The EE Flattening

[jcf]

SARO take on a similar notion, all designs done under the blanket P.149 project number.

[kitbasher]

Just discovered this thread and I'm a tad dismayed by it. 

Why (and BTW I'm only kidding)? 

Because I've been gathering bits for a Tornado-based 'flat' Lightning that would stun and amaze the world with its ingenuity and novelty.  Once again, though, the forum proves that there's plenty of folk out there thinking the same thoughts at the same time!

My project will use a semi-redundant (but still unbuilt) Italeri Tornado IDS, scrap Airfix Lightning F1 and NOVO Lightning F6 parts plus the wings from the FROG F6 used for the Recce GB 'Lightning PR8'.  It wouldn't necessarily look exactly like Kit's drawing, though.  Wings would be shoulder mounted as per Tornado.

Leading on from Lee's comments about development along the EE P6/P8 lines and influenced by long hard stares at my PR8 build, in my head I've a really vivid image of a ground pounding cousin of the Lightning using A-7 Corsair II wings and tailplanes.  That could (to me at least) only work with an EE P8 fuselage with a much, much clearer cockpit canopy (a suitably treated Lightning canopy might be a good start).  Wings would be shoulder mounted to allow plenty of space for pylons/stores.  Tailplane position would remain unchanged.

Anyway, any 'Flatning' of mine is a 2022 build.  I do hope some flat Lightnings eventually appear - it'll be interesting to see how they differ (or not). 

As an aside, building the PR.8 and contemplating a flat Lightning brought home to me how stumpy the Tornado IDS/GR variant is.

[PR19_Kit]

I can see the makings of a Flattening GB here. 

I think a belly tank is vital, it's part of the Lightning's very ethos, and even a P1 looks strange without one, but I take your point about my original version being too wide Jon. But deepening the fuselage more than just a tad would defeat the object of making it 'flat' I reckon.

I also take your point Lee, about the wing needing to be higher or the weight of the ring frame would limit the climb rate to feet a fortnight.

I intend to use as much of a Lightning as possible, the Tonka fuselage is a trifle too sharp at the edges to my mind, and a Lightning's essentially rounded, or even chubby in the head-on view of the Flattening!

I'd agree with you Dave about how short a GR Tonka is, directly side on you can see exactly why the fin is so HUGE, if it was any further forward it'd be in front of the cockpit! 

[The Wooksta!]

Start with something twin engined but rounded - PM Su-15?  Geoff used it for the BAC Type 583, which would be around the same size.

Actually, two Hunter fuselages would be better, because we know they're designed around the Avon and much curvier.  Matchbox ones are ideal and rubbish as Hunters.  The wider fuselage means more fuel there, plus the u/c so that leaves the wing free, so there's no need for a belly tank, or if you do have one, it would be much smaller.

The idea of a mini GB is a good one.  Why don't we have a chat about it at Telford and go from there.

[kitbasher]

The idea of a mini GB is a good one.  Why don't we have a chat about it at Telford and go from there.

up for that 

[PR19_Kit]

Here's V 2.0, with the wings raised to the shoulder position, the fuselage deepened a bit and the belly tank the same size as the normal one. Plus I've added the Red Tops in all the views as well as the nose probe and IFR probe.

[The Rat]

Here's V 2.0, with the wings raised to the shoulder position, the fuselage deepened a bit and the belly tank the same size as the normal one. Plus I've added the Red Tops in all the views as well as the nose probe and IFR probe.

Kit, that looks like a winner!     And with the wider fuselage the side-by-side cockpit wouldn't look as out of place as on the original, maybe opening up the possibility for a 2-crew interceptor with a honking great radar and electronics suite and an operator to handle it all. Think double-sonic complement to the CF-100 Canuck. 

[scooter]

Here's V 2.0, with the wings raised to the shoulder position, the fuselage deepened a bit and the belly tank the same size as the normal one. Plus I've added the Red Tops in all the views as well as the nose probe and IFR probe.

Kit, that looks like a winner!     And with the wider fuselage the side-by-side cockpit wouldn't look as out of place as on the original, maybe opening up the possibility for a 2-crew interceptor with a honking great radar and electronics suite and an operator to handle it all. Think double-sonic complement to the CF-100 Canuck.

Or a more useful TF-102\F-102B

[The Rat]

Or a more useful TF-102\F-102B

In the Lightning's case it would be more 'use fuel'! 

[The Wooksta!]

It simply doesn't work for me.  Sorry, I just think you're too hung on Lightning.  If they're going for side by side engines, the fuselage probably won't look anything like Lightning.

If they ran the design stages as I think they would have, it would probably look like a Mirage G or UKVG fuselage but with Lightning wings and tail surfaces and probably a P8 style u/c retracting into the fuselage.  That frees up the wings for more fuel and hardpoints for either drop tanks or missiles, plus wingtip missiles (EE kept wind tunnel testing them, ruling them out for Lightning but advocating them for P8, weirdly).  Cannons - under the cockpit with ammunition tanks behind the pilot.  The larger nose means larger radar is possible at a later date.

Still, your whif, not mine.

[rickshaw]

It is an interesting idea.  The Lightning was a unique solution to the problems of drag versus the positions of the engines.  By placing them side-by-side you've made it easier to service them but you've made them more in a draggier position.  If you wanted to place them side-by-side you made it easier to put the undercarriage on the fuselage and have the wings more useful for fuel tanks and hard points as other posters have indicated. The problem then becomes whether they would need the under fuselage fuel tank.  Might be better to "deepen" the fuselage and remove source to further drag?  Then there are the missiles - they always seemed a bit of an afterthought - might it to be better to put them further back? Their position required a bigger fin, particularly when they changed from Firestreak to Redtop with it's larger fins.  Where though?  Wing tips?  Under the wings?  Fuselage sides?  Over the wings - a uniquely British solution.  Speaking of wings - where?  I personally favour high mounted ones - it allows the engines to be mounted under them.   The original position allowed the mounting of the engines above and below them.  The tail plane needs to be mounted low for control reasons.

[zenrat]

Head on it looks like a hamster.

[Pellson]

Here's V 2.0, with the wings raised to the shoulder position, the fuselage deepened a bit and the belly tank the same size as the normal one. Plus I've added the Red Tops in all the views as well as the nose probe and IFR probe.

Disregarding anything but looks, its really pretty! 
That said, The side view triggers me more than the top view, so maybe I should look at a single engined one. Not that it hasn't been done, but still.. 

Much looking forward to whatever you realise in plastic, though.

[PR19_Kit]

I (almost...) agree with everything above, but luckily this is WhiffWorld and I'll do it my way.

If only because I LIKE the way it looks like a hamster! 

[kitnut617]

Are you going to use the tank as an u/c bay then Kit ?