English Electric Lightning | The British Cold War Supersonic Interceptor And Jet Fighter
English Electric Lightning, The British Cold War supersonic interceptor and jet fighter capable of unrivaled performance and capability.
A unique feature of the design was its vertically staggered engine configuration of two Rolls-Royce Avon turbojets, housed within the fuselage. The aircraft was initially conceived as an interceptor, designed to defend airfields housing Britain's V Force of bombers, comprised of the Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, and the Vickers Valiant. It was thought that during the Cold War of the 1960's these could be vulnerable to attack from the air in any future nuclear conflict.
Petter’s initial design was for an aircraft capable of Mach 1.5 and he determined that as a consequence a conventional 40° swept wing would be required. A proposal was submitted in November 1948, and after the project was provisionally accepted by English Electric, it was given the designation P.1 in January 1949.
On 29th March 1949, the Ministry of Supply granted their approval for work to begin on a more detailed design, as well as the creation of wind tunnel models and a full-size mock-up. The design developed at quite a pace and in the latter part of 1949, the target speed was broadened to Mach 2. This meant that in Petter's opinion, the required wing sweep needed to be increased to 60° with the ailerons moved to the wingtips. Low-speed wind tunnel tests showed vortex issues would be generated by the wing, creating a large downwash on the tailplane. This was quickly resolved by lowering the height of the tailplane.
The project suffered a major blow, however, when Petter suddenly resigned in December 1949 after his demands for greater autonomy for his Lightning Design Team were not met. Freddie Page took over as Design Team Leader for the English Electric P.1, for which the Ministry of Supply had issued Specification F23/49 and subsequently expanded the scope of ER103, to include fighter-level maneuvering.
On 1st April 1950, English Electric then received an official contract for two flying and one static airframe.
The aerodynamicists at the government-led Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) were deeply skeptical of swept wing concepts and so Short Brothers in Belfast were contracted to produce the Short SB.5. Built between 1950 - 52, the Short SB.5 was to prove the design of both the wing and the tailplane and to fully assess overall flight handling. It was effectively a low-speed highly unorthodox, adjustable wing research aircraft, designed so that different wing sweep angles could be tested by a single aircraft. After testing a range of wing and tail configurations, on 2nd December 1952, it was agreed that Petter's 60-degree wing sweep specification was indeed the most effective.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 55 ft 3 in (16.84 m)
Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m)
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)
Wing area: 474.5 sq ft (44.08 m2)
Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14,092 kg) with armament and no fuel
Gross weight: 41,076 lb (18,632 kg) with two Red Top missiles, cannon, ammunition, and internal fue
Max takeoff weight: 45,750 lb (20,752 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojet engines, 12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) thrust each dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph+ at 40,000 ft)
Range: 738 nmi (849 mi, 1,367 km)
Combat range: 135 nmi (155 mi, 250 km) supersonic intercept radius
Ferry range: 800 nmi (920 mi, 1,500 km) internal fuel; 1,100 nmi (1,300 mi; 2,000 km) with external tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)
Zoom ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)
Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s) sustained to 30,000 ft (9,100 m) Zoom climb 50,000 ft/min
Time to altitude: 2.8 min to 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Wing loading: 76 lb/sq ft (370 kg/m2) F.6 with Red Top missiles and 1/2 fuel
Thrust/weight: 0.78 (1.03 empty)
Armament
Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.181 in) ADEN cannon
Hardpoints: 2 × forward fuselage, 2 × overwing pylon stations, with provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles: 2× de Havilland Firestreak or 2 × Red Top (missile) on the fuselage
Other: 260 imp gal (310 US gal; 1,200 L) ferry tanks on wings
#lightning #Aircraft #interceptor
Join this channel: kzhead.info/tools/TTqBgYdkmFogITlPDM0M4A.htmljoin Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
Great video, I think it was the F-106 that finally caught the US up with the Lightning. Lightning was very ahead of it's time.
In terms of Aviation & Jet technology, the British were in a great position in 1945. But in financial terms Britain was almost bankrupt, unlike america. Which had all it's wartime manufacturing capacity & research facilities running at full power. Then British governments of both stripe just kept cancelling its best technology projects JUST as they were about to deliver great results. However British governments DID pour it's limited funding into developing atomic and hydrogen bombs. Only to cancel the Black Arrow rocket program JUST as it was delivering superb results. Britain has always had utter rubbish in government, it STILL has.
If the British government had the money and vision, it is possible that Eric "Winkle" Brown could have become both the first man to break the sound barrier and the first man in space! He was due to fly the Miles M.52 in 1946 and was also the leading candidate to pilot the Megaroc crewed suborbital derivative of the V2.
@@mandoprince1 Meh, the worst enemy of the British military has always been the stupidity and short sightedness of our Government. Whether Labour or Conservative does not matter, time and time again British Governments have made decisions to cut projects and numbers that the men and women of the services all too often pay for in blood and lives.
But the americans were faster and better in adopting german designs. it took britain 5 years to successful copy german designs . no need to cry an answer(:-)
@@michaelpielorz9283 Hello Michael, it's okay mate you can cry as many sad little wehraboo answers as you like. I recently read an interesting book in the NASA Library Technical History series outlining Americas early dependence on British jet technology and how even the J30 Yankee engine (America's first home designed jet engine and first axial flow engine which first ran in March 1943) had a combustion section based on a British design. As you know Michael, the famous American Wright J65 jet engine was a licenced copy of the British F9 Sapphire engine. Hey Michael, isn't it interesting that the Soviets and their captured nazi engineers tried to make something out of the Ju004 engine but ended up only using it for trainer and second rate aircraft. They also tried to make something of the BM003 engine and put it in the MiG-9 but it was so unreliable and flameout prone that they dropped it in favour of the Rolls Royce Nene for the famous MiG-15. Then there was the poor old French who took on Oestrich, a load of his nazi engineers and the BMW 018 and after multiple redesigns, alloy changes and the final adoption of Nimonic, it finally got into service years after British and American engines.
American politicians forced British politicians to pull funding into various projects, that’s why all the strange pulling of funds happened. They also had to hand over all their best designs, so nowt to do with them using the German scientists better. It was more like do as you are told or you don’t get any cash. Also the French refused to pay the billions back to America that they borrowed stating they should not have to pay because they got invaded, so the money borrowed off the American people to free them they thought they should not pay back because they helped. The American government backed the French because they wanted to pick up the pieces of the old empire. So nothing to 🙂about just more lagging behind then cheating to win, then using media to tell a different story, propaganda? We call it corruption and BS.
What a beautiful aircraft....1950s tech was off the chain,...❤
I grew up with Lightnings at Coltishall, always gazed up in awe as they flew over the house. My dog hated them though. 🤣
Utterly fascinating video. I love the lightning, my dad took me to Tollerton airshow when I was a boy. I was blown away and since that point I've been an aviation enthusiast all my life. That experience made me a lifelong fan of the aircraft and those who flew it. It was sadly underfunded but it shone bright during its service, despite its shortfalls. Read so much about the lightning and always talk about it and now to my grandchildren! Thankyou for sharing thoroughly enjoyed watching.
""The lightining was simple brilliant, and even at""Thunder City it was still awsome, just blows you away every time love it. ❤️ Best of British. 🇬🇧 💪
The Messerschmitt 262 only had swept wings to accommodate the Jumo engines. Because the engines were slow to arrive, Messerschmitt moved the engines from the wing roots to underwing pods, allowing them to be changed more readily if needed. The engines proved heavier than anticipated and the wing was swept by 18.5 degrees, to accommodate a change in the center of gravity.
Not entirely true. Yes the engines were moved and the CofG moved, but the 262 was always going to have swept wings. The Germans had a number of supersonic wind tunnels and aerodynamicists who were some way ahead in their thinking.
I am amazed this myth is still alive Oh, britain i see (:-) How many minutes was the lightnings Endurance ? (:-)
@@michaelpielorz9283 Some pilots managed their Lightnings fuel for up to 90 mins but as the RAF always had Victor tankers waiting for them they could even mange to fly to Singapore and beyond.
@@FinsburyPhil Moving the engines increased the intended sweep and swept wings were known about but the supersonic wind tunnels were the step ahead and the British made full use of them and built the first one in the world at National Physical Laboratory in 1922. The 262 was a good aircraft but far too late to be useful as were all the wonder weapons. They turned like a brick, were useless dogfighters and the engines would only last for 20 hours if lucky. The Germans did not have the rare materials for critical parts and the labour used was to say the least questionable and prone to being shoddy. The EEL entered service as an operational development aircraft and had many alterations throughout its long service and kept the Boffins very busy
@@michaelpielorz9283 How many minutes was a jumo 004's existence? (:-)
I thought it was fast until I saw how the TSR2 ran away from it with only one engine in reheat.
That was faster than I realised until recently.
Where did you see that? Bearing in mind the TSR2 never made it into service.
there's a documentary about it online, and the pilot flying it reported that. They did many test flights with it before it got cancelled. @@stanleybuchan4610
Roland Beamont said so during testing.
This is one of the Cold War planes that doesn't get the 'glory' like it's Western counterpart, the F-4 Phantom II. But it should. It's an amazing work of form and function. Why fight yaw conditions in an engine-out scenario when your engines are aligned one over the other instead of the old side by side? THAT right there is thought #1 that makes this airplane leaps ahead of anything that came before, during, or after. Centerline dual propulsion is a much more stable and safer way to go for dual jet aircraft imo.
Why don’t they do that today? Has any other fighter or bomber used that setup? If it was so advantageous I’d think everyone would be doing it, even britian stopped
@@Legion-xq8eo It really makes sense to do so and yet they don't. Trying to deal with an engine-out in a conventional (side by side) twin engine prop or jet on takeoff or other situations can lead to very bad things depending on timing and the pilot's awareness and training. An engine out in an over/under setup like the Lightning would barely be noticed, only causing a decrease in speed and no adverse yaw problems like the other method. It's a win-win. Must be some reason, as you say.
They were maintenence nightmares. Much harder to work on them a side by side configuration.
@@bfc3057 Apart from that, it goes like the F-22 someone made. It even has a spike on the end for the balloons. Save polluting with lead.
@@bfc3057 Father to son. He was not a flyer. But he helped teach me things like Algebra, use of Variables, what wings are for and when you don't want them. Great fun.
An old friend of mine did an exchange tour with 74 Squadron in its' early days. He stated you could get somwhere very fast, but it had at most 45 minutes of endurance. He also had a considerable amount of time in the F-106 Delta Dart. Like most who flew it he had a great regard for the Dart.
Always loved this aircraft! Since a child! Got to see one at Edinburgh aviation museum!
My absolute all time favourite aircraft. Being born in 1964, once reality had set in and astronaut and test pilot were looking dubious I was going to settle for being an English Electric Lightning pilot. It's the first plane I could identify and name and my bedroom ceiling was a somewhat congested airspace with Airfix EE Lightning's everywhere. Each one slightly better than the previous one as I grew up and got the hang of modelling. Ok, gotta do a few things then I'll settle down to watch this. I hope you got the accidental flight by the mechanic in there! Oh! And the popping up to intercept the SR71s just to piss off the yanks! 😆
The Lightning Aircraft was stationed at RAF Binbrook in 1975 or 1976 when I was a 5 or 6 year old. My dad used to joke when I was naughty to go and play on the runway. One day he got a phone call from the Military Police saying that I had been picked up near to the runway watching Lightnings taxi by and take off. I had a plastic bowl, a butter knife and some plasticine. Funnily enough after that day my dad never said that I should go and play on the runway! 🤣
Powerful
Excellent!
Couple of corrections needed. John Derry was the first Briton to break the sound barrier and the USSR's first supersonic fighter was the MiG 19, not the 21. The 21 was their first Mach 2 aeroplane.
A plane that became more beautiful with each successive mark. The Mk 6 was quite a looker.
i always thought the cold war was a pointless waste of cash. but now i see how perfidious the ruskie empire is, thanks for keeping us safe!
Such a cool plane
Yes.
Although the X-1 gets it's deserved mention , it's also very disingenuous to regale the British on 'supersonic flight'. For three reasons. 1) the British designed the Miles M52 of which much was incorporated into the X-1. 2) the British had developed the tailplane that gave stability and gave the 'design' to the USA. 3) the agreement was that the USA would share the research data, which they reneged on (sensitive information). At that time period the UK had some highly advanced designs, in the pipeline, two of which included the Lighting and the Vulcan.
pretty sure I have seen these interviews in another documentary? that being said, what a plane
Around the 12 minute mark the narrotor states Chuck Yaeger's X1 supersonic flight 'showed how much ground the British had lost' I have it in mind, I think from an Eric 'Winkle' Brown interview ........... *Much of the groundwork which enabled the X1 was British*
Miles did indeed help Bell with problems with aerodynamics. Most importantly the Miles M.52 which was 95% ready to break the sound barrier, and with the first flight scheduled months ahead of the X-1 was abruptly cancelled without explanation (to this day). A scale model of the M.52 did eventually teak the speed of sound, fueling the pretty obvious conclusion that the program was halted for political reasons. Most likely that is why Chuck Yeager did not like Eric Brown, as they both knew what really happened.of course Eric Brown was the designated test pilot for the flight that never happened.
@@Dronescapes How would the Miles M-52 break the sound barrier with out an engine?
Eric stated that the yanks were having problems with horizontal stability and heard that we had solved this. They were given a tour of the project and saw we had invented the all flying tail. As soon as they went home to the States, our project was cancelled with no warning or explanation and lo and behold the X1 suddenly had an all flying tail and promptly broke the sound barrier. Also from what I've seen of Yeager portrayed in films he was a miserable, moody and vindictive man. Eric was extremely likeable (for an officer, lol)
What have we now ? We are using the Germans to manufacture the Challenger 3. If we could design the Lightning in the 60s that makes an F35 look like a bus as a fighter, just imagine what might have been 60 years later. Who do you think 'leaned on us and the Canadians' to abandon TSR2 and the Avro Arrow ?
If you are ahead of the Yanks, they buy you out. The British government falls for it every time.
Good ol' Uncle Sam. Cancel TSR2, buy our wonderful F 111. Which had a terrible development and TSR2 would have kicked it's arse.
Saw a lightning at Leuchars airshow maybe, 76. The F104 was cool. The F15 was slow and vertical. Lightning probably won. I like Lightnings
Check out the blackburn buccaneer 1956 bomber with blown flaps.
So much fuss is made about the swpet wings on the ME262. The wings were only swept back a little to adjust the centre of gravity. They were not swept nearly enough to have a significant aerodynamic advantage. This is well documented. The real reason why the aerodynamics of the ME 262 were cutting edge is because the Germans had a supersonic wind tunnel and were able to improve the aerodynamics of the fuselage and the profile of the airfoil sections.
This is ironic. A guy that even flew the airplane thinks it was designed as a supersonic "fighter", when it was really a "point defense interceptor" in the mold which so many viewers of this channel mistakenly claim the F-104 was. It did start out as a test aircraft, but was put into production for a narrow critical role. The Lightning was initially built to defend Britain's strategic nuclear V-bomber airfields from enemy attack. It had a pathetically small intercept radius, but the plan was that it would quickly get out to intercept the first wave of enemy bombers, fire its missiles, then quickly return to base and refuel and rearm in time to launch and intercept a follow-on wave of bombers. It didn't have enough fuel for tactical fighter air superiority missions. It was actually ordered to fill in for the roll of a surface-to-air missile system that was being designed to defend the V-bomber bases.
As the Chief Test pilot stated, the EEL was designed as a supersonic fighter, it just so happened to excel as a point defense interceptor and in 1967 with air to air refueling that point defense reached out all the way to the South China Sea
Lots of typing from a guy that didn’t fly the plane….
@@heinekenczech You think people that fly the planes built them, and you have to have flown a plane to have read its history. What a joke.
@@sichere The design started as an exploration for a supersonic fighter. One without a specific mission. It didn't excel as a point defense fighter, that is the very reason it became a production aircraft. You can refuel it all day if you want to try to make it perform another role, but that was not its original purpose. If you want to criticize a comment, try to stick to its subject, which was original purpose.
@@gort8203 "You think people that fly the planes built them, and you have to have flow a plane to have read its history. What a joke." What utter unintelligible dribble
I wonder if he's thinking of Lockheed's F80 instead of an F104. I believe NATO had a trainer version of the F80 operational in the late '60s. In 1958 the J79 powered F104 bested Gruman's modified Prototype F11F-1F Super Tiger (also J79 powered) altitude record of 76,939 feet with a record 103,389 ft. But being an ill handling fuselage wrapped J79 with loaded stubby wings either the Lightning or Super Tiger would've handled it in anything that became a turning fight I'd be betting. . . . at least at 40,000 ft they would.
Yea, that claim about watching F104's falling after not being able to climb to his altitude doesn't hold water, same with the claim about 1 to 1 weight and thrust, a fully loaded EEL weights more than the thrust it makes even in afterburner, the same with an F104, so unless he was unarmed and about out of fuel and is talking about a fully armed F104 complete with full drop tanks there's no way that holds up, F104's can also be flown light and can climb vertically. People do this kind of thing all the time, compare one aircraft that's in an ideal state for making a claim against another one that's loaded to the gills.
@@dukecraig2402 Those Avons are rated in the neighborhood of what a J79 puts out and there were two of them so I have no doubt that aircraft was an unusually hot one once they kicked those first generation Sapphires to the curb. Like the F11F-1F it was just waiting for a second generation powerplant. But he's talking altitudes that were still comfortable for a P47N. If that F104 was supposed to replicate a Mig 21 coming across the East German border then he wouldn't be coming up from the runway. He'd be coming across the border under the radar with some energy that turbojets need to climb quickly. So they better have practiced it that way.
When Britain invented tanks, the cavalry objected. When Polikarpov invented the cantilever monoplane, the Air Ministry insisted that fighter aircraft had to be biplanes. When Whittle invented the jet engine, the Air Ministry insisted that aeroplanes should have propellors. When Miles and Saunders-Roe invented the all-moving tailplane, politicians sold the idea to the US, and the Rolls-Royce Nene to the USSR. That was the socialist government who took over from Churchill. When Sir Alan Cobham proposed a practical solution to in-flight refuelling, he was ignored by British Authorities and had to sell his ideas in the US. As for the history of the Harrier..... Form your own opinions.
You don't need much fuel when the enemy is using it's own fuel to get to you.
The USAF had plenty of spares.
When you know you will need them you order ahead.
Would've sold a lot more export lightnings if not for a few bribes handed around for the F-104 (allegedly)
Nothing alleged about it, it's proven fact which brought down cabinet ministers and contributed to the end of certain governments.
A commercial interruption every 4 minutes sucks KZhead
Perhaps you do not know, but if you have KZhead Premium you will not see any ad at all.
@NoTaboos It is a choice that KZhead gives you (unlike other social platforms). You want free content? You see ads. You do not want to see ads, you have to pay for content. Would you work for free? Do you expect some magical benefactor to pay for your bills, or food? No ads = no KZhead. Simple as that. Again, they give you a choice, which is commendable
@NoTaboo I do not see the logic in your comments. Do people hate working? In general, of course they hate it. Is it necessary for the vast majority of humanity , obviously yes. Your first question is pointless, and your answer empty and quite obvious. Quite frankly I do not see the point of even asking it, therefore I asked you something to see it it would escalate to something that made sense, but your response is equally empty, so be it. Let me try with something more simple: “Do you admit that people need to breathe to stay alive?”. Answers can now range from obvious, to a bit more complex, or seeking some sort of normal interaction. Next reply: “I rest my case”. (????).
Does that make you a voyeur? I don’t think anyone forces people to watch videos on KZhead, at least in the normal world, and as mentioned before, you have the option of not seeing ads. It is entirely a choice of yours. There is a decent percentage of KZhead viewers that made that choice. There is also a large percentage of people that use simple tools to do so. Because you use internet, or probably have a phone, you are as profiled as it gets, and those ads are as tailored to you as much as possible, and they will increasingly become more sophisticated. Ads or not, your entire life, contacts, etc. have been scrutinized by algorithms, and at times by people listening to your conversations. I think KZhead ads are the least of our problem. If you use, or have ever been on TikTok with an account, I think you will think these ads were fun in the next decade. Ads obviously work for advertisers. I let you define what any consumer of any platform, or most sites is, including you. Media never had so much power and control until the birth of the net as we know it.
On most browsers it's easy to install an ad blocker such as "ad block plus".
"how much ground the brittish had lost" lolwut? jaegers plane was only completed with all the data the brits gave them, about their identical looking plane for passing mach 1 and whose name eludes me.
There was no Miles M-52.The picture at 20:45 shows the Ply-Wood mock-up.That was as far as Miles got with the project.
I beg to disagree. If you rely on a person that was involved in the project, but also reputable, serious, experienced, and perhaps the best test pilot that ever lived, Eric Whikle Brown, the Miles was 95% ready, and the test was already scheduled, several months before the Bell X-1 would have been tested. He should know, as he was the test pilot! Days away from the test, the project was abruptly cancelled without any reason. Of course, if you factor in that Miles assisted Bell with problems they had with their X plane, and that Chuck Yeager had an odd beef with Eric Brown, together with what he clearly implies with his British humor, you can conclude without a doubt that it was cancelled to favor the US, which would have been acceptable given what the United States did for Britain during WWII, but even after. After all the first turbojet to fly in the US in 1942 (also a Bell) was powered by a British engine, shipped in great secrecy to the U.S. in 1941 to G.E. We also know that Metrovick share their research about the axial turbojet, but also that Pratt & Whitney’s first turbojet was derived from Whittle’s engine. Interestingly they later covertly tested a scale model of the Miles, which, needless to say, unsurprisingly broke the sound barrier, proving once and for all that the project was abruptly cancelled without any logic or explanation for a very specific reason that we will probably never know, although logically the reason is obvious. You can hear the story directly in one of Brown’s interviews, I believe his biography: kzhead.info/sun/g7eLcciSsYSvlps/bejne.html It is truly hard to disagree with the memories of such a titan of aviation, and in part history, especially because he was extremely objective in his assessments, and hardly ever biased, a great virtue for a great man.
@@Dronescapes You deleted my reply.
No, I did not. Either you did by mistake, or KZhead filtered it because it contained sensitive words. It would not make any sense for me to erase it, since I was responding to it, and it is an interesting topic/debate.
Eric Winkler Brown he world' best test pilot clearly he said the Miles M 52 prototype was 95.% ready for a test flight did you not hear the man say so ? Did you know he achived more carrier r landings then any pilot ever never to be beaten flew every German aircraft that the british captured that were serviceable ,landed a de Havilland mosquito on a carrier againest your opinion lol you muppet
@@soultraveller5027 I assume you are calling me a muppet.There is no lack of stupid trolls on the internet.Show us a picture of a 95 % ready Miles M-52.
Wasn't so much as a plane , just a rocket with things like wings and tail section on it.
It may well have wings but if you see it from the side it doesn't.
and it could fly as long as a rocket (:-)
@@michaelpielorz9283 Hello Michael, I see you are still feeling hurt at your nazi chums' defeat. Anyway, what was the endurance of the Me 163?
The ‘wings’ were only there to keep the nav lights apart 😁😁
Did he say 36,000 lbs of thrust? I believe a modernF18 is only capable of around 34k (17k per engine) so I'm confused by this. Great plane and video though.
Rolls Royce Avon 301R, according to Wikipedia (so it MUST be true!), 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with reheat. 16,360 x 2 = 32 640, but the later versions had Avon 301/2 which produced 12,690 and 17,110 lbf .This gives 2 x 17110 = 34 220. So, either it was a slip of the tongue or a bit of an exaggeration. Even so, 34K for a fighter in the late 50s was pretty awesome!
The BS.100 jet produced 26000lbs of thrust in 1960. A harrier engine on steroids, then they could inject fuel into the forward exhaust ducts and take it to about 34000lbs. Along with melting the carrier deck it was trying to take off from.
@@paulqueripel3493 wow, thank you for your reply
@@SAHBfan thanks for replying.
He's not wrong about the F104 as a few NATO counties had it. Germany and Denmark spring to mind. I'm not a bshitter like a lot on these Lightning vids, as I was at Binbrook 78-83.
Nowt left now. Britain was sold...a long time ago.
😎 🆒️
From brake release, only the F-104 could even hope to match the Lightning in climb to height.
nope, the F-104 was equal in level flight acceleration, neither it or the F4 could match the Lightning's climb rate, or it's operational ceiling. (the RAF sent the USAF pictures of a U2 taken from above it with a note "we were watching". 😀
@@19Graywulf The F-104A had an initial climb rate of 60,000 feet per minute. I don't think the Lightning was quite that.
@@JackNiles-hc8yz neither had a climb rate of 60,000ft. The lightning was the first aircraft to go supersonic in a vertical climb (I believe that was without afterburn) the F104 could not. The published spec's of the Lightning were grossly under played. From any reading I've seen, level flight they were equal. It was the only plane (inc the F104) that managed to intercept Concord at 'supercruise'. It was equal/faster to the F4. Bear in mind it was designed for one job only, intercept high level Russian bombers. If you research, the RAF took pictures from ABOVE a U2 spyplane twice. Something at the time the USA did not think was possible. One was a Canberra bomber (story is, the USAF sent pictures overflying the UK saying "look what we did" The RAF sent pics taken from above, with a reply "we were watching". The Lighting intercepted a U2 in an agreed simulation and went past it (way beyond it's stated ceiling). They were known to power climb to 80,000ft. I'm not sure if the EEL's actual climb rate was ever made official whilst in service. (I believe it was an Eagle that finally actually broke that climb rate). The current holder I believe is the Eurofighter Typhoon in interceptor form.
@@JackNiles-hc8yzNo mate, I'm not having that high 40s maybe but nowhere near 60k per min. Maybe the mod with the rocket motor added that Yeager flew but not the standard Starfighter.
It is wrongly stated that the MiG -21 was the Soviet Union's first supersonic fighter. The MiG-19 held that distinction, entering service about 4 years earlier.
In a streep dive
@@sichere Top speed Mach 1.35 in level flight. Let's leave Meryl out of it!😉😁
@@mandoprince1😂😂😂
So the pilots were pissed good job the soviet airforce were full of vodka
Their German aerodynamacists were better than our German aerodynamacists? MiG 15 is a beautiful looking jet.
And then thunder...
A Stonking documentary but please alter the stats of the Lightning as these are from the early models. The EEL being a test bed development aircraft had many alterations and upgrades during it's service. The later BAC F53 Lightnings weighed less than 26,000 lbs and the the RR Avons 302 C's produced over 40,000 lbs of thrust in an aircraft with 25% less drag than most other aircraft, giving it exceptional speed and acceleration in a fully aerobatic frame The Lightnings: Were capable of reaching over 87,000 ft. Could climb over 15,000 feet in a 5G turn sustaining 450 knots. Reached 30,000 ft from brakes off in less than 90 seconds First operational aircraft that could "Supercruise" The story is that in 1974 the RAF used an EEL to "bounce" the SR71 as it was setting a record for crossing the Atlantic.
The SR71 was set up for high skin temperature. You would not have long to shoot.
Yes, I've heard several ex Lightning pilots say it happened often. Admittedly the firing window was small but the fighters did it. They also regularly bounced Concorde with ease.
How is it possible that the British lacked a fighter to match the Mig15 when that aircraft relied on a British engine?
And so did the P-80, which used the same British engine.
Yes, UK government makes a huge mistakes then
My guess is that the rich Americans wanted to slow down the bankrupt UK. Hence shut down the competition.
Of course, all part of the plan that started by bankrupting the UK during WW2, they wanted to be the only post war superpower.
my god! those eyebrows at 49minutes, is that an artefact from mad compression, or does he have eyebrows that project an inch from his fore-head?
The Americans told us to back off and because we were in debt to the U.S we done as we were told. The same with Sues and the Canadian fast jet
Fantastic plane and brave skilled pilots - but at what £ cost ? America was and is the deterrent against the threat from Russia - so the billions could have been spent on eg: finding a cure for cancer, sorting out our industrial base, new roads, upgrading the National health ….. take her pick.
Test pilot was Roland Beamont (bee) not Roland Beaumont (bo).
Can u you go to iran
No!, No one wants to go to Iran!🥴🥴🥴
Iran is not that country's 44 years ago if u can come then you will see
No one wants to go to Iran!🥴🥴🥴
sorry for veing picky, but it's BAC Lightning, not english electric
What England has ?????? Economy. Oil.gas.agriculture
RAD Gutersloh 35 miles from the border? I don't think so.
Would some ones tell me England. What's have except fish and chips and chicken and chips
Neither. The most popular easy meal is a Curry. Not the MAAF lady.
English Electric Lighting! There’s a title you could not say in the 21st century ! English? You have to say British now! Unless your Welsh or Scottish of course
But English Electric is the name of the company,msomI think it would be fine, even today
Balls are round if you play football.
tit for tat
Just a waste....fighting the wind...
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Swedish J 35 and AJ 37 had downed the EE Lighyning. So what?
Lightning. Sorry .
Downed? So when did these shoot downs occur? Not slighting the SAAB birds it's just I've never heard of this.