Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Pub Question #12 - Can Tthe EE Lightning...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,140

    Pub Question #12 - Can Tthe EE Lightning...

    ...go supersonic in a vertical climb?

    Obviously this isn't 'level flight' and I'm pretty sure that a Lightning doing 'Mach 2' can pull-up and still be doing over 'Mach 1' when it reaches the vertical (if the wings don't come off in the process) but can a Lightning already going vertical at less than 'Mach 1' (and I appreciate that this will be changing rapidly) break the 'sound-barrier'?

    Discuss.

    (P.S: Mine's a pint of cider.)
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 17th April 2017 at 14:20.
    WA$.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    no.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Just outside Stansted TMZ Great Leighs
    Posts
    2,794
    I really hate long winded answers can you not just get straight to the point Sabrejet

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Apologies: no it can't.



    But still deeply impressive to witness.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cheltenham. Glos.
    Posts
    221
    According to one of my old mates who was a Wattisham intercept jockey; from a roller on the O/R pad; at unstick, they would lower the nose for rapid acceleration to 430 KIAS before initiating a climb, stabilizing at 450 KIAS. Around 13,000 ft the “Lightning” would reach Mach 0.87 and maintain this speed until reaching the subsonic service ceiling of the tropopause at 36,000 ft. on a standard day.
    He said they could generally achieve this attitude in under three minutes.
    If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb. on full re-heat topping out at about 65,000 feet on a good day. There are records of Lightning trials doing dummy intercepts of Upper Heyford Lockheed U2s in excess of 65.000 feet.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,172
    Then promptly having to refuel

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,140
    Actually, having checked some figures, I realise what an impossibility this would be:

    EE Lightning, depending on mark, had about 16,000lb from each Avon engine on full afterburner, against an empty weight plus 1000lb of fuel of over 32,000lb...

    ...so, no, it could just about hold its vertical speed under those (unlikely) conditions! And then crash, fuel gone.
    WA$.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,783
    How did that performance measure up against its foreign rivals ?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,140
    Amazingly; it could run-out of fuel faster than anything on the planet!
    WA$.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    And a set of mainwheel tyres per landing, given a mild crosswind.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by Creaking Door View Post
    Actually, having checked some figures, I realise what an impossibility this would be:

    EE Lightning, depending on mark, had about 16,000lb from each Avon engine on full afterburner, against an empty weight plus 1000lb of fuel of over 32,000lb...

    ...so, no, it could just about hold its vertical speed under those (unlikely) conditions! And then crash, fuel gone.
    Not quite correct. The 300 series engines were trimmed up to about Mn1.4. Otherwise the intake couldn't deal with the increased mass air flow (200's 150lbs/s 300's 170lbs/s).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,140
    Sorry, you'll have to expand on that a bit for me; jet engines / jet aircraft aren't really my thing.

    Mass-air-flow I understand (I think) but what on the engines was 'trimmed'? (up to 'Mach number 1.4'(?))

    I spoke to a chap once about the Blue Streak ICBM and the engines on that were 'trimmed' (the thrust was adjusted) by putting an orifice in the fuel delivery pipes. Before that I had no idea that rocket engines were, or even could be, run more than when they were launched!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 17th April 2017 at 22:08.
    WA$.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    574
    Because the engines had been upgraded with a higher mass flow, the intake couldn't allow enough air into the engines in a static state. They therefore limited the engine speed and full reheat until it reached Mn 1.4.
    As I pointed out, the mass air flow sea-level static state (SLS) was 150lbs per second through the 200's and 170lbs per second through the 300's. That was of course, data measured on the thrust rigs at RR.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,267
    Surely a more appropriate question would be "Could the EE Lightning..." given that none fly.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    574
    XS422 is on the way?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Creaking Door View Post
    Amazingly; it could run-out of fuel faster than anything on the planet!
    F-104?
    Magister Aviation
    www.fougamagister.be

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,777
    Amazingly; it could run-out of fuel faster than anything on the planet!
    That was British fuel efficiency, they realised the damned things leaked fuel so badly, it made sense to try and burn it as quickly as possible, thus not wasting fuel.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,174
    Quote Originally Posted by windhover View Post
    If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb. on full re-heat topping out at about 65,000 feet on a good day. There are records of Lightning trials doing dummy intercepts of Upper Heyford Lockheed U2s in excess of 65.000 feet.
    Isn't the record 88,000ft?
    If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: It's all balls. RJM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,850
    Did the Lightning get any official records at all?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    135 metres from Boscombe Down
    Posts
    1,887
    A few points from Wiki (sorry):

    The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h) IAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h). This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s).[45][nb 3] Around 13,000 ft (4,000 m) the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 (1,009 km/h) and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft (11,000 m) on a standard day.[nb 4] If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb.

    The official ceiling of the Lightning was kept secret; low security RAF documents would often state in excess of 60,000 ft (18,000 m). In September 1962, Fighter Command organised interception trials on Lockheed U-2As at heights of around 60,000–65,000 ft (18,000–20,000 m), which were temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor Soviet nuclear tests.

    In 1984, during a NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe (thought to be 66,000 feet (20,000 m)). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (27,000 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight but a ballistic climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, exchanging speed for altitude.
    If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxcart View Post
    Did the Lightning get any official records at all?

    Aircraft with the most delusional fan base? Aircraft type with the highest number of examples littering the North Sea?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    WestNorEastSouth
    Posts
    5,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Meddle View Post
    Aircraft with the most delusional fan base?
    You obviously never saw one display
    Even watching 'rotation' take offs was really exciting,I was born and brought up near Leuchars

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Norfolk , UK
    Posts
    241
    Think Delusional is a bit harsh !
    Yes a lot did crash and yes they had a very short range, but as a display aircraft they were impressive.
    I think anyone who saw the two lightnings depart Mildenhall air fete in 1988 , especially knowing they'd never see it again , could not fail to be impressed.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South East Essex
    Posts
    4,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Meddle View Post
    Surely a more appropriate question would be "Could the EE Lightning..." given that none fly.
    What's the latest on "BBD" ? I believe the last time it flew was 2014 (?)
    Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,060
    How many crashed out of how many built?
    Magister Aviation
    www.fougamagister.be

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Everything you need to know can be found in the database here http://www.lightnings.info

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,332
    As we are talking supersonic aircraft, to add a theoretical fly in the ointment,
    could Concorde achieve supersonic flight in the vertical?
    Empty and with full power?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by bazv View Post
    Even watching 'rotation' take offs was really exciting,I was born and brought up near Leuchars
    Once saw a Lightning use it's hook when landing at Leuchars. That was really exciting too.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,564
    Mildenhall 1988

    [IMG] photo Neg313 XR754_zpstuj9n4lk.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG] photo Neg314 XS458_zpsiigok9mp.jpg[/IMG]

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Meddle View Post
    Aircraft with the most delusional fan base? Aircraft type with the highest number of examples littering the North Sea?
    Most over-rated design?😂😂

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 1 guests)

  1. dhfan,
  2. herky10,
  3. Mostlyharmless,
  4. TomD80

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES