EE Lightning

[GTX]

I've long thought of doing an intermediary variant of the VG Lightning - i.e. single seat with nose intake, but with VG wings.

Regards,

Greg

[Weaver]

I have an idea I'm working on at the moment for a "Super-Lightning", which involves full delta wings, undercarriage moved to the fuselage, wing pylons, and the inlet moved to the chin. This allows more fuel, more weapons, and bigger radome. It will also reduce the "fat" look the Lightning has from some angles (the altered nose will be slightly longer and tapered).

One of the first things I posted on here was a three-engined Lightning (two at the top) with a big delta wing and a V-tail. It had side intakes for the top two engines and a chin intake for the lower one, formed by increasing the size of the radome upwards until it took half the area away. It also had tandem seats. Note that I'm not advocating a three-engined Lightning as a sensible idea, rather it was more of a joke: what does a Lightning need? More power, obviously! (yeah, right....)

BAe studied a delta-winged Lightning and judged it very unfavourably against the standard aircraft (details in BSP-fighters) but I get the impression that they didn't make a really committed study. They just "filled in" the triangle behind the wing, leaving the tailplanes in place, and then criticised it for aft CofG movement and adverse downwash over the tail - well doh! I don't know if they ever tried a properly designed tailless delta wing on it - I think it would have been good for fuel volume and serviceability: you could take the L & R wings off individually rather than trying to extract the Lightning's one-piece spar from the middle of the fuselage!

[Mossie]

I've long thought of doing an intermediary variant of the VG Lightning - i.e. single seat with nose intake, but with VG wings.

Regards,

Greg

There was a version that didn't have the solid nose Greg.  IIRC, without checking BSP Fighters, there were three phases to the project.  First was basically a T.5 with the swing wing & naval mods, the second had the belly pack & new engines, the third had the full solid nose & more eninge options.

Tornado did some profiles:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17220.0/highlight,lightning+brochure.html

There's more on Secret Projects:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,468.msg3349.html#msg3349
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,468.30.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,476.0/highlight,vg+lightning.html

[GTX]

Forgot about those .

Regards,

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

Joncarrfarelly,

Wouldn't it be more practical to put AIM-26's on the design instead?  They were guided, nuclear, and were more streamlined.


Mossie,

I'm suprised it hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet. The ultimate Lightning would have been along the lines your talking about Kendra, just more contempary.

I honestly thought people were going to say something like "What is your obsession with the XF8U-3???" or something (as I had suggested incorporating characteristics of the XF8U-3 on other ideas as well)

The solid nose would have held a larger radar, it would have had side box intakes

I don't know how much larger you'd need to make the radar -- though I have no idea how big the regular lightning's radar is...

Regarding the shape of the inlet cowl, I was thinking of sweeping the inlet cowl (i.e. move the top of the duct back, and the front forward or vice versa) -- sound like a good idea?

a variable geometry wing

You know, I'm not a huge fan of VG wings...   The increase in aerodynamic performance is largely outweighed by the dramatic increase in overall weight.

a variant of the RR Spey.

How does the maximum mach capabilities of the RR Spey compare to the J-75?

A full length belly pack would contained a small weapons bay.

You mean a belly pack that runs the full length of the plane?  I don't know how good an idea that is...


KJ

[jcf]

Hi Kendra,

the AIM-26A being smaller and lighter than the Genie (albeit at a much lower yield, .25KT versus 1.5KT) would potentially be a good choice.
Maybe two on the fuselage mounts and two on wing pylons?

The basic layout of the Lightning limits how far the design can logically be pushed, if you insist on keeping the stacked engine layout.
Go to a single larger engine (aas explored by EE) or side-by-side engines and the game changes.

Jon

[Mossie]

Hi Kendra,

I honestly thought people were going to say something like "What is your obsession with the XF8U-3???" or something (as I had suggested incorporating characteristics of the XF8U-3 on other ideas as well)

Hadn't thought about it like that!

I don't know how much larger you'd need to make the radar -- though I have no idea how big the regular lightning's radar is...

The Lightnings radar was an AI.23 unit with an 18 inch dish, the solid nose would have had a dish of 30 inches.  It would have been a big improvement, the Lightning, although capable of carrying the excellent Red Top, was let down by it's very short range radar which was directly descended from the first WWII AI radars.

Regarding the shape of the inlet cowl, I was thinking of sweeping the inlet cowl (i.e. move the top of the duct back, and the front forward or vice versa) -- sound like a good idea?

I'm not sure!  The original P.1 research aircraft that sired the Lightning had an inlet that was the reverse of what you mention (if only with a very slight sweep back).  The circular intake of the Lightning seemed to serve it well so there seems no real need to change, however I'm no aerodynamicist!

You know, I'm not a huge fan of VG wings...   The increase in aerodynamic performance is largely outweighed by the dramatic increase in overall weight.

You might well be right, although at the time VG seemed to be the right way forward.  Reading between the lines, I think the swing wing was selected for a number of reasons.  Firstly, Vickers had done a lot of thr pioneering work on VG & the authorities were very interested in the results.  The VG Lightning was part of a Vickers proposal, rather than one from EE.  Secondly, it was first conceived as a naval modification & it seemed to present the only way a Lightning could operate from a carrier (the RN were particualry keen on VG).  Third, it helped improve maneouverability, which was one of several aspects on which the Lightning had been criticised.

How does the maximum mach capabilities of the RR Spey compare to the J-75?

I'd say the J75, although they were two quite different engines.  The J75 as fitted to the F-106 could propel that aircraft to Mach 2.3 on a single engine.  The Spey was very powerful, although it was designed for two to propel UK variants of the Phantom.  But best check with an engineer!

You mean a belly pack that runs the full length of the plane?  I don't know how good an idea that is...

Yes.  I would say (I nearly became an aircraft engineer at BAe Brough when I left school, right now I wish I had!) that the full length pack was possibly less draggy the earlier packs carried by the Lightning.  It would help bring down the C of G on an aircraft that must have been slightly top heavy on the gound.  The only real problem I can think of is that the aircraft would be almost slab-sided & may not perform too well in cross winds?  Here's a pic, check the links I posted earlier, there're several more, especially on Secret Projects.



With full the Phase III  developments, it seems that the designers were trying to address every problem associated with Lightning.  The Lightning was basically a one trick pony with it's phenomenal performance, but it was optomised for this & other aspects suffered.  The swing wing would have improved maneouverability & low speed handling, the belly pack weapons carriage (& some multi role capability), the solid nose an improved radar & the new engines would have kept it going at a rate similar to the original.  It might have given the F-4 a run for it's money!

[KJ_Lesnick]

No offense but I do not like the particular design shown (the last image)

KJ Lesnick

[jcf]

No offense but I do not like the particular design shown (the last image)

KJ Lesnick

Yep, its pretty dire, looks like a fat, deformed sparrow (the bird not the missile )

Jon

[Mossie]

No problem Kendra, It's not pretty is it!  I'll have to duck objects thrown at me from my fellow Brits, but although I have a fondness for the Lightning & it's performance,  that was all it had really.  It wasn't pretty in the first place & these mods make it look like Homer Simpson.  I do like the design in that finally gives the Lightning some decent capability & I might manage a model of it some day.  But it's got a face only a mother would love, not unlike the XF8U-3!

[SPINNERS]

I have an idea I'm working on at the moment for a "Super-Lightning", which involves full delta wings, undercarriage moved to the fuselage, wing pylons, and the inlet moved to the chin.

It doesn't tick all the boxes but my 'Super Lightning' (I think I used the F.7 designation) gives an impression of what a delta-winged Lightning would look like and would have looked cool in the classic West Germany Phantom type scheme.

[MAD]

Hell right away it improves on armament SPINNERS!
Which with its short range, was one of my biggest dislikes for the Lightning design – combat sustainability!!

M.A.D

[pyro-manic]

Nice one, Spinners!

The Phase III Lightning is hideous, it must be said.

[Jschmus]

This can probably be fleshed out better by someone more familiar with the type, but I got this idea last night, and had to share it with you all.

Lightning E.7
Learning lessons from the USN in Vietnam, the RAF anticipates the need for a dedicated defence suppression aircraft to either precede or accompany their fast-mover strike aircraft.  Pending the development of a dedicated type, the MoD solicits bids for an interim platform based on an existing aircraft.  BAC respond with a development of the export variant T.55.  This version strengthened the overwing pylons and added a pylon under each wing.  It was a two-seater, yet retained the full combat capability of the F.6 or equivalent export F.53.  Pending the development of a homegrown system, the prototype E.7 is fitted with the US-developed ALQ-99 in a fin-tip pod.  The overwing pods carry fuel in addition to the belly tank.  The underwing pylons can be fitted with additional fuel, more jamming pods, or offensive weapons (Shrike or Standard ARM, later ALARM or HARM).  The fuselage rails could still accomodate a pair of Red Tops or possibly Sidewinders for defence.

All info not drawn from my own memory came from here:
http://www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html

As for the numbering, in the AV article, the non-export Lightnings are designated as follows:

F.1
F.2
F.3/F.3A
T.4
T.5
F.6

so going sequentially, the next would be "7".  My "E" designation is conjectural.  Knowing the RAF, it might well have been "Lightning GR. whatever".  I thought of calling it the "Electric Lightning", but that's just silly.     Let me know what you think.

[KJ_Lesnick]

SPINNERS,

I actually like that derivative with the delta wings and the engines mounted on the side of the fuselage.