UK2 XN775 EE Lightning 1972orLater.jpg

[Joseph Testagrose]

[[email protected]]

The Lightning is one of, if not thee, best looking fighter ever. The
question is, could it have beaten the Mig-21?

[®i©ardo]

On 06/06/2012 03:33, wrote:
> The Lightning is one of, if not thee, best looking fighter ever. The
> question is, could it have beaten the Mig-21?

Well, it certainly upset the odd U2 pilot:

"The Lightning was ... a formidable opponent; even high-flying U-2
pilots became accustomed to being caught by a Lightning! In 1984, during
a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a
height which they had previously considered safe from interception.
Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his Lightning
F3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight, but in a ballistic climb
or a zoom climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and
then puts the aircraft into a climb, trading speed for altitude."

I seem to recall that the rate of climb of the Lightning was never
de-classified.

It's major problem against the MiG21 would have been endurance.

Ri©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:08:51 +0100, ®i©ardo > wrote:

>On 06/06/2012 03:33, wrote:
>> The Lightning is one of, if not thee, best looking fighter ever. The
>> question is, could it have beaten the Mig-21?
>
>Well, it certainly upset the odd U2 pilot:
>
>"The Lightning was ... a formidable opponent; even high-flying U-2
>pilots became accustomed to being caught by a Lightning! In 1984, during
>a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a
>height which they had previously considered safe from interception.
>Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his Lightning
>F3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight, but in a ballistic climb
>or a zoom climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and
>then puts the aircraft into a climb, trading speed for altitude."

Intercepting a U-2... from above. Only the Brits! ;^)

>I seem to recall that the rate of climb of the Lightning was never
>de-classified.
>
>It's major problem against the MiG21 would have been endurance.
>
>Ri©ardo

[®i©ardo]

On 06/06/2012 13:29, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:08:51 +0100, > wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2012 03:33, wrote:
>>> The Lightning is one of, if not thee, best looking fighter ever. The
>>> question is, could it have beaten the Mig-21?
>>
>> Well, it certainly upset the odd U2 pilot:
>>
>> "The Lightning was ... a formidable opponent; even high-flying U-2
>> pilots became accustomed to being caught by a Lightning! In 1984, during
>> a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a
>> height which they had previously considered safe from interception.
>> Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his Lightning
>> F3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight, but in a ballistic climb
>> or a zoom climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and
>> then puts the aircraft into a climb, trading speed for altitude."
>
> Intercepting a U-2... from above. Only the Brits! ;^)
>
>> I seem to recall that the rate of climb of the Lightning was never
>> de-classified.
>>
>> It's major problem against the MiG21 would have been endurance.
>>
>> Ri©ardo

Well, we have our funny little ways!

;-)

--
Moving things in still pictures