English Electric Corona PR1

[Alvis 3.1]

Lacking an extremely high altitude reconnaissance aircraft in the late 1950s, the RAF attempted to procure Lockheed U2s for its' own uses, but was denied due to the secretive nature of the Dragonlady. They then turned to English Electric and issued a secret request for 8 aircraft based upon the Lightning, but with the altitude and loiter ability of the U2. The result was the English Electric Corona.
Larger than the U2, the Corona PR1 used a similar airfoil, albeit larger. The engines were downrated as the higher speeds were no longer required, and once the initial climbout had been achieved, the lower engine was usually shut down to conserve fuel. The recon gear was carried in a small bay near the nose gear, and two additional pods could be carried in the former missile pylon structure.
Overflights of Eastern Europe were common, although intrusions into Soviet airspace were rare, and ended completely by 1963. It is not known if any Coronas were lost to hostile action, but several suffered inflight fires and were abandoned. Two Coronas based out of Cyprus observed the buildup for the 1973 Yom Kippur War, but the intelligence wasn't acted upon, which caused poor relations between the UK and Israel for several years.
The Corona was not used in the Falklands conflict due to the extreme range of the combat area and a lack of secure recovery airfields. The last known operational use of the Corona was in the opening stages of Operation Granby/Gulf War I.


Alvis 3.1

[Sisko]

10 out of 10 on the cool factor    

[Alvis 3.1]

Oh...by the way..what would be an appropriate RAF Squadron for this plane to be used by?
I'm too lazy to flail about online to look it up...


Alvis 3.1

[datguy]

Another beauty, Alvis.  

I especially like the recce camo scheme.  What would you think about deleting the lower engine to make room for more gas and a full recce palette on the PR Mk.2?

For squadrons: 39 Sqn, 543 Sqn, or No. 1 PRU are all posibilities depending on time frame.

Which wings did you use?

DG  

[SimonR]

Great work, Alvis. Very imaginative and beautifully done.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Oh...by the way..what would be an appropriate RAF Squadron for this plane to be used by?
I'm too lazy to flail about online to look it up...


Alvis 3.1

Easy...... 51 Squadron, still fly the VERY secret Nimrod R1's and have flown secret squirrel missions since 1958......51 Squadron.

Love the idea though, looks exactly like a Lightning with U2 wings on it !

Ian

[Alvis 3.1]

I used the ancient Minicraft/Hasegawa Lightning for this, and the wings from a Testors 1/48 U2. Originally I was going to use the 1/72 Airfix wings, but they looked WAY too small, and considering how the plane would have  been heavier, I went to the mixed scale option.
Were I not a lazy modeller, I would have gone the single engine route. It makes so much more sense to have the extra fuel than two engines.
To my horror at the very end of the project I discovered the canopy had vanished! And the Airfix ones don't fit...So I had to heat form a new one from and Airfix canopy and add a little bit extra pull at the rear to get the fit right...it was the most work I did on the whole thing!



Alvis 3.1

[Captain Canada]

Very nice, Alvis !

To combat your case of LMS, I'd just glue half of an appropriate sized fuel tank over the upper engine, kinda like the Su-34 Strike Flanker look. Tehn it would only have one engine, and more room for fuel and avionics.

Cheers !

[Gary]

Oh Wow....

When you told me about it I didn't know just how amazing she'd look.

Cheers
G

[Radish]

That is SO SO WONDERFUL  

[anthonyp]

I think I like this one a little more than the "Madeup."  Very nice!

   

[SPINNERS]

Wow! Love the name too.

It really should be in PRU Blue though and not camo. I mean, who is going to be ABOVE this baby:)

[Alvis 3.1]

Ah, but the camo is to break up the outline when on or near the ground..you never know when some darn satellite is overhead!
Actually, this is the early scheme. They were eventually repainted in the dull overall grey Canberra schemes.

I've been thinking on the "lose an engine and replace it with fuel" idea. It makes PERFECT sense, from a Lightning engineering perspective, to have the engine ABOVE the electronics and fuel. That way, if you need to service the thing, you'd have to pull all that hardware out, then drop out the engine, then replace the engine, then put all the electronics, plumbing, and camera systems back in. To discover that you left off the generator housing from the engine, and have to yard it all out again. Then on the next flight, have half the electronics go wonky because somebody reconnected something wrong. (From what I understand the Lighting wasn't know for having fast engine overhauls, IIRC)
Yup...works for me! That's why the PR1s were last in service, and the PR2s were withdrawn in the late 70s. The abysmal service record of the PR 2s!


Alvis 3.1

[SimonR]

I've been thinking on the "lose an engine and replace it with fuel" idea. It makes PERFECT sense, from a Lightning engineering perspective, to have the engine ABOVE the electronics and fuel.

I think retaining the bottom engine may be better. When Lightnings lost the bottom engine and only had the top it produced a very pronounced downward pitch moment. When this happened on take off in full AB it often resulted in an inadvertant attempt on the world land speed record as it was quite difficult to get the beast to rotate on only the top engine,  

[datguy]

I've been thinking on the "lose an engine and replace it with fuel" idea. It makes PERFECT sense, from a Lightning engineering perspective, to have the engine ABOVE the electronics and fuel.

Re: the lower engine bay

I agree with the complexity of engine replacement issue.  That's why I said "recce palette."  Modularity rules, baaaby.  (OK, OK - I know it's a 1950's EE design and "modularity" wasn't a even word yet, much less a design concept).  You've made a good recovery on the back story, Alvis.

[I think retaining the bottom engine may be better. When Lightnings lost the bottom engine and only had the top it produced a very pronounced downward pitch moment. When this happened on take off in full AB it often resulted in an inadvertant attempt on the world land speed record as it was quite difficult to get the beast to rotate on only the top engine,

Re: engine out pitch down.

I don't for a moment question the Lightning's tendency to pitch nose down when losing the lower engine given its degree of wing sweep, but that big, straight, wide chord, parachute of a wing on the Corona should have very different pitch characteristics.

remember, all's fair in love and whif...

DG