably the only such concrete (as opposed to theoretical) data obtained anywhere at that time, and which same captured German data probably also influenced Mikoyan & Gurevich in their choice of basic configuration for the MiG 15. IIRC, the wind tunnels were the one at Gottingen and the D.V.L one in Berlin, and they were, for a while, the only ones in the world capable of testing at supersonic speeds. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Interactive cockpit panorama of a Lightning F.53

I would like to propose adding an external link to a virtual tour of the Lightning F.53 (ZF578) at Tangmere Military Aviation Museum (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tangmere_Military_Aviation_Museum).

The virtual tour has been created for the museum, where it will be displayed next to the aircraft. It has titles and explanations for hundreds of items in the cockpit, and a switch to "night view", with the instrument lights on.

Although I'm a professional photographer, this virtual tour is the result of months of voluntary work for the museum. The information about all the items in the cockpit has been provided by former Lightning pilots.

The link is

http://www.haraldjoergens.com/interactive-panorama/lightning/. I hope it might add value to the article.

Kind regards

Harald Joergens

Interactive cockpit panorama of a Canberra F.53

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to propose adding an external link to a virtual tour of the Lightning F.53 (ZF578) at Tangmere Military Aviation Museum (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tangmere_Military_Aviation_Museum).

The virtual tour has been created for the museum, where it will be displayed next to the aircraft. It has titles and explanations for hundreds of items in the cockpit, and a switch to "night view", with the instrument lights on.

Although I'm a professional photographer, this virtual tour is the result of months of voluntary work for the museum. The information about all the items in the cockpit has been provided by former Lightning pilots.

The link is

http://www.haraldjoergens.com/interactive-panorama/lightning/. I hope it might add value to the article.

Kind regards

Harald Joergens — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaraldJoergens (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

F.155 and Lightning

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Given that the Lightning is, to some degree, matching the performance requirements of the F.155 project, is there any relationship between the two? None is mentioned in either article, yet it seems odd that the Lightning, which ultimately filled this role, was not part of F.155. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

English Electric submitted the P.8 to meet F.155, a development of the P.1 with the main undercarriage retracting into the fuselage leaving the wings for fuel. Armament consisted of two Blue Jay (i.e Firestreak missiles) rather than the radar guided Red Hebe required by the specification.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely the sort of thing that I suspected might be the case. Nigel, if you have a good source on this I'd really like to add it to the article. The fact that there were two supersonic interceptor projects underway at the same time suggests that the requirements differed, and I think contrasting them, along with P.8's "solution", would be a worthy addition. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

One wonders if anyone ever had the intriguing thought - before the engine was cancelled - of re-engining the Lightning with Rolls-Royce RB106's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone's wondering why Lightnings did that almost vertical climb immediately after take-off when using reheat, it's because if you didn't do something to keep the airspeed down the clean aeroplane (with its wheels and flaps up) would achieve Mach 1 before it came to the airfield boundary. So you risked making a loud (and frowned upon) sonic boom. A Lighting had to have it's nosewheel up before it got to 250 knots and was already doing around 400-450 knots by the time the nose was raised for the climb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.147.22 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

... and if the undercarriage wasn't raised before the airspeed reached 250 knots, then the nose wheel wouldn't retract at higher speeds, as the retraction jack wasn't powerful enough to raise the gear against the force of the slipstream. That's why the pilot retracted the wheels almost as soon as the aircraft was off the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

An official RAF film on a Lightning flight here: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.221 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect hatnote

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I plan on restoring the hatnote per WP:HATNOTE: "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article." In this case the title English Electric/BAC Lightning redirects to English Electric Lightning but there is a book with an article English Electric/BAC Lightning (book). Without a hatnote people looking for the book will be unaware of its article title. The opinion that maybe not many people are looking for the book is irrelevant. Tassedethe (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

From the same guideline lower down is WP:NAMB, In many cases it is preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous. Can't see that there would be any confusion when it is clearly disambiguated with the word 'book'. There are very many aircraft type monograph books with the name as the title, it would get very cluttered adding hatnotes to all of them. Hatnote is an editing guideline, not a policy. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NAMB is in regard to articles with different titles i.e different spellings etc., not cases where it is the exact same title and one has a disambiguator. If it applied in cases where a disambiguator was used then no article would have to have a hatnote. Possible clutter is addressed by WP:HATNOTE but a single hatnote can hardly be classed as clutter. Tassedethe (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The clutter I was worried about would be the addition of a hatnote to every popular aircraft type article but as there only seems to be two monograph book articles it is unlikely. This book survived an AfD with no consensus, its notability has been questioned and adding it as a hatnote would appear to be promoting the article. For clarity I would also disagree with a link to this book being added as a hatnote. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Origins chronology seems incorrect

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the first paragraph of "Origins", it seems to imply that the impetus for the EE Lightning came from a trial between a Gloster Meteor and an EE Canberra. However this cannot be correct. The Canberra first flew in May 1949, but by then "preliminary approval had been granted to the company to proceed with design work on the P.1. and to make wind tunnel models. The formal contract for this work was received on 12 May, 1949 the day before the Canberra made its first flight". See Ransom, Stephen (1987). English Electric Aircraft and their Predecessors. Putnam. p. 67. ISBN 0 85177 806 2. KreyszigB (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The P.1 design, as well as the Fairey Delta 2, came about as an attempt to salvage something in the form of supersonic research from the cancellation of the Miles M.52 in 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.55 (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:English Electric Lightning/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Articles has almost everything required, but is missing a development section, and could use a few more references. After getting that it could probably be put up for GA or FA qualification.

Last edited at 12:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English Electric Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228141108/http://newarkairmuseum.org/aircraft_list.html to http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/aircraft_list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on English Electric Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on English Electric Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lightning pilot interview

There's an interview with Lightning pilot Ian Black on YouTube here: [6]

Exceptional rate of climb ?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Reading this article the exceptional rate of climb feels odd. If compared to MiG 21 within wikipedia, MiG climbs twice as fast. Yet the article does not give that comparison.Korina (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You're probably comparing the MiG's peak climb rate with the Lightning's sustained climb rate, the two things not being the same thing. The Lightning's peak climb rate of 50,000 feet a minute is if anything even more extreme than the MiG's. In certain conditions a Lightning would hit 60,000 feet a minute, 1,000 feet a second, a vertical speed of about 680mph. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Lightning T5 take-off and climb here: [7] - the altimeter is top left with the artificial horizion (ADI) at centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.110 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Specifications

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The specifications are a complete mess - they are allegedly based on the Pilot's Notes and some mysterious (and probably unverifiable) Operating Manual - recently there have been a host of changes to so called "true" or "correct" values, with the changes either sourced to a non-reliable source - Thunder and Lightnings, or completely unsourced. This should be reverted to specs from an actual published, verifiable WP:Reliable Source, not what individual editors "know" is true.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree it needs to be updated to one of the more standard references like Janes or the Putnam EE book. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably not Jane's as things like weights and performance will be very vague as the information was classified. It probably needs one of the post-cold war books on the aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The RAF Operating Data Manual for the F6, issued September 1966 and classified 'Restricted', can be viewed here. https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-e/english-electric/item/3376-ap-101b-1006-16-lightning-f-mk6-operating-data-manual But it's all graphs, you have to break the data out for yourself. Aircraft specs are not really very cut-and-dried. You weren't supposed to exceed Mach 1.7 in the F2A or Mach 2 in the F6 because of concerns about what the shock cone would stand, but those limits were set in the knowledge that squadron pilots would always break them. You could exceed Mach 2.2, as Mike Hale obviously did when tail-chasing Concorde in his F3. The service ceiling was set at 56,000ft because that was believed to be the highest altitude at which a pilot without a pressure suit could survive cockpit decompression or ejection. The fighter could, obviously, climb a great deal higher than that, and often did so, because young Lightning pilots liked to try that kind of thing. It could zoom to over 80,000ft and I'm not sure anyone even knows what its highest sustainable altitude was, but 65,000ft was pretty easily reached. On range, it depended what you were doing. The F6 and F2A could stay up unrefuelled for over 90 minutes, covering more than 800 miles at cruise, but if you hit the afterburners your endurance would shrink rapidly. On climb, it depended what profile you were flying. The F6 had a published initial climb rate of 40,000ft/min (William Green, Observer's Book of Aircraft 1967), and, as we know, the climb rate could peak at 60,000ft/min, but the sustained climb rate with full fuel, cannon ammo and two Red Tops was nearer 20,000ft/min. Normal climb rates in service were, obviously, tamed down in order to avoid making a bang, because the Lightning could easily go supersonic in full reheat when almost vertical. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points - the 1977 Operating Data Manual will still be under copyright - Crown Copyright lasts 50 years after publication, so we shouldn't be linking to it. In addition pulling information from poorly copied graphs (and choosing the right graph to use) is getting uncomfortably close to OR - are there really no post cold war reliable secondary sources that have decent performance data?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not 1977. It's September 1966. Like I just said. That was more than fifty years ago. There isn't really any great problem with the specs, which are fairly accurate, though there may be problems with the footnote links and the odd aspect of presentation (such as peak climb rate being stated as 'climb rate', which the naive reader won't understand). A contemporary source -- Bill Gunston, 'BAC Lightning', Aeroplane Monthly, December 1973, p.387, gives these values for the F6:

Performance (AB = afterburner)

Take-off run (at 38,500lb: 17,464kg), AB, 3,300ft, 1,006m

Time from brakes-release to Mach 0.9 at 40,000ft, AB, 150sec

Time to accelerate from Mach 1 to over Mach 2, AB, 210sec

Maximum speed (at tropopause), AB, Over Mach 2 (over 1,500mph: 2,414km/hr) [Note this is tricky, as Mach 2 in the stratosphere, at 32,000ft or above, is about 1,320mph, and the value given is more like Mach 2.27, which is of course the known maximum speed of the Lightning F6 at high altitude, though service pilots were not supposed to go there]

Landing (with parachute) at 29,000lb (13,154kg), 3,600ft, 1,097m

Landing run (at 38,000lb: 17,237kg), 4,500ft, 1,371m

Fuel: Internal Capacity -- No details available [This was sensitive data in 1973, but, as the Wiki article already makes clear, the F6 had 716gal (3,260 litres) in the wings and flaps plus 535gal (2,430 litres) in the ventral tank for a total internal fuel load of 1,251gal (5,690 litres). The F2A, without the ventral cannon pack, had 1,326gal (6,060 litres). For comparison, the F-4 Phantom in RAF service had 1,545gal, 7,025 litres, of internal fuel, which is not vastly greater. But the Phantom could also of course carry, in 'Q fit' (for QRA duties) a 500gal (2,273 litre) centreline drop tank and two 308gal (1,042 litre) wing drop tanks, for a total load of 2,661gal or 11,382 litres -- about double the fuel load of a Lightning F6 or F2A. On the other hand, the Phantom couldn't turn corners, and you could blind its Doppler radar just by turning beam-on and then slipping round behind it, as Lightning pilots always did in mock combat over Germany, and generally you did not want to fight a Lightning if you'd only got a Phantom.]

Total overwing drop tank capacity: 520gal, 2,364 litres [giving a total F6 load of 1,771gal or 8,054 litres; but the overwing tanks could only be carried on ferry flights and not on operations, because they restricted manoeuvre]

Weights

Empty (with gun pack and missiles) 29,600lb, 13,426kg

Maximum take-off (fully armed Mk53) 41,700lb, 18,914kg [Not clear whether this means with all four rocket pods, because the 53 could indeed carry four of those]

Gross approx. 45,000lb, 20,412kg

Dimensions

Length (including pitot probe) 55ft 3in, 16.84m

Height 19ft 7in, 5.97m

Wingspan 34ft 10in, 10.61m

Wing area 460 sq ft, 42.7 sq m

Track 12ft 9.5in, 3.89m

Wheelbase [from nosewheel to main gear] 18ft 1.5in, 5.52m

Sweepback (leading edge) 60 degrees

Climb rate is not directly given, but it was sensitive at the time and it depends how you want to measure it. Quoted initial climb rate in 1967 was 40,000ft/min, peak climb rate is correctly given in the article at 50,000ft/min (though it could go to 60,000 for a second or so) and sustained climb rate was 20,000ft/min. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)