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

#21 Prestonater2

Prestonater2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 4 Months and 28 Days
  • 0 topics
  • LocationWashington,tyne and wear,United kingdom

Posted 21 May 2015 - 07:14 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...

#22 Armand

Armand

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

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 8 Months and 30 Days
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 21 May 2015 - 07:29 PM

RDAF had 29 american F104G's wich later was added with 22 used Canadian (who apparently was busy with getting rid of their widowmakers). The Starfighters were exellent in the use as interceptor over the Baltic sea, however they was equipped with bom-bracks too.
They were flewn between 1965 and 1986 and the losses were 12 (=24,5%). I was marginally involved in the last crash as the pilot was a highschool-buddy of my supervisor at work, and a motorbiking aquintance of mine was on duty as ground crew for the missing flight(*)
This last F104 crash happened in dense fog and the plane was later found asea on rather swallow waters - 90 degree vertical impacted wich indicates a classic situation of directional confusion.
For comparison: RDAF had 38 total losses of the F100. This out of a stock of 72 = 53% during 28 years!
'
(*): For me at the time strange detail from the situation: The ground crew packed their stuff and went home at usual time. Because at a specific point of time was the flight set to be down in whatsoever situation due to fuel run-out! Cold facts for the family too =:-o

#23 EKB

EKB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 6 Months and 18 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 21 May 2015 - 09:16 PM

The safety record of the Lightning looks even worse than the F-104, because tasking and flying conditions were different:

“ During the first ten years of Lightning operations in the RAF (up to the end of 1969), a total of 199,000 hours was flown and in this time thirty-two aircraft were written off in accidents (this figure includes two Cat. 4 accidents in which the damage level was subsequently upgraded to Cat. 5). Thus, on average, a Lightning was destroyed for every 6,218 hours flown.

 

During the complete life of the F-104G in West German service, total flying time amounted to 1,975,646 hours and there were 298 accidents that resulted in complete write-offs. A Starfighter was therefore lost for every 6,630 hours that were flown.

 

If the seventeen-month period from the beginning of 1970 is included in this analysis of Lightning accidents the loss rate worsens to one in every 5,795 hours, and if this period is looked at in isolation an aircraft was being destroyed every 4,667 hours.

 

These figures indicate that the accident rate per flight hour for the F-104G and Lightning, although not dissimilar, show that the latter did have an inferior safety record for at least some of its operational life. This was despite the fact that the F-104G was designed from the outset as a strike/attack aircraft so that it spent much of its time operating at low level, often in bad weather, and was therefore more vulnerable to terrain, bird-strikes and obstructions.

 

In contrast the Lightning had begun its life at medium and high altitudes and it was only towards the end of the 1960s that it also took on a low level role in addition to its previous duties.

 

These differences in usage are reflected in the breakdown of accidents as 43 per cent of all F-104G crashes were attributed to pilot error, with 41 per cent being the result of a technical defect. In the case of the Lightning, the number of accidents put down to pilot error was generally around the 20 per cent mark, although write-offs as a result of technical defects were significantly higher at 65 per cent. Of all the Lightning accidents that were caused by technical defects, approximately two-thirds were due to fires both in the air and on the ground.”

 



Caygill, Peter (2013-01-19). Lightning Eject: The Dubious Safety Record of Britain’s Only Supersonic Fighter (Kindle Locations 3049-3063). Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.
 



#24 Armand

Armand

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

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 8 Months and 30 Days
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 21 May 2015 - 10:45 PM



...... whereas a total of 916 Starfighters were taken on by the German armed forces.....


I reckon the '99 knights of the air' (........ Scramble in the sommer sky - 99 red baloons go by) as told by Nena:
http://www.metrolyri...yrics-nena.html
Wasn't that many in the end ;-)

#25 EKB

EKB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 6 Months and 18 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 22 May 2015 - 01:33 AM

I reckon the '99 knights of the air' (........ Scramble in the sommer sky - 99 red baloons go by) as told by Nena:
http://www.metrolyri...yrics-nena.html
Wasn't that many in the end ;-)

 

The RAF failed to destroy any real targets in battle using a Lightning, although some people have claimed that a Lightning shot down one Harrier that continued to fly after the pilot ejected. Then again the fuzzy details of that story have changed with time, much like the Concorde story.

But I’m in a good mood today, so why don’t we just pretend that the Lightning shot down one more pilot-less Harrier than did the F-104.

Game, set and match to the Lightning!
 



#26 Armand

Armand

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

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 8 Months and 30 Days
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 25 May 2015 - 01:46 AM

Stood beside a Lightning yesterday at luftwaffemuseum in Berlin-Gatow: My god it's big and ugly :-o
The Starfighter have a much more purposely appearence!

#27 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 26 May 2015 - 10:18 AM

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

 

No idea, unfortunately. That would be a very useful statistic



#28 Armand

Armand

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

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 8 Months and 30 Days
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 26 May 2015 - 12:44 PM

[What was the accident rate per 100,000 flight hours for the E.E. Lightning?]
No idea, unfortunately. That would be a very useful statistic


EKB delivers quite factual numbers but as 1 : XXXX flighthours.
If wished as XX : 100.000 flighthours, it's only a matter of recalculate!
Done in the head EKB's numbers are equally to between 15 and 20 per 100,000 flighthours!

#29 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 26 May 2015 - 02:54 PM

EKB's numbers give 17.25 per 100,000

However they only go up to mid-1971, and the Lightning was in RAF service until 1988 (phase-out started in 1974) with a lower accident rate after 1971... which is one reason why I started poking into te figures a bit.

 

However, even given that unfavourable time period:

 

Lightning in RAF service - 17.25:100,000

F-104 in USAF service - 26.7:100,000 (as of June 1977) or 30.63:100,000 (up to 2007)

 

Even the worst period for the Lightning (17 months from January 1970) was 21.4:100,000

 

So the Lightning was safer



#30 Armand

Armand

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

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 8 Months and 30 Days
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 26 May 2015 - 03:45 PM

EKB's numbers gibe 17.25:100,000....... [for] Lightning in RAF service
F-104 in USAF service - 26.7:100,000 (as of June 1977) or 30.63:100,000 (up to 2007)
 Even the worst period for the Lightning (17 months from January 1970) was 21.4:100,000
 So the Lightning was safer


The mentioned 20:100.000 was aimed on the (exact number for) worst period for the Lightning!
The Mentioned 15:100.000 Was for Luftwaffe Starfighters and as such better than the Lightning.

It could be interresting to get the Canadian F-104 numbers into the comparison :-o




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users