John Carrier wrote:

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote:

Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?

No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart.

Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes
way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high
performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel
consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel
efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped
being by far the weakest link.

The J-57 was pretty advanced actually. Not so sure the Avon represented any
significant improvements in T/W or SFC. It didn't match the last J-57s
(P-420, 12,400 basic, 19,500 A/B) in maximum thrust.

Indeed, IIRC the original Avon's design predated that of the J57, although the
-300 series in the Lightning was a considerable improvement. I think the J57
was the first twin-spool turbojet to enter mass production, and probably the
first 10,000 lb. dry thrust engine, with excellent sfc for its day -- its
development made it possible for the B-52 to be a turbojet with intercontinental
range. Otherwise, they would have had to use a turboprop, as the Russians
themselves did with the Bear (the Bison's Achilles heel was its original
engines, which limited its range).

It was the Lightning's _airframe_ which was of another generation to the
Skyray's. The more closely comparable airframe would have been the F5D
Skylancer, area-ruled and capable of just short of 1,000 mph, although the F5D
fell in-between the F-102 and F-106 in development timescale and performance.

Guy