PDA

View Full Version : British Lightinings?



Yimmy
01-22-2005, 03:23 PM
Am I mistaken, or is this a picture of a Lightning in British FAA colours?

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/British/aaz.sized.jpg

Did Britain operate the Lightning - and if so, why/where?

Yimmy
01-22-2005, 03:23 PM
Am I mistaken, or is this a picture of a Lightning in British FAA colours?

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/British/aaz.sized.jpg

Did Britain operate the Lightning - and if so, why/where?

3.JG51_BigBear
01-22-2005, 03:32 PM
The British evaluated them and said no thanks. They got the version without the superchargers because they hadn't passed US government trials yet. The planes also had two "left engines" which meant that instead of having zero torque effect, the plane had the usual torque to the left (similar to the lightning in the game). The planes didn't fly well at all and the orders for them were canceled.

TAW_BlueDevil
01-22-2005, 03:32 PM
I know the brits oeprated lightnenings. However they were without the classified superchargers and therfore did not develope the power that the US aircraft enjoyed. Because of this they were often times refferred to as the Castrated lightenings. They were not popular nor tremendously effective because of it.

Yimmy
01-22-2005, 04:10 PM
Also, semi-concerning Lightnings - are aircraft in the game made so that different aircraft suffer different kinds of damage more frequently, or is this some kind of bug?

For instance, I was messing around with the Lightning on ground attack missions and found that the engines were always catching fire, 90% of the time when I took damage. Likewise, the Ki61 is particularly vulnerable to getting oil all over the cockpit whenever your hit.

Er.. and one last OT thing, I keep getting a message comming up saying I am low on virtual memory, adn that the file is being expanded... er... is that bad?

Saburo_0
01-22-2005, 05:05 PM
The British gave the Lightning it's name. Before that the Americans were calling it the Atlanta. (Yuck) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

EmKen
01-22-2005, 05:09 PM
Planes with water cooled engines were more susceptible to damage (all those pipes). Air cooled engines, like the P & W's had less vital components. For example, a cannon shell could take the head off of an air cooled engine, and it would run a bit rough. A splinter from a flak shell could sever a cooling pipe on a liquid cooled Merlin and the whole thing would seize up in seconds (maybe more than 60, but almost certainly less than 300, so I won't allow a claim of minutes).
That said, a liquid cooled engine gave a lower profile, and was possibly a smaller overall target, but history shows that air cooled radial engines were the zenith of propeller engined development (oh, ok, turboprops took propellors a bit further, particularly the Kuznetsov beasts which powered the Tu-20 Bear, but you know where I'm going ...F8F, Sea Fury, La-11).

horseback
01-22-2005, 05:11 PM
Hey, at least they didn't call it the 'Burbank' (after the town Lockheed was headquartered)...

cheers

horseback

PS: Yimmy, those are pre-1942 RAF fighter colors-or should I say in this case colours? - Classic Earth Brown and Dark Green.

Yimmy
01-22-2005, 06:38 PM
From the same site is this pic:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/British/aat.jpg

it is down as being a P39 - is it really a P400, or did we also use P39's?

Zyzbot
01-22-2005, 06:44 PM
Much info here:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_7.html


Looks like the RAF flew very few of them accordinf to this site.

horseback
01-22-2005, 11:37 PM
Airacobra Mk I, briefly operated by 601 Squadron late 1941 - early 1942. After a short period of cursing sharp American airplane salesmen (they got theirs very quickly, lacking draft deferments), Churchill decided to send the relatively new fighters to the Soviets, figuring it was at least a nicer gesture than giving them used up Hurricanes and later, Spitfire Mk Vs.

The Soviets got a fighter that operated as well as any up to 15,000 ft (5000m or so) on a front where all the action took place below 5000m. So, after digging through all the manure, they found a pony.

And we still get to ride it...

cheers

horseback

DuxCorvan
01-23-2005, 08:12 AM
British Lightnings...

http://www.petergoodearl.co.uk/airdays/raf50/lightning.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-23-2005, 08:18 AM
Now THERE was a monster airplane.

Yimmy
01-23-2005, 09:14 AM
First plane with supercruise.
Also, could outclimb anything to 50,000 feet, until the Harrier beat it by cheating (didnt taxi to runway...).

lronSight
01-23-2005, 10:15 AM
Despite the Brits not taking more orders of lightnings, Loads of American squadrons in the UK were trading in their current aircraft for the P38 and P47. The P38 was definitely an unmatched fighter aircraft once it reached it's later models (J,L, and M)

One reason the Brits turned it down was because of the fact that they were sent very early production models, those not equipped with dive flaps, heaters, and all the other perks of the later models which took the aircraft to the top with amazing win:lose ratios of <20some:1

Still waiting on the 38M :P http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Extreme_One
01-23-2005, 12:19 PM
RAF Evlaution pilot-

"What? No in-cockpit heating? Sorry youl'l not catch me in one of those. I'll freeze my balls off! I'll stick to the Spitfire thanks"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FluffyDucks
01-23-2005, 04:03 PM
Why would the RAF take poxy Lightnings ....when they had the the Tiffie and the Tempest, not to mention the uberesst of all...the Mossie! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Yimmy
01-23-2005, 04:17 PM
Tiffie? Typhoon?

And the Mosquito was not a great high altitude day fighter as was the Lightning; while the Tempest did not exist at such an early stage in the war....

HellToupee
01-23-2005, 05:23 PM
they had a great high alt day fighter, the spitfire