Fighter Acceleration/Climb-Rates

[KJ_Lesnick]

Over the years, I've heard a lot of conflicting information over the years regarding various fighter airplanes such as the F-104, F-4, the English Electric Lightning, and the F-15. 

As a result I'm kind of looking for clarification if it's not classified

• Which could climb faster, the F-4 or the F-104?
  ...- Technically, F-4 took away the F-104's time-to-climb record
  ...- Later the F-104 re-took the record
  ...- Record-setting flights almost never use the full performance of an airplane
  ...- The F-104 during at least one of the record-setting flights used a modified inlet, a different engine and so on
  
• How did the F-104 and English-Electric Lightning compare in terms of straight-level acceleration and climb-rates?
  
• I remember hearing the English-Electric Lightning could out-accelerate an F-15 from standstill to V2: Is this true?
  ...- I was under the impression that the F-15 had a superior power to weight ratio
  ...- I was also under the impression that turbofans are more efficient at lower airspeed/mach-numbers
  

.

[Captain Canada]

Interesting query. And I wonder how much fuel loads had in these records and attempts ? Seems to me a clean F-15 with little fuel would be one heck of a performer !

[jcf]

Ummm, no, record setting flights usually use over the 'full performance' of the airframe in
non-service standard configurations. Light fuel load, stripped out systems, over-boosted
engines etc., etc., etc.

[PR19_Kit]

AFAIK the Lightning never made any official record attempts, but there are numerous stories told by ex-Lightning pilots about them blowing the doors off everything that came up against them. I witnessed a stream take-off by 74 Sqdn in their Lightning F1s, or possibly F2s, at Coltishall at the BoB Display in 1965 and it was totally MIND bending! Even aircraft at today's RIAT displays don't climb like that.

But these ARE fighter pilots we're talking about and the same could be said, and probably was, about every fighter pilot's mount from the Sopwith Camel onwards. 

[jcf]

Camels? Probably started with the Deperdussin pilots. 

[rickshaw]

Camels? Probably started with the Deperdussin pilots. 

Did you see how Cody's longhorn climbed?  Like a rocket! 

[Mr.Creak]

Frightening vs. F-104:
Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against Lockheed F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low-level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".

Vs. F-15:
Lightning and the F-15C Eagle, having flown both aircraft, stating that: "Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500m]". Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope. The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him.

Both from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning

[PR19_Kit]

A pity they never tried for the 'Time to Height' records in the Lightning then. The 'Streak Eagle' took a whole bunch of them in 1975 and the work they did to take the records makes fascinating reading. I suspect they'd have had to work a LOT harder to take them from a Lightning.

Which reminds me that my part built 'Streak Eagle' is the oldest of my part-built projects, started in 1978 when I still lived in Derby! I really MUST get it finished!!! 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Frightening vs. F-104:
Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against Lockheed F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low-level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".

1. In these trials what F-104 and Lightning variants (F.3?) were used?

2. Was the Lightning faster than the F-104 or merely faster accelerating?  The Lightning was freaky fast by the standards of the time...

Vs. F-15:
Lightning and the F-15C Eagle, having flown both aircraft, stating that: "Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500m]".

I was under the impression that the F-15 had a better T/W ratio, I'm guessing the issue is either due to inlet efficiency or drag

Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope.

So, he means aircraft from 1953 (F-100) to 1964 (F-111)?

The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him.

It even out-turned the F-15?

[Mossie]

There's a good comparison between the Lightning and F-15 on Thunder and Lightnings, might answer some of your questions:
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.php

[eatthis]

my problem with the american (and russian) record setters is the fact that the versions used to set the records usually had about as much in common with normal production airframes as a wet fish!. the streak eagle had EVERYTHING non essential stripped off it including radar hydraulic systems and even the paint!.

there was an unofficial test (race lol) between a lightning and an f15 both in service versions and they raced from brakes off to 30,000 feet.
the lightning won, so even the mighty eagle (and it was mighty) couldnt quite keep up with a lightning

everything they ever tested a lightning against lost including concorde lol.
a few years ago the south african lightning did brakes off to 30,000 feet in 102 seconds WITH a passenger and 1 engine down on power
in short the lightning was and still is a BEAST

[jcf]

there was an unofficial test (race lol) between a lightning and an f15 both in service versions and they raced from brakes off to 30,000 feet.
the lightning won, so even the mighty eagle (and it was mighty) couldnt quite keep up with a lightning

... and then the Lightning turned around and landed having exhausted its fuel while the Eagle
continued on to the range, fired some missiles, made some gun passes and then returned to
base. 

[kitnut617]

there was an unofficial test (race lol) between a lightning and an f15 both in service versions and they raced from brakes off to 30,000 feet.
the lightning won, so even the mighty eagle (and it was mighty) couldnt quite keep up with a lightning

... and then the Lightning turned around and landed having exhausted its fuel while the Eagle
continued on to the range, fired some missiles, made some gun passes and then returned to
base.  

Different aircraft for different purposes, the Lightning was a ""small"" island point defense aircraft (at full-chat, it could get from top to bottom of the UK in 15 minutes), the F-15 a long range air superiority aircraft

[jcf]

Yes Robert. I'm well aware of the Lightning's history, it's a favourite aircraft, just
making a joke about its long acknowledged achilles heel. 

[kitnut617]

Well they were trying to make it do something it wasn't designed for, standing patrols way out in the North Sea wasn't it's forte was it,

but I wasn't making a dig at you Jon ----