@nickc, aside from Lightnings, what else did your day fly?

The Draken was an interesting aircraft, it had a single afterburning Avon and thanks to that huge wing, it could carry a useful amount of ordinance.

Saw one at the Jersey Airshow. And lovely it is too

hey PMJ, usual stuff for a fast jet driver in the 60/70s, off the top of my head, I think he started flying Hunting Percival and then Jet Provosts, went gunnery school and flew Javelins and Hunters, then Lightnings, and last swapped to Phantom FGR (which he disliked, heavy and fat, in comparison to the Lightning, he referred to it as the “Family Estate” .

Off the books, I’ve a couple of photos of him flying A-4 from USS Hancock on exchange. Did some back seat joy riding in loads of stuff F-100 F-105, F-111, MIrage, probs some more, can’t remember.

I think in those days it was easier the “kick the tyres and light the fires” so to speak.

On the other hand; Gen Two fighters like the Lightning and 104 were playing with experiments and developments that were pushing knowledge like crazy (like area rule,

Area rule was discovered after the lightning was designed. They were somewhat surprised when the apparently less aerodynamic 2 seat lightnings were faster than the single seat, due to unintended area rule effects.

Area rule was discovered after the lightning was designed. They were somewhat surprised when the apparently less aerodynamic 2 seat lightnings were faster than the single seat, due to unintended area rule effects.

I was about to reply along the lines of “nooo! You’re all wrong”, but having delved into the internet I’m not so sure. Whitcomb’s discovery in 1952 of Area Rule would certainly pre-date the English Electric P1 design, but I believe that the ventral tank of the Lightning was designed with knowledge of area rule in mind. Certainly, the very first Lightning F1 (and prototype P1As) flew both with and without the ventral tank, by the time the F2A and F6 appeared, the ventral tank grew to Morrisey-esque proportions. Lightnings could fly at supersonic speed without afterburners, I don’t know whether that’s sheer brute force or aerodynamics at play. Just look at how difficult it was for Convair to get the Delta Dagger beyond Mach 1.

https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/mach-1-assaulting-the-barrier-22647052/?page=4

Certainly early Lightnings were more or less limited to mach 1.7, they were certainly slower than mach 2. Later models from the F3 onwards were mach 2 capable. The T4, T5 and T55 aren’t lookers though, sadly.

@CFH, I’ll raise you…

http://www.air-and-space.com/nara/47481ac%20GRB-36F%20YRF-84F%20right%20rear%20in%20flight%20l.jpg

https://www.dc3dakotahunter.com/blog/airborne-aircraft-carriers-wing-tip-coupling-giving-a-free-ride-2/

If it looks great, it will fly great! These aircraft look 'terrible', some of the ugliest to take to the air, but are there worse? Please post a photo of your ugliest aircraft in reply and we'll try and determine 'which is the ugliest of all?'. They have to have flown, only rule! pic.twitter.com/RZBtqHlP9f

— Trev Clark's Obscure Aviation History 🚁 (@clark_aviation) April 13, 2020

You want ugly?

this popped up on my youtube page

us armies take on it