What could the EE Lightning have achieved?

A hell of a lot more if it had the range/endurance!!??:cool:

G’day 😉

What the hell does “tiny little radar” mean? It’s what it could do that’s important and in it’s day, it was as good as anything the yanks had.

As good as the radar of the F-4, F-101 or F-106? Really? As for the climb to height record, I believe that has been held by the MiG E-266M since 1977. Not knocking in any way what the designers or operators did with the Lightning and in some respects it was of course a superlative performer, but I still maintain it was a bad idea to try to turn a research aircraft like that into a fighter. My point about the Russians was that if the Lightning had been a Soviet design instead of our own iconic Lightning,I suspect we wouldn’t judge it in quite such a favourable light.

Seems almost sacriligeous to say it, but when you think about it the Lightning was a poor design for a fighter. A nose intake meaning a tiny little radar, a fuselage largely taken up by engine ducting, that awful fuel bulge underneath, and a mid-set wing meaning a long stalky undercarriage and little wing space for fuel or pylons. I know it was derived from the P.1 which was originally conceived purely for research, but maybe it would have been better in the long run to develop a dedicated fighter from scratch. Exciting and iconic it may be, but I can’t help thinking that if the Soviet Union had built it we’d all happilly deride it as crude and unsophisticated by Western standards.

Oh ye of little knowledge. Go back to your Sex and drugs and sausage rolls. What the hell does “tiny little radar” mean? It’s what it could do that’s important and in it’s day, it was as good as anything the yanks had. Later versions had a much increased range, without increasing the size of the Bullet. As to the other points you make, just remember, it still holds the climb to height record and it succeeded in reaching/stopping all Russian attempts to get anywhere need our shores. As for them deriding it’s design, they’d have loved to get their hands on one just for material studies. Their own aircraft of the time being extremely heavy in comparison.

From what I have read of American analysis on the Lightning, they thought the aircraft performance and handling qualities were in advance of all other contemporary fighters when it was first tested. It did however, have inadequote range, inadequote radar and systems in their eyes.

…..

I have always thought that a single re-heated Avon-type engine powered Lightning could have been a good design. Yes, you would have had less acceleration potential than with a twin engined aircraft, but think of all of that extra space for fuel and better radar/avionics. It would also have been a supersonic design – think of performance somewhere between that of a Hunter and a Lightning. The Lightning also has to package a lot of internal intake ducting, that wastes a lot of internal space. The following generation of aircraft addressed this by placing the intakes away from the fuselage: F15 Eagle, F14 Tomcat, etc.

Its called the F-8 Crusader.

The Crusader’s single reheated J57-12/14 (as fitted in the F-8A/B/C from 1955 on) produced virtually identical thrust as a single reheated Avon mk.302 (10,000 lb dry and 16,900 lb reheated vs 12,690 lb dry and 16,360 lb reheated*), and the J57-20 (as fitted in the F-8D/E & modernizations of earlier versions from 1960) increased that to 10,700 lb dry and 18,000 lb reheated, with the J57-420 (RF-8G from 1965) reaching 11,650 lb dry and 19,600 lb reheated.

SFC was .85 (1.85 reheat) for the Avon 200 & 300 series, and .83-.90 (2.35 reheat)

The Crusader’s single intake duct left plenty of room in the fuselage for fuel tanks, avionics, and for a compact main gear set in the lower fuselage. The wings were fitted with with stores pylons only from the F-8D on… earlier models had only the two fuselage-side weapons stations and a rocket pack carrying 32 2.75-inch folding-fin rockets (which was lowered with the speed brake) could be fitted underneath the fuselage.

The F-8 still reached Mach 1.67 in the F-8C (1.86 for the F-8D & 1.72 for the F-8E), although with a lower acceleration and climb rate than any Lightning. The F-8C and earlier had a combat radius of 370nm, and the F-8D & later increased that to 450nm (ventral rocket pod replaced with fuel tank)

* The Lightning F.1 (1959, Mach 2.1) used the Avon 211, which produced 11,250 lb dry and 14,430 lb reheated… the F.3 and later marks (Mach 2.27) used the Avon mk.302 from 1962 on.

With the Swedish afterburner in the Draken, the Avon 29 mk67 produced 12,690 lb dry and 17,640 lb reheated.

Seems almost sacriligeous to say it, but when you think about it the Lightning was a poor design for a fighter. A nose intake meaning a tiny little radar, a fuselage largely taken up by engine ducting, that awful fuel bulge underneath, and a mid-set wing meaning a long stalky undercarriage and little wing space for fuel or pylons. I know it was derived from the P.1 which was originally conceived purely for research, but maybe it would have been better in the long run to develop a dedicated fighter from scratch. Exciting and iconic it may be, but I can’t help thinking that if the Soviet Union had built it we’d all happilly deride it as crude and unsophisticated by Western standards.

Hi Lazy8,
Sorry personal feeling is very ugly has lost all it’s allure,hell it looks like the UFO Interceptor :highly_amused: either that or its expecting twins with them side inlets 😀 just don’t suit it maybe could have worked if they widened the fuselage a little similar to the Rafael but I suppose it would change the look completely from one engine on top of each other :confused:

Geoff.

I found a better drawing on another forum (not quite half-way down this page)
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=26925.15
Although there are two doughnuts-on-cocktail-sticks on the drawing, I think another post I saw on the subject was right – ‘never went anywhere because they couldn’t work out where to put the undercarriage’.

Lazy8,
Many thanks for the back up beginning to think dementia was setting in after I posted :dev2: Any Idea what the thinking was behind the solid nose of the variable wing the view on the deskpilot post (No offence deskpilot):angel: looks more like a Transformer having a fit with all the bits hanging off it just looks ugly :highly_amused:. I am surprised that nobody came up with (What are they called slipper tanks :confused: ?) like on the Israeli F-16’s instead of the wing mounted tanks it got,having said that it was probably a good fix at the time 😀 Can you imagine if that exercise between the two types was a real scenario what would have been the outcome do you think wouldn’t have liked to explain why I ran out fuel from a dog fight but then I am no pilot so I should really keep my big trap shut :dev2::D:highly_amused:

Geoff

I remember that piece, or one very like it. It was in Flight, so should be searchable – however, their search engine is useless, so I’ve failed to find it (workmen, tools, etc., etc.) IIRC it was written by the pilot and illustrated with a full-page shot of a grey Lightning at low level over the Dales or some such. It contained something along the lines of “After half an hour of sweating and grunting at low level I allowed myself the thought that I was doing pretty well against this modern wonderjet. Then suddenly the F-16 simply disappeared. After landing, I asked the F-16 pilot what happened and he said “Oh it was getting to be a bit difficult, so I used the afterburner…” “

From what I have read of American analysis on the Lightning, they thought the aircraft performance and handling qualities were in advance of all other contemporary fighters when it was first tested. It did however, have inadequote range, inadequote radar and systems in their eyes.

Performance and handling don’t mean a great deal if you can’t reach the enemy…or can’t find him.

Hi All,
I seem to remember a piece about the lightning holding its own against some F-16 over the N.Sea when they bounced from flying low just above the waves (would love to have seen that :dev2:) can’t remember where I saw the article but made me think twice about it being a point and shoot aircraft then run away very bravely for tea and biscuit’s as one pilot put it in an interview :highly_amused:
Still no matter what such a beautiful aircraft but I wonder what pilots thoughts would be of all the different Mk’s would be and would they differ from what Mr Beaumont initially thought and of his subsequent flights in development aircraft. :confused:

Geoff.

It would appear that the P1121 could have gone on to do a good deal more than the Lightning; like so many of that time however it was cancelled.

From what I have read of American analysis on the Lightning, they thought the aircraft performance and handling qualities were in advance of all other contemporary fighters when it was first tested. It did however, have inadequote range, inadequote radar and systems in their eyes.

With 20:20 hindsight, I’m sure other options could have been explored, but in the light of the day when most aircraft projects were being cancelled we should be pleased it got made at all.

I have always thought that a single re-heated Avon-type engine powered Lightning could have been a good design. Yes, you would have had less acceleration potential than with a twin engined aircraft, but think of all of that extra space for fuel and better radar/avionics. It would also have been a supersonic design – think of performance somewhere between that of a Hunter and a Lightning. The Lightning also has to package a lot of internal intake ducting, that wastes a lot of internal space. The following generation of aircraft addressed this by placing the intakes away from the fuselage: F15 Eagle, F14 Tomcat, etc.

I have a first edition copy of ‘Phoenix into Ashes’ by Roly Beamont (the later versions have much more general detail added)
In Ch 14 he states

I had already reported within 3 months of its first flight that the Lightning would stand no chance as an export a/c unless we doubled the fuel capacity.
This development was already being schemed and although it was offered to the Air Min in 1958 it was not adopted until late 1963 when most of the Mk3’s had already been built…the retrospective mod was adopted for the Mk3 at double the cost of being included during manufacture !!

Actually I have a feeling that somebody (Bea ??) warned the design team earlier than the first P1 flight about the lack of fuel capacity but were told that the new avons would be very fuel efficient LOL

Intercepting Russian bombers in a roll? That’s a novel role! 😀

As I see it, it was built for one purpose only. To intercept incoming Russian bombers.
In that roll, it would have probably performed quite well.

As an added bonus, it was very fast and made lots of noise 🙂

That pretty much summarises it for me, as well. I haven’t really followed the previous post, but I think it probably says as much.

As I see it, it was built for one purpose only. To intercept incoming Russian bombers.
In that role, it would have probably performed quite well.

As an added bonus, it was very fast and made lots of noise 🙂

OP’s Q presumes “more”: that sales could have approached Mirage III/F-104G/MiG-21, if only EE/RR/DH and/or Ministers had done more. My A is that the boy done well; more was not realistic.

mike c starts gloom with Defence Minister Sandys…but it was Supply Minister Sandys (10/51-10/54) who created Lightning-as-UK’s-first-weapon-system. Petter’s 1947 layout solution to fast/high/brief would have been quaint without rocket or reheat boost, IR-homing AAM, and (to be) AIRPASS, which were all funded by Sandys.

So: early-1957. 50 F.1 on order. PM Macmillan accepts RAF advice that Air Defence of GB is now history: the bomber will always get through, so Deterrence is the A. SAMs plus last-ditch-intercept, to cover Medium Bombers launch-on-warning. Sandys contribution was to select Lightning to do that, so kindly stop knocking him. F.1 had neither payload nor range: Fairey or Saro folk wuz robbed. Sandys put modest payload on a platform unmaintainable by conscripts, (upper) engine change as a Mission in itself…because it was (nearly) there already, and reheat was coming along nicely, so rocket boost could be deleted. By the time F.6 was deployed, we had a weapon system…fit for one Task: dash to height to interrogate an incoming brace, but not a flock. Which is what it said on the tin. Only Saudi/Kuwait decided they had a similar Task.

The 3 types in my intro. began as one-Task specialists and became multi-role. I submit F-104G was beneficiary of all manner of non-techno. boost and I submit it was a military travesty, secret Soviet weapon. Incomprehensible that FRG recognised runway vulnerability, spent vast resources on V/STOL schemes, while deploying >750 runway huggers. So: could Mirage III’s evolution into a multi-role combat aircraft have been matched by Lightning? Well, sort of, it was: tanks to ferry to FEAF, bomb hard points/strafing belly pack for RSaAF. But Mirages were offered cheaper, quicker in build, easier in the field. The boy done good; be grateful for 338 sales, sustaining (to be) BAC Military A/c, such as to be in pole for (to be) Tornado.

Hi All,
Wasn’t it a case of those who know what their talking about not being listened too by those who think they know what they are talking about :confused: I know to my cost in the past it’s true 😀 A beautiful aircraft with so much potential reminds me of another beauty TSR2:love-struck:

Geoff.

“ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ”
— Bertrand Russell

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218267[/ATTACH]

I wonder, I wonder, I wonder.