EE Lightning

[MAD]

The engine access panels are from the original P.8 drawing that my chin-intaked version is based.  No idea if they are on the Lightning.   Perhaps someone else can help?

I don't think it has a particularly narrow undercarriage track - no narrower than say the F-104 and other fuselage mounted undercarriage jet fighters.

As for Blue Dolphin aka Blue Jay, both were apparently a real proposal for for a BVR missile based on the Red Top airframe.   Silver Cloud models apparently offer a P.1154 armaments set in 1/72 which contains a few examples of them.

A belated thanks for your reply Rickshaw!

no narrower than say the F-104 and other fuselage mounted undercarriage jet fighters.

True - but the Starfighter had  a much lower profile and lower centre of gravity! (not trying to split hairs mate  )

M.A.D

[MAD]

Yes, those are the 'normal' engine access panel positions on a Lightning. The lower engine is forward of the upper one, but the hatch is quite difficult to see as it's usually covered by the belly tank.

Thanks for the confirmation my friend

M.A.D

[Pablo1965]

Is a completely tesis about the Lightning with delta wing. I like very much. I was thinking in a double delta with an airfix 1/48 but now seems an old idea,

[Weaver]

 Any attempt to mount missiles in places other than the the foward fuselage stations resulted in a big fall off in performance.  

Hard to imagine how six Sidewinders, two fuselage, two underwing and two overwing would have caused a problem, given the weight that the wing stations could carry. I know that they studied two Sidewinders per fuselage station (F-8 style) and Sparrow on the fuselage and both those caused extra drag.

[Hobbes]

The weight wasn't the problem, drag was.

[rickshaw]

The weight wasn't the problem, drag was.

Why?  The twin Avons of the Lightning didn't make it a particularly wimpy fighter so why would the drag of extra Sidewinders have affected it so much when it was a penalty that other fighters were able to put up with?

[rickshaw]

two on the overwing tossed free of the aircraft by an explosive charge

Not sure I'd want to be the pilot who tested that...

[Weaver]

The weight wasn't the problem, drag was.

Why?  The twin Avons of the Lightning didn't make it a particularly wimpy fighter so why would the drag of extra Sidewinders have affected it so much when it was a penalty that other fighters were able to put up with?

Quite. I could imagine some bizzare turbulence issue arising from having two Sidewinders on a fuselage Y-pylon (not to mention loss of lateral stability), but I can't see it for the wing stores. Is a Sidewinder really much draggier than a pair of 1000lb bombs or JL100 pods? 

[Hobbes]

I think the difference is that in the AA role, the Lightning was supposed to operate at supersonic speeds. For AG, subsonic was enough.

Drag plays a more significant role at higher speeds. And while the Lightning may still be capable of high speeds when loaded up, the fuel consumption increases, possibly to the point where you can't meet the specified interception range.

[Mossie]

 Any attempt to mount missiles in places other than the the foward fuselage stations resulted in a big fall off in performance.  

Hard to imagine how six Sidewinders, two fuselage, two underwing and two overwing would have caused a problem, given the weight that the wing stations could carry. I know that they studied two Sidewinders per fuselage station (F-8 style) and Sparrow on the fuselage and both those caused extra drag.

I'm not sure of the exact reasons why, but the Lightning was plagued by any changes causing excess drag.  I guess it was due to fact it was so finely tuned, a trademark of Petter designs.  When the armament was changed from Firestreak to Red Top, it necessitated a whole redesign of the fin shape in the form of the F.3.

two on the overwing tossed free of the aircraft by an explosive charge

Not sure I'd want to be the pilot who tested that...

I've always thought putting another small bomb next to a bigger one was bad idea, but I vaguely remember Kit or somebody on here saying it's fairly standard practice!   From what I can gather, the arrangement worked quite well.

[rickshaw]

two on the overwing tossed free of the aircraft by an explosive charge

Not sure I'd want to be the pilot who tested that...

I've always thought putting another small bomb next to a bigger one was bad idea, but I vaguely remember Kit or somebody on here saying it's fairly standard practice!   From what I can gather, the arrangement worked quite well.

I'd be rather worried about how the bomb is going to not end up being dragged along in my slipstream or wobble about so much while departing it that it might hit my aircraft.  I'm sure the the target must also be rather relieved by how inaccurate this particular method of bomb delivery would be.

[Hobbes]

When the armament was changed from Firestreak to Red Top, it necessitated a whole redesign of the fin shape in the form of the F.3.

I thought the fin redesign was due to a lack of stability at high speeds. When the F.3 design allowed for higher speed than the previous marks, something had to be done to make those speeds safe enough to use.

[Mossie]

I'd be rather worried about how the bomb is going to not end up being dragged along in my slipstream or wobble about so much while departing it that it might hit my aircraft.  I'm sure the the target must also be rather relieved by how inaccurate this particular method of bomb delivery would be.

The charge should toss it high enough to clear the aircraft, I can't imagine they would be delivered by this method if there was a large risk of ordnance striking the aircraft.  Any difference in course of the bombs is probably incorporated into the pilots training.  Maneouvering limits may apply but I would expect it all to be factored in.

I thought the fin redesign was due to a lack of stability at high speeds. When the F.3 design allowed for higher speed than the previous marks, something had to be done to make those speeds safe enough to use.

This excerpt from BSP Hypersonics:

Red Top's influence on the Lightning was not just on it's capability, it changed the shape of the aircraft.  Lightning F.3 & F.6 fitted for Red Top needed additional fin area to maintain stability, producing the square top fin characteristic of these types.

[Hobbes]

Interesting. I was going by the Wikipedia article, which states:

Another basis was aerodynamic stability. As Mach number increases, directional stability decreases. This decrease in stability can become critical with asymmetric missile carriage or adverse yaw induced by aileron deflection. Failure of the vertical fin could occur if yaw is not rapidly corrected with the rudder.[nb 2] Stability degradation led to the imposition of Mach limits on missile launch[nb 3] and to the adoption of a larger vertical fin on later Lightning variants to provide more stability margin at high Mach numbers.[10]

[Daryl J.]

Norwegian.
Canadian.
Any Mark.