EE Lightning

[Weaver]

22nd May 1962 First flight of T.4 lightning XM997 flown by Desmond Devilliers:



Original tweet here: https://twitter.com/lightningotd/status/734478014273179648

[Captain Canada]

Oh my that's gorgeous !

[PR19_Kit]

Is that right?

Would it have left Warton already painted up in its Squadron colour scheme? IIRC they were usually applied at squadron level.

[Gondor]

Is that right?

Would it have left Warton already painted up in its Squadron colour scheme? IIRC they were usually applied at squadron level.

My understanding is the same as your Kit. First stop would be an MU then to the airfield it was to fly from and then to the squadron it was to fly with which it may have been allocated to before it left the MU. Only after it had reach the squadron it was to operate with would anything such as squadron markings have been applied.

Gondor

[Weaver]

Is that right?

Would it have left Warton already painted up in its Squadron colour scheme? IIRC they were usually applied at squadron level.

Having done a little on-line research, I tentatively agree.

I've asked the tweeter the question.

[jcf]

According to English Electric Aircraft and Their Predecessors, 22 May, 1962 was indeed the first flight date for XM997,
however I agree with Kit that it's unlikely that she was in Lightning Conversion Squadron and 226 OCU livery at that point.

[Weaver]

Is that right?

Would it have left Warton already painted up in its Squadron colour scheme? IIRC they were usually applied at squadron level.

Having done a little on-line research, I tentatively agree.

I've asked the tweeter the question.

Got an answer: according to the original Tweeter, his tweet was to commemorate the anniversary of the first flight (it was posted on the 22nd) but he doesn't claim the pic to be actually of that flight: it's just the best pic of XM997 that he could find. Having looked for pics of it myself, I can confirm that there don't seem to be any online of it in plain silver. If it had been a forum post he could have explained all that, but with Twitter's 140 character limit...

[PR19_Kit]

Ah right, all is clearer now. 

It does look VERY good in that scheme nonetheless. 

[TallEng]

So I've recently acquired the Freightdog E.E. Lightning FGA proposal resin conversion set for the Airfix new tool Lightning kit. In the notes provided by Colin it states that the project would update early lightning marks to F.3A (visually F.6) standard with ground attack capability by means of a new ventral weapon pack; apparently the brochure then outlines the following;
1: 600 gallon ventral tank with alternative interchangeable armament packs in the center section of the ventral tank.
2: Lightning F.6 external ducts
3: fitting of cambered wing leading edge and squared off vertical fin.
4: provision for inflight refueling but not for carriage of over wing drop tanks
5: Removal of gun armament, leaving the bay's and blast tubes available for additional avionics and cable ducts
These last two items I found quite suprising, no guns and no over wing stations, would leave you with a Lightning with only two weapon stations, Not a lot......
Now normally I would be digging into my reference books etc, but sadly I'm pretty badly off for Lightning reference.
Only having RAF Aircraft today:2 Lightning by Arthur Reed published 1984, And Lightning by Bryan Philpott also published in 1984
I do however have the On target plus Profile 13 E.E. Lightning in worldwide service (Aviation workshop publications) (good for colour schemes)
And Battle Flight which has some illustrations of the Ground attack Lightning, although funnily enough they are all two seaters.
Can anybody suggest the definitive Lightning book? Or books to add to my already groaning library shelves?
Or of course if you have further info on that 1960's brochure....
Thanks
Keith

[Mossie]

I'm guessing that if they based it on the F.3A, that eventually a version based on the F.6 would materialise, IIRC the only differences were the guns and overwing tanks.

I'm assuming the 2in rocket packs were retained so that would make up a bit for the lack of pylons.  That'd give a potential load of 120 rockets if you carried four on the pylons, and a very impressive 196 if you base it on the F.6.

[PR19_Kit]

Perhaps it depended on which airframe they started with if it could carry over-wing tanks or not?

IIRC only the new build F6s could do that, even the F2As didn't have the internal strengthening or pipework for them.

[Captain Canada]

Let's see some pics !

[Weaver]

They needed the gun bays and missile pack space for an inertial nav/attack system. These were quite a bulky affair in the 1960s and the Lightning was notoriously short on black-box space. Although the proposals show iron bombs, Bullpups and AS.30s, you have to suspect that these are unclassified 'place-holders' for the  really important warload, which would have been one or two WE.177 tac-nukes, in which case having more pylons wouldn't matter much.

As Kit says, the earlier version wings didn't have hardpoints and piping for wing pylons and drop tanks. You might imagine a modification to the scheme that saw the old fuselages fitted with new-build F.6 wings that would give them both overwing drop tank pylons and F.53-style underwing ones near the tips.

[TallEng]

Well I've been looking into it further, and the more you look, the less likely a project to succeed it seems.
Put forward as a Ground attack conversion of Older, earlier marks of Lightnings within a reasonable (N.B.)
budget. I had a look to see what might be  involved.
1. the Airframes suggested are F.1, F.1A and F.2, So that's 19 F.1, 28 F.1A and 44 F.2 (I've not taken into account Airframes used for trials etc, or even in service losses) out of the 44 F.2's 32 were converted to F.2A, which gives a (max) grand total of 59 Airframes to convert to FGA.3 standard.That's possibly enough for three squadrons plus Spares for major maintenance and Attrition replacements. However allowing for trials Airframes and early in service losses before the F.1 and F.1A were replaced, we are probably only looking at enough Airframes being available for two Squadrons plus Spares/servicing.
Just did a rough count up of Airframe losses using Bryan Philpotts' book and I have a total of 18 (including two serials not built)
However, if their Airships did like the idea, maybe these conversions could be seen as an early stop gap filler until the 'real deal' could be built, which could have been based on the F.53 as produced for the Saudi's or the two seat PL.1 concept as shown in the Battle Flight* book.
These are my thoughts and there are of course many real world reasons why the above wouldn't have happened.
However two and a bit Squadrons of  Lightning FGA.3 would allow me to rearm the Aden Strike wing
I'd send 43Sqn home to the UK to Fly Lightning F.6 at Leuchars. Keep 8Sqn and 208Sqn as dual roll Fighter/Ground Attack units, leaving 1417 Flt giving photo recce support to the other two Lightning Squadrons and the Army up country. (they would of course be using PR roled Lightnings) Lightning FGA(PR)3? or more likely FGR.3?
Regards
Keith
(still looking for a good Lightning reference book)
N.B. define reasonable
*Battle Flight RAF Air Defence Projects and Weapons Since 1945 by Chris Gibson (its V. good though you will alternately laugh out loud/throw the book at the wall as you read it....)
published by Hikoki ISBN 9 781902 109268

[NARSES2]

Like the idea of keeping them all in one wing, and especially in Aden  . Do I see a desert camouflage scheme in the offing ?