Register here

Author Topic: The other Lightning  (Read 5313 times)

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2018, 09:02:37 am »
The hindsight factor is strong with this one.

This basically forgets that the P.1 has origins going back to 1948. At that time this was a supersonic research aircraft, Petter was trying to find the best solution he could with the knowledge of the time. To him stacked engines were logical to reduce the frontal area and supersonic drag and the nose intake was believed to be the best low-risk solution to getting enough air into the engines and avoiding shockwave problems. The engines he was planning for was a variant of the RA.4  (the first Tyne).
The P.3 with side intakes was never chosen and was studied during most of 1951. We can surmise whatever the results of tunnel tests were, the nose intake must still have seemed the most optimal solution, perhaps the battles with the MoS over the tail layout took priority of effort and EE wanted to avoid another clash over intakes? Its noteworthy that side intakes were discussed again in 1954, but by then the P.1s were under construction.

The conical nose intake on the P.1B was the company's idea from 1951 to enable performance to reach Mach 2. So whatever side-intake P.1s were studied were probably limited to the Mach 1.5 of the P.1 nose intake version we know today. Petter certainly didn't feel confident enough about side intakes to suggest them for a Mach 2 development.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 837
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2018, 09:19:43 am »
(sigh)
So lets reiterate.....

By the mid-50s or so, EE was pushing a developed Lightning with a ventral pack 'system', and by the late 50's this was certainly around in mockup form if not actually flown. It had certainly been tunnel tested, and I think the results fed back into what became the design of the larger ventral pack.

Not quite the same as the later curvy ventral tank and ADEN pack, but what is notable about this and that AND the early 60's Spey VG option is that all these packs certainly drive up the cross sectional area at precisely the locations that are most vital to keep as narrow as possible to conform to the 'area rule'.

Hence why I question why the side-by-side option was never explored.

Perhaps there was a institutional stubbornness and there certainly was a financial one to not change things too much from the funded research machine.
Which would have been fine had this stayed on the drawing board and say Fairey received orders for a Fighter Delta II instead.

It's a case of spoiling the ship for ha'penthworth of tar.

Online CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1105
  • GSATH is coming
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2018, 11:42:02 am »
Side-by-side was explored - in the multi-role PL.1.

Chris

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 837
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2018, 02:22:53 pm »
Side-by-side was explored - in the multi-role PL.1.

Chris

Ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that is intriguing.