Is this not the greatest fighter/interceptor of all time? Despite its age, it has a phenomenal rate of climb, even beating many of its modern counterparts. Its downfall was its p*ss poor range.
2007-04-29 02:28:45 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
It was basically a seat bolted to two Rolls Royce Avon engines.
2007-04-29 02:30:46 · update #1
I'm asking for an opinion jamand, you complete and utter spastic.
2007-04-29 02:56:27 · update #2
Yessir! The EE Lightning is one kick *** airplane. And you are absoluely right about the downside of very limited range. There is simply nowhere to put the fuel.
Droptanks could be an option, but at what price? Droptanks create drag and the last thing an interceptor aircraft needs is something to hold it back.
The armament (missles) are a necessary component of the aircraft's mission, so a compromise was necessary for the aircraft to fulfill it's mission.
I have heard of a company in South Africa that offers civilians a chance to ride in the airplane. (Onw of the few 2 seater's)
I beleive the company motto is "Expensive, but well worth it!"
Much more can be said, but now you have an easy way to answer the question.
2007-04-29 04:24:33 · answer #1 · answered by roscoe 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Lightning, like many other British greats, had a very specific purpose. It was a fuel tank with engines, its job was as a pure interceptor, to climb quickly and engage any threat coming in, for that role it did not need range. At the time it was designed it was perhaps the best in the world. However it had no real growth path for the types of radars and weapons that were soon to come into service which would also massively increase the range at which an interceptor needed to operate. I think it is a beautiful piece of engineering, but not the best interceptor.
2007-04-29 04:07:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it wasn't. Very few planes of that era will be ensconced in the pantheon of great aircraft.
The F-104 and F-4 will make it. The Lightning had only one game and just could never take on more. The British kept them in service when they had been far surpassed much as the USAF did the F-105. Reasons of economy? Maybe just sentimental?
I am sorry I always felt she was ungainly and actually homely. Just didn't have the grace of others.
The F-15 Streak Eagle holds all the worlds time to climb records from back in about 1981 or so.
Ret. USAF SNCO, Aircraft Maintenance
2007-04-29 11:53:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if you forget the fact that when in the hanger it leaked fuel all over the place was notoriously un-reliable, could stay airborne for less then 20mins with no in-flight refuelling, had an acceleration limitation due to the slow retraction on the nose undercarriage was absolutely hopeless in a dog fight situation and never proved it self in battle, then yes it probable was the greatest Rosy tinted spectacles pair of glasses around at the time!
2007-04-29 20:19:12 · answer #4 · answered by andy b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jamand, check the facts before you get abusive and make yourself look like an idiot. The F86 was subsonic flat and level whereas the EEL could hit mach 2.2. You're a little out and I'm not a huge fan of the Lightning.
2007-04-30 01:25:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i believe the valid line is that there are complications getting the shape qualified for civil operation (that's likewise what prevents there being a Vulcan flying). This i imagine is basically that those airplane are nevertheless seen to a lot of a plausible danger were civilian examples get into the incorrect palms. that is a pity that a flight reminiscent of the conflict of england Memorial Flight might want to no longer were set-up interior the Air stress (yet funded through charitable donation?) with the intention to keep examples of a few of those airplane flying.
2016-11-23 14:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah! So - what was the point of this statement
ADDED: Well MR Spastic Plastic Haard Bolied eggnog residue - the EEL is in fact not even close to being one of the great interceptor planes as you put it - despite the fact that it boasted RR engines it was in fact ludicrously over powered for it's purpose and like you admit - range was it's problem.
That is why it was killed off and was replaced. It was slower than the American P86 Sabre - had poor weapons and could not carry the weapons ordnance required to be an effective deterrent to the Soviet fighters of the ime and those upcoming fighters - that alongside the limitedrange actually made it a poor fighter plane - despite it's good looks -
2007-04-29 02:32:49 · answer #7 · answered by jamand 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I'm a F101 Voodoo guy myself.
2007-04-29 09:33:53 · answer #8 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sir - I flew Spitfires and you'll never persuade me that anything since is better!!!
2007-04-29 02:37:41 · answer #9 · answered by artleyb 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋