Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

British vs American


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#11 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 9 Months and 4 Days
  • 28 topics

Posted 28 October 2014 - 10:35 AM

The Brits fell behind about 1950 when they had to persevere (for financial reasons) with Meteors and Vampires while the US (and Canada and Australia) were building Sabres. The Hunter/Swift pairing (and the Gnat) were more advanced than the F86 ... but not near the Century series fighters. The Lightning was a mistake. English Electric sneaked it in as a modified P1 (a high speed research aircraft) rather than as a new design. There was also a divergence in combat doctrine ... which actually left both parties flat-footed. By the mid 1950s US production runs and military procurement financing meant US aircraft were available sooner, cheaper and longer.

Canberras were a success, but the only flying V-bomber is a museum piece belonging to the Vulcan Trust. There are lots of B-52s still in service ...



#12 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 9 Months and 4 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 28 October 2014 - 01:56 PM

 

That being said, from what I can tell its range was not much less than the F-104. Why does the Lightning always get criticised for its range but the F-104 does not?

 

Maybe because the Starfighter was more famous for making widows? It's obscene that so many European pilots died because of politicians accepting Lockheed's bribes.



#13 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 9 Months and 3 Days
  • 112 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 28 October 2014 - 10:44 PM

?...the Starfighter was more famous for making widows? It's obscene that so many European pilots died because of politicians accepting Lockheed's bribes.

As being out of this world at the presentation, it's no wonder that the noumerous airforces wich quickly adapted the Starfighter had troubles with getting their pilots used to the new terms. But as I remembers, it was mainly Germany who had significant crash-problems with the 104!
Bad thongues tell, that it was caused by nuclear veapon mod's to the airframe :-/

Edited by Armand, 28 October 2014 - 10:47 PM.


#14 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 9 Months and 4 Days
  • 28 topics

Posted 29 October 2014 - 07:18 AM

Maybe because the Starfighter was more famous for making widows? It's obscene that so many European pilots died because of politicians accepting Lockheed's bribes.

A problem was the Starfighter's ejector seat went down (this avoided the tail, but meant you couldn't eject during take off and landing). The European airforces also overloaded an air superiority fighter with geegaws ... bombs, rockets, drop tanks ...



#15 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months and 4 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 29 October 2014 - 09:06 AM

The European airforces also overloaded an air superiority fighter with geegaws ... bombs, rockets, drop tanks ...

 

Uh, the F-104G was supposed to be a multi-role aircraft, that is what it was sold as. It isn't like Germany bought a bunch of pure interceptors and then strapped bombs to them.

 

Looking at the competition that the F-104G had...

 

EE Lightning (also an Interceptor, so equally unsuited IMO)

Grumman F11-1F Super Tiger (only a prototype, but promising)

Northrop N-156 (variant of the excellent F-5 series)

 

You can see why Lockheed might have needed bribes ;)



#16 Edgar Brooks

Edgar Brooks

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 11 Months and 14 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 29 October 2014 - 12:25 PM

Only the F-104A had the downward-firing seat, and many European air forces fitted a Martin-Baker seat. Considered opinion was that the Germans had a lot of trouble because they wouldn't listen to advice, and flew without the tip tanks, which made the airflow less stable over the tiny wings.

I only found out, recently, that the Lightning F.6 wing had reshaped tips to enable it to carry Sidewinders; never happened, though.



#17 EKB

EKB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 6 Months and 22 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 21 May 2015 - 11:38 AM

Maybe because the Starfighter was more famous for making widows? It's obscene that so many European pilots died because of politicians accepting Lockheed's bribes.

 

Attached File  LIGHTNING EJECT.jpg   70.72KB   1 downloads

 

Lightning Eject: The Dubious Safety Record

of Britain's Only Supersonic Fighter

 

"The English Electric Lightning entered RAF squadron service in 1960 and continued flying in the interceptor role until 1988. It had a stunning world-beating performance with a top speed in excess of Mach 2 and a climb rate that would take it to 40,000 feet in a little over 3 minutes. The aircraft’s safety record, however, left much to be desired. During a period in the early 1970s the attrition rate was the loss of a Lightning every month. There was a six per cent chance of a pilot experiencing an engine fire and a one in four chance that he would not survive.

This book looks at Lightning accidents and incidents in chronological order using the official accident reports, Board of Inquiry findings and firsthand accounts from pilots. It puts the reader very much ‘in the cockpit’. "

 

http://www.amazon.co..._kindle_ext_tmb

 

 

Far From Battlefield, Marines Lose One-Third of Harrier Fleet

 

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6723

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6724

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6725

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6726

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6727

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6728



#18 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months and 4 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 21 May 2015 - 01:11 PM

Hmm...

 

I had a wee look online for stats about the two aircraft:

 

EE Lightning:

http://en.wikipedia....ctric_Lightning

 

The most accidents in a year was 1971 (10 - still less than one a month!)

 

F-104:

Harder to find...

 

Some overall stats can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia....r#Safety_record

 

Accidents in German service:

http://www.916-starf...GAF_crashes.htm

 

In 1971, they had 19 accidents - the most I found per year with a very quick look was 26, however a comparison like that needs to take the number of aircraft in service into account.

 

337 Lightnings were built - 86 have crashed (25%)

30% of the Luftwaffe's F-104's crashed. 46% of Canada's F-104's crashed. But then Spain lost 0%... ;)

 

Aside from becoming Spanish, I'd probably rather fly the Lightning if I had to.



#19 EKB

EKB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 6 Months and 22 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 21 May 2015 - 04:49 PM

Hmm...

 

I had a wee look online for stats about the two aircraft:

 

EE Lightning:

http://en.wikipedia....ctric_Lightning

 

The most accidents in a year was 1971 (10 - still less than one a month!)

 

F-104:

Harder to find...

 

Some overall stats can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia....r#Safety_record

 

Accidents in German service:

http://www.916-starf...GAF_crashes.htm

 

In 1971, they had 19 accidents - the most I found per year with a very quick look was 26, however a comparison like that needs to take the number of aircraft in service into account.

 

337 Lightnings were built - 86 have crashed (25%)

30% of the Luftwaffe's F-104's crashed. 46% of Canada's F-104's crashed. But then Spain lost 0%... ;)

 

Aside from becoming Spanish, I'd probably rather fly the Lightning if I had to.

 

 

What was the accident rate per 100,000 flight hours for the E.E. Lightning?



#20 Prestonater2

Prestonater2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 5 Months and 1 Day
  • 0 topics
  • LocationWashington,tyne and wear,United kingdom

Posted 21 May 2015 - 07:07 PM

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum ,re the topic of post war aircraft regarding the American Air Force ,I can only say that they had some good designs in principle,my favourites would be the North American sabre ,single seat fighter ,the Lockheed star fighter,both in my opinion very good fighters for that time,however I could,nt leave out the British equivelant that being the English electric lightning,the only draw back being the fuel issue,unfortunately didn't have a great range.when I was in my teens I used to go to RAF Binbrook,and watch the lightnings taxi down the runway then suddenly accelerate and take off then shoot vertically upwards, the noise from there engines was shattering,a sight I will always remember,it's a shame it was taken out of service,like the harrier it remains an icon in my book.im sorry I couldn't be any more help guys .thankyou for your time.
Regards Keith...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users