evil looking aircraft
14 November 2008, 10:18 PM
#34
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Slowly rebuilding the kit of bits into a car...
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a kid the parents would load us into the car and head for the coast, past RAF Leconfield, where there were loads of 'em. I ALWAYS saw at least a couple ! Awesome is right, two doing the straight up trick was a real treat even back then.
A few years back a VERY secret bit of kit had problems and landed there in the dead of night, leaving most of East Yorkshire rattling in it's wake. Came out on a lorry under a tarp !
Still don't know what it was myself....
Memories eh ! I also enjoyed a Vulcan doing the same at Kirmington Airshow, and Concorde doing a similar move as well !
DunxC
A few years back a VERY secret bit of kit had problems and landed there in the dead of night, leaving most of East Yorkshire rattling in it's wake. Came out on a lorry under a tarp !
Still don't know what it was myself....
Memories eh ! I also enjoyed a Vulcan doing the same at Kirmington Airshow, and Concorde doing a similar move as well !
DunxC
15 November 2008, 11:39 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes jacko's mate, I remember seeing a 104 crash on finals at Yeovilton during a display. Tried to impress us all with a tight turn to land!
I once took a Lightning pilot up in the Iron Triangle and he enjoyed it so much that he returned the compliment.
We climbed vertically off the runway from RAF Tengah in Singapore and he said to me-well why don't you do a few vertical rolls on the way up-so I did, did not seem to make any difference to its rate of climb which was amazing.
It handled very well and could turn surprisingly well at height for a high wing loaded aircraft. We had a bit of a dog fight with one of his mates and then a session of aerobatics a bit lower down. Never really noticed anything as we passed the sound barrier except the needle on the mach meter.
It did a very flat and low approach to land, I was worried for the ILS aerial at first, but I soon got used to it.
Wonderful experience, one of our outstanding machines, and I got a ride in a Hunter the next day on the same terms. That was one of the most precise handling aircraft I ever flew.
It was difficult to get either of them to let me have the controls back in the Vulcan, they were enjoying themselves too much!
Les
I once took a Lightning pilot up in the Iron Triangle and he enjoyed it so much that he returned the compliment.
We climbed vertically off the runway from RAF Tengah in Singapore and he said to me-well why don't you do a few vertical rolls on the way up-so I did, did not seem to make any difference to its rate of climb which was amazing.
It handled very well and could turn surprisingly well at height for a high wing loaded aircraft. We had a bit of a dog fight with one of his mates and then a session of aerobatics a bit lower down. Never really noticed anything as we passed the sound barrier except the needle on the mach meter.
It did a very flat and low approach to land, I was worried for the ILS aerial at first, but I soon got used to it.
Wonderful experience, one of our outstanding machines, and I got a ride in a Hunter the next day on the same terms. That was one of the most precise handling aircraft I ever flew.
It was difficult to get either of them to let me have the controls back in the Vulcan, they were enjoying themselves too much!
Les
15 November 2008, 12:32 PM
#37
when I was in the RAF, us ground trade plebs has this thing called "Indulgence flights". We could apply for two per year. I got a flight in a two seater training version of the Lightning. It was awesome, the best flight I ever had, even better than the Phantom.
I also saw one crash. It was flying into RAF Valley from Binbrook for the static display part of their air show.
I had volunteered for the RAF public address team for that year, (I think it was 1978) just for the sole reason of going to all the Air Shows.
We had a "AN/ARC 52" radio transiever in the PA coach, and we were listening to the radio traffic. We heard the pilot say he had a problem with his undercarriage. What happened after that is quite a long story, but in the end, all he could do was punch out.
He was instructed to head out to sea and eject. The aircraft carried on and crashed just five miles off the southern Irish coast. (ok, I didn't actually see it hit the sea)
Talking about evil looking aircraft, how about the A10 Thunderbolt. Not just evil looking but it sounds evil as well. I also saw an A10 crash at an air show at Chicksands. It was attributed to pilot error. We were first on the scene but the pilot was never found, other than a small fragment of his helmet.
I also saw one crash. It was flying into RAF Valley from Binbrook for the static display part of their air show.
I had volunteered for the RAF public address team for that year, (I think it was 1978) just for the sole reason of going to all the Air Shows.
We had a "AN/ARC 52" radio transiever in the PA coach, and we were listening to the radio traffic. We heard the pilot say he had a problem with his undercarriage. What happened after that is quite a long story, but in the end, all he could do was punch out.
He was instructed to head out to sea and eject. The aircraft carried on and crashed just five miles off the southern Irish coast. (ok, I didn't actually see it hit the sea)
Talking about evil looking aircraft, how about the A10 Thunderbolt. Not just evil looking but it sounds evil as well. I also saw an A10 crash at an air show at Chicksands. It was attributed to pilot error. We were first on the scene but the pilot was never found, other than a small fragment of his helmet.
15 November 2008, 12:39 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Germans could not fly the thing, that is why.
The reason they could not fly it properly, was due to defficient training. There were so many pilots being trained to fly them at the height of the Cold War that the training programs were very "light", so light in fact that many of the pilots had not even flown in IMC, ie flown in clouds, or had proper instrument training, and that caused a lot of accidents.
The 104 was not an easy plane to fly, being only "easy" when you were trained to fly properly!
The reason they could not fly it properly, was due to defficient training. There were so many pilots being trained to fly them at the height of the Cold War that the training programs were very "light", so light in fact that many of the pilots had not even flown in IMC, ie flown in clouds, or had proper instrument training, and that caused a lot of accidents.
The 104 was not an easy plane to fly, being only "easy" when you were trained to fly properly!
Last edited by Janspeed; 15 November 2008 at 01:11 PM. Reason: damn type-os
15 November 2008, 01:03 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Germans could not fly the thing, that is why.
The reason they could not fly it properly, was due to defficient training. There were so many pilots being trained to fly them at the height of the Cold War that the training programs were very "light", so light in fact that many of the pilots had not even flown in IMC, ie flown in clouds, or had proper instrument training, and that caused a lot of accidents.
The 104 was not an easy plane to fly, when you were trained to do so properly!
The reason they could not fly it properly, was due to defficient training. There were so many pilots being trained to fly them at the height of the Cold War that the training programs were very "light", so light in fact that many of the pilots had not even flown in IMC, ie flown in clouds, or had proper instrument training, and that caused a lot of accidents.
The 104 was not an easy plane to fly, when you were trained to do so properly!
Les
16 November 2008, 11:17 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
17 November 2008, 08:46 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
The two engines were one on top of the other, with the upper one behind the cockpit and slightly behind the lower to aid weight distribution. I only see one engine here
The Bruntingthorpe Lightning Preservation Group Web Site Photo Album
Look down the photo gallery to the picture of XR 728 on deep maintenance
17 November 2008, 11:17 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=CrisPDuk;8276882]A common misconception Dave
The engines are actually lined up one behind the other
[/quote
Wouldn't they find that the jet efflux from the front engine would tend to overheat the rear engine? Or even melt it when in reheat!
Would not get much usable thrust out of the front engine either.
Les
The engines are actually lined up one behind the other
[/quoteWouldn't they find that the jet efflux from the front engine would tend to overheat the rear engine? Or even melt it when in reheat!
Would not get much usable thrust out of the front engine either.
Les
18 November 2008, 01:45 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
The Lightning Association's website used to have a really good cutaway illustration showing the engine locations but it's undergoing renovation and I can't find it 
I have a similar one in a book somewhere I'll see if I can find it and scan it
From memory, the front engine was positioned with the intake beneath the front edge of the wing, almost under the cockpit (the engine that can be seen in the photo you refer to Dave), The rear engine is mounted roughly along the wing centreline (above the front, admittedly) with it's intake about where the rear edge of the wing joins the fuselage.
Whilst I do know that some very ingenious ducting was involved, I confess that I haven't got the slightest clue how they got the arrangement to work Les* but there is no disputing the fact that work it most definitely did
I would guess that their (in)famous aptitude for flameouts was at least in part down to the aformentioned ducting though
* Since they had to cheat massively in order to beat most of the Lightning's acceleration and altitude records, I suspect the Yanks never properly figured it out either
I have a similar one in a book somewhere I'll see if I can find it and scan it From memory, the front engine was positioned with the intake beneath the front edge of the wing, almost under the cockpit (the engine that can be seen in the photo you refer to Dave), The rear engine is mounted roughly along the wing centreline (above the front, admittedly) with it's intake about where the rear edge of the wing joins the fuselage.
Whilst I do know that some very ingenious ducting was involved, I confess that I haven't got the slightest clue how they got the arrangement to work Les* but there is no disputing the fact that work it most definitely did
I would guess that their (in)famous aptitude for flameouts was at least in part down to the aformentioned ducting though
* Since they had to cheat massively in order to beat most of the Lightning's acceleration and altitude records, I suspect the Yanks never properly figured it out either
18 November 2008, 02:12 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The English Electric (BAC) Lightning Interceptor - complete description from concept to service
Lots of writing here. You'll have to scroll a bit to find details of the engine config though.
Lots of writing here. You'll have to scroll a bit to find details of the engine config though.
18 November 2008, 11:01 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lightning Association's website used to have a really good cutaway illustration showing the engine locations but it's undergoing renovation and I can't find it I have a similar one in a book somewhere I'll see if I can find it and scan it
From memory, the front engine was positioned with the intake beneath the front edge of the wing, almost under the cockpit (the engine that can be seen in the photo you refer to Dave), The rear engine is mounted roughly along the wing centreline (above the front, admittedly) with it's intake about where the rear edge of the wing joins the fuselage.
Whilst I do know that some very ingenious ducting was involved, I confess that I haven't got the slightest clue how they got the arrangement to work Les* but there is no disputing the fact that work it most definitely did
I would guess that their (in)famous aptitude for flameouts was at least in part down to the aformentioned ducting though
* Since they had to cheat massively in order to beat most of the Lightning's acceleration and altitude records, I suspect the Yanks never properly figured it out either
I have a similar one in a book somewhere I'll see if I can find it and scan it From memory, the front engine was positioned with the intake beneath the front edge of the wing, almost under the cockpit (the engine that can be seen in the photo you refer to Dave), The rear engine is mounted roughly along the wing centreline (above the front, admittedly) with it's intake about where the rear edge of the wing joins the fuselage.
Whilst I do know that some very ingenious ducting was involved, I confess that I haven't got the slightest clue how they got the arrangement to work Les* but there is no disputing the fact that work it most definitely did
I would guess that their (in)famous aptitude for flameouts was at least in part down to the aformentioned ducting though
* Since they had to cheat massively in order to beat most of the Lightning's acceleration and altitude records, I suspect the Yanks never properly figured it out either
I do know that the pilot had an incredibly complicated job having to operate the radar, select and fire the weapons as well as having to physically fly the aircraft. Lightning pilots were a breed apart!
Les
18 November 2008, 01:35 PM
#53
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,707
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
18 November 2008, 01:46 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-105 (THUD) Thunderchief used to scare the crap out of the Vietcong.
Not only because it could drop a load of bombs on them, but when it egressed from the target area, usually at low altitude, it would just about go supersonic and the shockwave could do quite a lot of damage!
Not only because it could drop a load of bombs on them, but when it egressed from the target area, usually at low altitude, it would just about go supersonic and the shockwave could do quite a lot of damage!
18 November 2008, 01:47 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably not worried about the depleted uranium dust the thing has!
Military Use of Depleted Uranium (DU) BBC News 2002
Military Use of Depleted Uranium (DU) BBC News 2002
18 November 2008, 01:52 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
The English Electric (BAC) Lightning Interceptor - complete description from concept to service
Lots of writing here. You'll have to scroll a bit to find details of the engine config though.
Lots of writing here. You'll have to scroll a bit to find details of the engine config though.
19 November 2008, 02:19 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts