Register here

Author Topic: The other Lightning  (Read 6427 times)

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1072
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: 849
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.

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1130
  • 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: 849
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.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 611
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2018, 11:49:18 am »
Not heard of that one, anything you can repeat?

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2190
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #20 on: December 25, 2018, 05:54:11 am »
English Electric PL.1 is described in Chris Gibson's 'Battle Flight' pages 161-162. Based on the Lightning T.5, with a substantially lengthened ventral fairing and twin-wheel undercarriage that needed underwing fairings to accommodate the gear.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 01:41:06 am by Arjen »

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 849
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2018, 02:24:34 am »
English Electric PL.1 is described in Chris Gibson's 'Battle Flight' pages 161-162. Based on the Lightning T.5, with a substantially lengthened ventral fairing and twin-wheel undercarriage that needed underwing fairings to acommodate the gear.

But looking at the book (great work there Chris) I don't see any reference to a side by side engine arrangement. ......

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2190
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2018, 05:29:39 am »
True.
1) Here's what happened in my head: I saw PL.1 mentioned a few days ago, knew I had seen it in Chris' book. Side by side rung a bell, left it to simmer for a few days - found PL.1 yesterday with side by side crew - thought I had a match. Reread this thread, saw it was about side by side engines - sorry!
2) EECo did do side by side engines in the TSR.2 saga, its P.17 entry eventually leading to a P.22 interceptor derivative (see Battle Flight)

Offline kitnut617

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2018, 07:03:03 am »
English Electric PL.1 is described in Chris Gibson's 'Battle Flight' pages 161-162. Based on the Lightning T.5, with a substantially lengthened ventral fairing and twin-wheel undercarriage that needed underwing fairings to acommodate the gear.

But looking at the book (great work there Chris) I don't see any reference to a side by side engine arrangement. ......

Well what you need then is a CAC CA-23

(look in CAC Post War Projects thread)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2018, 07:10:40 am by kitnut617 »
If I'm not building models, I'm riding my dirtbike

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1130
  • GSATH is coming
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2018, 09:17:09 am »
Ah, I thought you were on about cockpits and intakes.

Chris

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 849
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2018, 10:09:31 am »
Ah, I thought you were on about cockpits and intakes.

Chris

In a way yes. Because it's a lot easier to develop side intakes if the engines are side by side. Making room for a solid nose.
Your pictures of the PL1 clearly show the amount of increase in cross sectional area over the original P1B.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2018, 06:36:42 am »
Ah, I thought you were on about cockpits and intakes.

Chris

In a way yes. Because it's a lot easier to develop side intakes if the engines are side by side. Making room for a solid nose.
Your pictures of the PL1 clearly show the amount of increase in cross sectional area over the original P1B.

That doesn't necessarily follow.
From Chris's excellent book I can confirm that the PL1 was a (probably too-) late development of the Lightening and didn't feature side by side engines (and the non-swing-wing proposals all seem to not have solid noises).
As such it certainly doesn't represent an alternative path-not-taken substitute for the Lightenings that actually served with the RAF (which is what you appear to be seeking).

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 849
Re: The other Lightning
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2018, 08:19:50 am »
It definitely follows that the stacked engines would make life far harder and risky to develop side intakes. The matter of intakes and their trunking is no trivial matter.

Wracking my memory I dimly reccal reading the list of EE project numbers ( EE aircraft from....I forget when to I forget) and no such side-by-side engine arrangement was explored.

This is the Alternative History and Future Speculation section.
It is entirely appropriate to set this thread here.
IF you want only history, you are in the wrong section and posting on the wrong thread.