Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

plan_D · 01-10-2005, 12:58 PM

I forgot to mention the power sets didn't need to be unplugged by a tech, once he'd plugged them in he'd run to the front and wave the Lightning out of the hangar. He'd tell the pilot to start both engines at once (normally you do it one at a time) and wave him straight on to the runway. The power set was anchored down, so the Lightning pulling away would pull them out.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-10-2005, 01:00 PM

pretty clever.............

plan_D · 01-10-2005, 01:02 PM

Not really difficult to think of but it made the operation quicker, and there was one less tech needed to scramble a Lightning. Plus while the Lightning was plugged in he was talking over land-radio so it couldn't be intercepted.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-10-2005, 01:04 PM

did they keep radio silence on the way up??

plan_D · 01-10-2005, 01:07 PM

No, they couldn't. The Lightnings RADAR wouldn't be on until he was some way up, so ground control had to direct him. Once he was facing the target and in range he could see for himself but until then, it was the ground controllers job to get him there. That's one of the reasons they were so quick, they didn't need to power everything up on the aircraft.

Modern day aircraft need to sit for 3 - 5 minutes waiting for all the avionics to power up. The Lightning could get in, bang on the engines and be gone within 2 minutes of the scramble call.

I just like this picture. I don't know the history behind the picture but I think they must have been on their way to Cyprus or Malta and re-fueling over south Germany

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-10-2005, 01:13 PM

wasn't it dangerous to keep the fuel in the plane for a long time though??

plan_D · 01-10-2005, 01:15 PM

The normal fuel was fine, the AVPIN was dangerous but on a scramble that'd mostly get used up starting the engines. A fuelled up aircraft GENERALLY, no matter the kind, is dangerous. I'm just saying the Lightning wasn't anymore dangerous.

plan_D · 01-10-2005, 01:30 PM

I would like to correct a common mistake with the Lightning. It's engines did not provide a greater thrust than it's weight. The thrust of both RR Avons combined was 31,160 lbs. The EMPTY (No fuel) weight of the Lightning was 28,000 lbs. The weight loaded was 50,000 lbs. See, fuel weighs a lot!

The initial rate of climb on the Lightning was 50,000 ft per minute.

The same thing applies to Phantom, RG, when refering to thrust:weight ratio. It was NOT 1:1. The EMPTY weight of the Phantom was 31,853 lbs. The combined thrust of both J79-GE-17s was 35,800 lbs. The normal take-off weight was 53, 814 lbs while maximum was 61, 795 lbs.

Make sure when you look at thrust:weight check the weight is loaded because when empty it has no fuel, so it's not going to go anywhere! The F-15 was the FIRST aircraft to have over 1:1 thrust to weight. Meaning it could climb vertical until it's ceiling without losing speed.

evangilder · 01-10-2005, 03:15 PM

I have to disagree that the phantom had a 1:1 thrust to weight. Maybe for an airplane with no combat load, but the engines had 17,900lbs. thrust each, meaning about 35,800 lbs total. The empty weight of a phantom with no fuel or ammo was 29,535 lbs. The standard combat load added another about 38,000 lbs (Fuel and armaments) for a max takeoff of about 60,000 lbs. This is an F4E.

I have seen quite a number of phantoms over the years and I never watched one take off vertically and sustain it. It could go straight up for a few thousand feet, but not much more.

I have also watched a number of lightnings take off and must say that the results were impressive. For their time, they were quite impressive. Even in the mid-eightes, when I saw them at air shows in England, they raised eyebrows.

plan_D · 01-10-2005, 03:20 PM

I was just wondering, evan, did you read my last post?

evangilder · 01-10-2005, 06:14 PM

Sorry, I guess I did AFTER you posted. Better to be redundant than to not say it, I reckon.

01-10-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

I would like to correct a common mistake with the Lightning. It's engines did not provide a greater thrust than it's weight. The thrust of both RR Avons combined was 31,160 lbs. The EMPTY (No fuel) weight of the Lightning was 28,000 lbs. The weight loaded was 50,000 lbs. See, fuel weighs a lot!

The initial rate of climb on the Lightning was 50,000 ft per minute.

The same thing applies to Phantom, RG, when refering to thrust:weight ratio. It was NOT 1:1. The EMPTY weight of the Phantom was 31,853 lbs. The combined thrust of both J79-GE-17s was 35,800 lbs. The normal take-off weight was 53, 814 lbs while maximum was 61, 795 lbs.

Make sure when you look at thrust:weight check the weight is loaded because when empty it has no fuel, so it's not going to go anywhere! The F-15 was the FIRST aircraft to have over 1:1 thrust to weight. Meaning it could climb vertical until it's ceiling without losing speed.

Quote:

In service, most late F-4As incorporating all of these changes were re-engined with J79-GE-8 engines rated at 10,900 lb.s.t. dry and 17,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning. This increased thrust more than made up for the increased drag produced by the higher canopy. The Phantom had a thrust/weight ratio that had never before been achieved by any fighter, and a ratio exceeding unity was often achievable in practice, enabling the aircraft to continue to accelerate while traveling straight up.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_2.html

As you can see, the early model Phantoms had 17000 lbs s.t. However, the later models (by the time of the E, 1966) had 17900 lbs s.t., as you quoted. Empty weight on the F4-E was 29535 lbs, not the 31853 lbs you quote. Typical combat takeoff weight was 38019, not the 53814 lbs you quote.

While it is true the "combat weight" of the Phantom is rated about 2000 lbs greater than it's thrust, this does not change the fact that the plane could be configured for intercept (ie: armed) and have a better than 1:1 thrust/weight ratio. Internal fuel was 1225 US Gallons in the fuselage tanks and 630 gallons in the wing tanks, about 13000 lbs of fuel max capacity. For intercept 5000 lbs of fuel would be pleanty, so a 1:1 thrust to ratio on an intercept configured Phantom was doable, giving a range of about 250 miles (rt).

Initial climb rate on the F4-E Phantom was 61,400.

Also, Phantoms were often set up for quick takeoff on Carriers. Exactly what the proceedure was I'm unsure, but they were set on the catapults and could be launched as fast as the pilot could get to them. I suspect these were simply kept warm and ready to go. From cold to go it took a Phantom approximately 9 minutes to get rolling.

=S=

Lunatic

GermansRGeniuses · 01-10-2005, 09:51 PM

As an honorary mention...

The Mig-25.

Initial Climb Rate 40,950 ft (12,480 m) / min

Lightning Guy · 01-10-2005, 10:24 PM

After which the engines would have to be replaced and the MiG would be off operations for a while. In term of performance, the MiG-25 is impressive. In terms of practicality, the MiG-31 is a major improvement.

I wouldn't feel comfortable taking of on an intercept with only 5,000lbs of fuel. On an intercept, afterburner would be used frequently causing fuel consumption to skyrocket.

Incidentily, I don't believe the Ta-152 wasn't the be-all of piston engined fighters.

GermansRGeniuses · 01-10-2005, 11:01 PM

You seem to be forgetting that the same involves the so-beloved F-15...

It can only climb at its maximum and can only reach m2.5 when VMAX is on, a special afterburner switch on the side of the cockpit which requires the engines to be overhauled after the flight and can only be used for a short period of time.

Generally speaking, a loaded (not fully, just an average loadout of fuel/tanks and missles - maybe four AAMRAMS and two Sidewinders) is limited to, "only," m1.78.