Page 15 of 46

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:26 pm
by ian16th
It helped to have a tanker or two, available.

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:32 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
ian16th wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:26 pm
It helped to have a tanker or two, available.
Like a baby needs a mom! :)

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:36 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
TheGreenGoblin wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:04 pm
A case of, "we need more fuel", rather than beer... =))

What was the endurance of a Lightning F.1A interceptor over the North Sea? Or is it still necessary to shoot South Africans who ask such questions? ;)))

I read somewhere that the Lightning could zoom climb to about +-80,000 feet, or was that an exaggeration, akin to a big tie or a watch in the aviation bragging rights sense sense. I imagine that at that sort of altitude, the aircraft was more ballistic than aerodynamic. I also imagine that things could have gone tits up, literally, very quickly, if the aircraft was mishandled at its apogee?

I am blithering away here and I guess only Boac can answer these questions and he's buggered off! =))

Another case here, namely one of, we need more Boac's.

Edited to say - I guess, I shall have to drag out my book on Teddy Petter to see if I can glean any answers to the many additional questions now accumulating in my addled transom. Questions like "What was the Lightning like to spin? Did it recover easily? What were the reference speeds etc. etc. So many questions, so little time.
Some answers here it seems...
* Pilots were excited by the Lightning. It was a far more powerful machine than the Hunter -- very fast, with a snappy rate of roll due to its short span and well-thought-out aileron scheme, and a terrific zoom climb in full afterburner. A Lightning had no great trouble performing a dash to 18.3 kilometers (60,000 feet), and one may have unofficially reached 23.8 kilometers (78,000 feet), at which point it was no doubt as aerodynamic as a brick. Still, the Lightning could climb like a rocket.

The Lightning was awe-inspiring in public flight displays because of its snap, power, and sheer thunderous noise, and several RAF Lightning display teams would be formed during its time in service. The best-known was the "Firebirds" team of Number 56 Squadron, which flew red-trimmed Lightnings for a year or so in the early 1960s. Lightnings performed the flypast for Winston Churchill's funeral in 1965, and in the next year, 1966, twelve Lightnings put on a hell of performance at the Paris Air Show.

There was the issue that such a powerful aircraft was something of a handful, with such unpleasant features as a high stall speed and a fast landing speed. It featured a drag chute to reduce the landing roll. Apparently the Lightning was sometimes known as the "Frightening", and it is a fact that only experienced pilots were assigned to fly the type, and then only after thorough qualification. That in itself enhanced the elite status of a posting to a Lightning squadron. Once mastered, however, the Lightning was a very rewarding ride. The accident rate was surprisingly low. The lion's share of the accidents were due to engine fires -- a nagging weakness of the Lightning -- not landing or other handling accidents.

The F.1 had other significant weaknesses. One of the worst was an inadequate fuel supply and minimal endurance, a problem that would plague the Lightning through its entire life. For a time, Number 74 Squadron's F.1s were forced to fly without the ventral fuel pack while a bug was worked out, reducing them to (as was once said of another aircraft) "fighters for defense over the airfield beacon".

Another problem was that the Lightning's relative sophistication, in comparison with the austere Hunter, led to serious maintenance headaches. It was also not all that well designed for serviceability, and at first the aircraft's availability rate was very poor. Incidentally, endurance and maintainability were also often problems with contemporary sophisticated Mach 2 interceptors of other nations. Interestingly, the AIRPASS radar apparently was fairly reliable and worked well, it seems because it was a solid but not "bleeding edge" design.

* Only 19 F.1s were built, not counting a single static-test aircraft, before production moved on to the "F.1A", a minor revision that added a UHF radio, with longer range and a radio-compass capability, and featured:

An external wiring conduit running along the lower fuselage on each side, instead of wiring runs inside the engine bay as featured on the F.1.

An improved windscreen rain-dispersal arrangement.

A detachable flight refueling probe under the left wing, near the wingroot. The probe tip was just forward of the cockpit, allowing the pilot to keep an eye on the refueling hose basket, and a light was fitted at the base of the probe to provide illumination at night and in foul weather.
Initial service deliveries of the F.1A were in early 1961. By this time, the Lightning had become the "British Aircraft Corporation (BAC)" Lightning, since English Electric had been absorbed into the BAC organization on 12 January 1960.
http://airvectors.net/aveeltg.html

The bit about maintenance puts me in the firing line again... =))

As for the early models it seems they were flying fuel emergencies... "if it wasn't on fire, it had run out fuel...!"

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 3:13 pm
by Boac
"he's buggered off! " - I've buggered back again......

Q1: Depends what you are doing with it, as the actress said to the Bishop. Loitering/waiting, 30-40 mins. Razzing it round, 10.

Q2: '80,000ft' Don't know the truth. Dave Roome reckoned he got very close, and Brian Carroll claims higher. I only made about 65k+ at which point there were little 'aerodynamics'. Reheats would not sustain.

Q3: Spin - would supposedly recover given at least 10,000 ft. I had a few 'flicks' (incipient spins) during combat and it would recover well but needing a bit of height.

Q4: Threshold around 160-165kts.

Not sure about "allowing the pilot to keep an eye on the refuelling hose basket" - I always found that to be a very good idea in any aeroplane =)) The problem with the Lightning was that the probe tip was 'out' of view' when you closed with the female part.

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:07 pm
by ian16th
TheGreenGoblin wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:36 pm
Initial service deliveries of the F.1A were in early 1961. By this time, the Lightning had become the "British Aircraft Corporation (BAC)" Lightning, since English Electric had been absorbed into the BAC organization on 12 January 1960.
I can confirm that 214 Sqdn started training Lightning drivers in the arts of AAR/IFR before the end of my 1st tour with 214, that ended Oct 62.

But I have no memories of ferrying any Lightnings anywhere.

Fareastdriver may have done some ferrying of them.

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:03 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
Boac wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 3:13 pm
"he's buggered off! " - I've buggered back again......

Q1: Depends what you are doing with it, as the actress said to the Bishop. Loitering/waiting, 30-40 mins. Razzing it round, 10.

Q2: '80,000ft' Don't know the truth. Dave Roome reckoned he got very close, and Brian Carroll claims higher. I only made about 65k+ at which point there were little 'aerodynamics'. Reheats would not sustain.

Q3: Spin - would supposedly recover given at least 10,000 ft. I had a few 'flicks' (incipient spins) during combat and it would recover well but needing a bit of height.

Q4: Threshold around 160-165kts.

Not sure about "allowing the pilot to keep an eye on the refuelling hose basket" - I always found that to be a very good idea in any aeroplane =)) The problem with the Lightning was that the probe tip was 'out' of view' when you closed with the female part.
Thank you very much for the rebuggeration and interesting explanation. :-h

See here for some nerdy, anoraky speculation, including discussion about changes in the height of the tropopause, ref. how high some individuals claimed to have flown the Lightning.

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-avi ... de-flights

I can claim to have seen the Lightning in flight, from above (my better half is my witness) when one of the SA Lightnings flew below us around Lion's Head as we looked down on it from the summit. The pilot was almost certainly in violation of multiple air laws, as he was very low, but it was a memorable moment anyway!

The Lightning flew up through the saddle, up over the City Bowl, at +- 500 feet, more like minus feet ref. the 500 foot rule, over the terrain, which at the lowest level includes many houses etc.

Lion's Head.JPG

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:17 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
More of the Grumman Panther, the type, that starred in that film the Bridges of Toko-Ri (based upon the novel by James Michener).



My interest was piqued by news from a good friend whose US friend's grandfather's old mount is about to go into phase 2 of restoration. I enclose a shot of the aircraft in question.

Grumman Panther.JPG
As the British were a few years ahead of the US in jet engine development, the Grumman design team decided to import a single Rolls-Royce "Nene" for installation in the XF9F-2 prototype. At the same time, Pratt & Whitney was licensed by Rolls-Royce to manufacture the Nene which was a turbojet of 5,700 lbs (22.24 kN) maximum thrust. As a back-up in case the Nene project failed, Allison developed the J-33-A-8 which developed 4,600 lbs. (20.45 kN) thrust. This engine was installed in 54 F9F-3s. The Allison installation was purposely made identical to the Nene so that all Panthers could be easily switched to whichever power plant proved the most successful.
http://www.aviation-history.com/grumman/f9f.html

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:36 pm
by ian16th
Many, many years ago I built a Jetex 50 powered model of a Grumman Panther.

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:44 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
ian16th wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:36 pm
Many, many years ago I built a Jetex 50 powered model of a Grumman Panther.
My uncle bequeathed a whole inventory of used Jetex engines to me in the late 60's. :)

They are still popular although the motors are made in places like Poland and the Rapier in Czechoslovakia etc.

https://www.jetex.org/



All being thrown by old "geezers" at Old Warden... =))



I wonder how many people get "clonked" on the head by these aged hooligans? =))

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:11 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
The bigger models (not Jetex powered) look like a lot of fun...




Fairly expensive hobby I would guess... requiring lots of patience in fixing damaged model aircraft.

Re: We need more

Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 10:03 pm
by G-CPTN
At one stage I was an 'aeromodeller' starting with Airfix and then Kiel Kraft (including a Jetex DH110).

I spent time scratch-building a glider, which destroyed itself in a hawthorn tree on its maiden flight.

Re: We need more

Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:24 am
by ian16th
G-CPTN wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 10:03 pm
At one stage I was an 'aeromodeller' starting with Airfix and then Kiel Kraft (including a Jetex DH110).

I spent time scratch-building a glider, which destroyed itself in a hawthorn tree on its maiden flight.
At Redcar we kids of course used the beach as our airfield.
Nice and flat and the tide goes out for a couple of miles.

My A4 glider, on its maiden flight, was last seen heading to Holland, dunno if it ever arrived.

It had taken me months to build, never bothered with another one.

I've been telling people for more than 40 years that Libya is not what you think it is

Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:34 pm
by Undried Plum







Re: We need more

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:05 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
The Sheltering Desert is a 1992 drama film directed by Regardt van den Bergh and starring Jason Connery, Rupert Graves and Joss Ackland. The film was a co-production between Ireland, South Africa and the United Kingdom. It is listed in the movie list of the British production company Vine International Pictures Ltd.

"The Sheltering Desert" is also the name of the book the film is based upon. It is an autobiographical account written by Henno Martin. Its original German title is "Wenn es Krieg gibt, gehen wir in die Wüste". The English as well as the German edition are published by the German publisher Two Books.

Plot summary
In 1935 two German geologists, Henno Martin and Hermann Korn, leave Nazi Germany for South-West Africa (Namibia) to conduct field research. At the outbreak of the Second World War, many male Germans living in South-West Africa are interned in local camps. As pacifists the two German scientists refuse to be arrested and flee into the Namib Desert. They live for over two years in the vastness of the desert like ancient bushmen under indescribable circumstances, facing the challenge to survive and, at the same time, the threat to be detected. On the radio they follow the war events in Europe. Their adventure comes to an end when Hermann Korn starts suffering seriously from malnutrition.

Re: We need more

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:09 pm
by Undried Plum
TheGreenGoblin wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:05 pm
The Sheltering Desert is a 1992 drama film directed by Regardt van den Bergh and starring Jason Connery, Rupert Graves and Joss Ackland. The film was a co-production between Ireland, South Africa and the United Kingdom. It is listed in the movie list of the British production company Vine International Pictures Ltd.

"The Sheltering Desert" is also the name of the book the film is based upon. It is an autobiographical account written by Henno Martin. Its original German title is "Wenn es Krieg gibt, gehen wir in die Wüste". The English as well as the German edition are published by the German publisher Two Books.

Plot summary
In 1935 two German geologists, Henno Martin and Hermann Korn, leave Nazi Germany for South-West Africa (Namibia) to conduct field research. At the outbreak of the Second World War, many male Germans living in South-West Africa are interned in local camps. As pacifists the two German scientists refuse to be arrested and flee into the Namib Desert. They live for over two years in the vastness of the desert like ancient bushmen under indescribable circumstances, facing the challenge to survive and, at the same time, the threat to be detected. On the radio they follow the war events in Europe. Their adventure comes to an end when Hermann Korn starts suffering seriously from malnutrition.

The OAT here is 29.7°C. Yes, really.

I'm going inside and may be some time.

There's a movie on, y'know.

Re: We need more

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:36 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
Undried Plum wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:09 pm


The OAT here is 29.7°C. Yes, really.

I'm going inside and may be some time.

There's a movie on, y'know.
Dinnae fash yersel' if ye cannae take the heat... it is a bit extreme I must say...

Re: We need more

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:41 pm
by PHXPhlyer
"The OAT here is 29.7°C." (-|
That is still cooler than our lows. ~ 32o C. :-o ~X( X( :((

PP

Re: We need more

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:57 pm
by TheGreenGoblin
PHXPhlyer wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:41 pm
"The OAT here is 29.7°C."
That is still cooler than our lows. ~ 32o C. :-o ~X( X( :((

PP
Yes but you live in Arizona where you lollygaggers loll around indoors with your huge air-conditioning systems blasting out polar air, as the high tension wires run hot and the Hoover dam slowly dries up as Nevada works out new ways to steal your water (and electricity)! =))

Re: We need more

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:17 pm
by PHXPhlyer
Mostly true. :))
But when the A/C kicks on I hear the money meter running before I think of cool air.
Currently a cool 102o F thanks to the monsoon clouds. :YMAPPLAUSE:
Flash flood watches out. Heavy rains especially bad on the burn scars of which there are (too) many. X(

PP

Re: We need more

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:22 am
by llondel
PHXPhlyer wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:17 pm
Mostly true. :))
But when the A/C kicks on I hear the money meter running before I think of cool air.
Currently a cool 102o F thanks to the monsoon clouds. :YMAPPLAUSE:
Flash flood watches out. Heavy rains especially bad on the burn scars of which there are (too) many. X(

PP
I hear the money meter too. I put the AC on when the puppies were being born because it was a bit toasty in the room, and I remember turning it on the day OAT hit 114F, but mostly we don't bother with the house AC. There is a small wall unit in the main bedroom and we'll occasionally run that at bed time to bring the temperature down below about 86C.