What if more Lightnings were exported?

[Mossie]

Now that one is really Fugly, but I like it!  Vaguely remember this, thanks for posting again!

[Arc3371]

I made a single engined Lightning (Thunder) a while back

[BlackOps]

Arc, I like it, looks pretty good with a single engine.

[Lawman]

Actually, it looks a heck of a lot better with a single engine! It would look even better if 'thinned-down' a bit (i.e. build around the single engine), one candidate engine might even be the De Havilland Gyron - it needed a customer! Clean up the cockpit for better visibility, perhaps something closer to the F-16 type blown canopy.

To be honest, though, the better bet might have been to just hold off a bit, and either get Saab Drakens, or wait on something a lot better, like the Hawker P1103. A two man crew is certainly desirable; as an alternative, we could go down the high-low route, and do a fairly cheap lightweight fighter, using a single afterburning Avon, and a bigger fighter, possibly as large as the CF-105! Ideally the smaller fighter should be navy compatible, which would simplify matters a lot. Not sure about a naval P1103, but something in that size class should work, and give the RN their much needed supersonic fighter. Heck, even a deal with Vought could have been positive - the proposed TF-8 derived Twosader, with Spey engine (or Medway?). Vought gets a new generation Crusader to offer, using a modern turbofan engine, possibly extending Crusaders service life (keeping the older Essex class as up to date strike carriers through the '60s).

[Mossie]

I always thought you could get pretty close to the EE P.6/1 by mating an early Lightning cockpit, spine, wings & tail to a Su-7 or Su-9 fuse.

[r16]

there is much glorification of the Lightning . Reading the specifications  , it appears to be a match for Mig-21Bis . Was it really the superfighter of its day or was it because it was the only game in town for RAF fighter pilots ?


apart from making it a  Fishbed like tailed delta , which incidentally has been proposed somewhere above , this is one move that would have made the English Electric Lightning utterly fabulous . A fuselage mounted landing gear would have made the whole wing available for pylons which the plane had the power to employ . Apart from the radar that prevented it being a rival for the American F-15 ( and that is nearly 20 years before ) there was the potential to turn with everything . Maybe it couldn't outsell the F-16 but it could be in service on every continent . To assist safety though , the tail might have to be moved up , as dropping underwing stores  could have caught the low set tail , I don't know . F-104 was around to  serve  as an example and the length of the actual landing strut gives the impression that it was heavy . Keeping the weight similar you could probably achieve a similar footprint from a fuselage mounted landing gear .But then it would be an even harder work and it was already late . It comes from 1947 you know  . As the sole purpose of the Lightning was to consolidate the aviation business in Britain it did alright , halfway to its intented target and the job of TSR-2 was eased but who knows , with more payload it might have consolidated the US scene , too . It was  fabulous  and that was it ...

ı got the profile from this site and removed some of the greens to make it clearer .

unfortunately gone too far  to be cancelled ? Really ?

[Mossie]

The Lightnings main claim to fame is it's rate of climb.  It was & still is, pretty phenomenal.  Wiki lists the rate of climb as 260m/s for the Lightning, compared to 225m/s MiG-21bis & 256m/s for the F-15.  Recentley, one of Thunder City's Lightnings broke time to height records which is very impressive considering it has been out of service for some time.  Otherwise, the Lightning was slightly lacking in some areas, but not bad for it's time.  It could only carry two AAM's & despite the belly pack being continously enlarged & overwing tanks being added, it never had enough fuel.  It's radar was on the small side too, although the Red Top missiles were very capable for their time.  It's small highly swept wings meant it lacked maneouverability, although this was similar for many of it's contemparies.

There were a number of studies to improve the Lightning & most of the improvements you mention were investigated at one time or other.  BSP Fighters gives a good overview.  The ultimate development would have been the swing version I posted earlier.  It would have adressed many of the Lightnings deficencies, there would have been a small weapons bay in a full length belly pack, along with extra fuel.  The solid nose would give room for a much larger radar.  The swing wing would have improved maneouverbility & landing performance.  With these improvements the Lightning could well have been a Phantom beater.

"unfortunately gone too far to cancel"?  Yes, thats a true quote from Duncan Sandys.  If he'd had his way, every major British aerospace program would have been cancelled & it wrankeled with him that too much time & money had been spent on the Lightning program.  Fortunatley, it survived & the British managed to hang onto some vestiges of an aircraft industry.  On the surface of it, Sandys was a great proponent of the guided missile & claimed that they were advanced enough to replace offensive aircraft.  Of course, this proved to be wrong & in any case was purley rhetoric & an excuse to cut aircraft programs.  He cut most of the missile programs too.  I've often wondered what would have happened had the Lightning been cancelled too, what would the RAF have got?  Mirages, possibly, but most likely F-104's.  Was Sandys involved in the infamous Lockheed bribery scandal?  Who knows.....?

[Lawman]

Just for interest, I thinned out the Lightning, and switched to one, probably larger engine, e.g. the RB-106 Thames, which was the same size class as the Avon, but with much more thrust. Hopefully the greater dry thrust (15,000lb) should allow it to use afterburner much less, helping range a fair bit, and the excellent thrust with reheat (22,000lb) would give it the necessary 'oomph' when needed, given the fact that the aircraft is quite a bit lighter. Add in the fuselage-mounted undercarriage, and a modified wing, allowing four hardpoints, and you've got an excellent interceptor, and potentially a good strike aircraft.

[r16]

working through the former posts , I saw this thread but the pictures are dead

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,7195.0.html

I guess they would be interesting to see .

the reason being there is you sometimes run into things like

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,7387.0/prev_next,prev.html#new

[Lawman]

It does present a good opportunity, and I really like the prospect of the 'thin' Lightning, as a British Mig-21 equivalent, with four HS Red Top missiles underwing. It would have had much better export prospects than the twin engined Lightning that happened. It could even have been an answer to the Mirage III - not ideal due to the nose intake, but performance wise, it could have been a runner.

[Mossie]

The P.6 was intended as an experimental aircraft & proposed as a rival to the Bristol 188, which eventually won & is very shinily preserved at Cosford.   English Electric though, never saw their experimental designs as pure research aircraft & the P.6 would have been fitted out to be easily converted into a fighter.  Hmm, wonder if I can find a KP Su-7 or Su-9.....

[Mossie]

Oooooohhh (Waves fingers in air in a Homer like manner)!

[Riksbar]

By strange coincidence, I have an Airfix F.3 in the process of being butchered into a productionised P6 on the bench at the moment.  Pics to follow.

[SPINNERS]

Ingredients: Matchbox F.6, Foxbat nose, 1/48 scale MiG 21 wings and a bit of filler!

Oh, and Tiger Squadron... natch.

[fallenphoenix]

I like 
would be a compleatly different beast with the possibility of such a large radar and stores options 

kinda looks like a mirage on steroids