Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Propulsion / Liquid Piston Engine
« Last post by fredymac on Today at 02:00:05 pm »
Liquid Piston engine.  The name seems to be a marketing hook but it may relate to the way fuel/air is injected into the rotary piston as a delivery path to the combustion "nooks" built into the main housing.

They seem to be progressing slowly but steadily and are targeting military/UAV applications as commercial/automotive markets are resistant to new engine architectures and require serious financial backing.

Phase II DARPA contract for a diesel 40HP UAV engine starting at 4:30 mark.
Alternative History and Future Speculation / Re: The other Lightning
« Last post by zen on Yesterday at 02:22:53 pm »
Side-by-side was explored - in the multi-role PL.1.



Now that is intriguing.
Alternative History and Future Speculation / Re: The other Lightning
« Last post by CJGibson on Yesterday at 11:42:02 am »
Side-by-side was explored - in the multi-role PL.1.

Alternative History and Future Speculation / Re: The other Lightning
« Last post by zen on Yesterday at 09:19:43 am »
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.
Alternative History and Future Speculation / Re: The other Lightning
« Last post by Hood on Yesterday at 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.
Alternative History and Future Speculation / Re: The other Lightning
« Last post by zen on Yesterday at 08:08:30 am »
So lets get the nub here.
Lightning is not ideal.
But no UK design is.

In this light the question is what gets us most of the way and in that this concept goes a lot further than just about any other twin engined solution.

The basic concept is that there ought to have been a 'side-by-side' alternative to the P1 and that this ought to have been funded.
Yes this increases cross sectional area, for the engines and potentially extra spaces for fuel or the myriad plumbing and cables that connect everything together and which was a absolute nightmare in the stacked engine configuration of the P1.
Does that increase drag....yes
Does it matter when your engines virtually double in

Can this be further developed? Yes, just like the Lightning was and variants offered just like EE did for light Attack, Recce, etc....

But what do we get?
Easier to move to a solid nose, housing a 30" dish AI.23 and increased avionics space, which in turn makes this easier to go further. Whether that is to F.155 or F.177 with the actually developed Scorpion rocket motor

Because inlets are not a trivial side of aircraft design, and trying to do it to the stacked arrangement was fraught with risks. Too many risks.

Easier to add in a VG wing

Easier to move to say RB.153 or the early RB.172 (not the scaled down Adour)

Easier to add a ventral station, maybe for just a 300gal tank, maybe for WE.177 and thus gaining MRI much earlier at a much more affordable development cost.

Can they fit the avionics in for these options....they thought they could for stacked design, so why they would not for this is more a negativity in perception issue.

In short.
Delivers just as well to the fighter element
Delivers a short cheaper path with a solid nose to F.155, potentially to F.153
Delivers with a rocket to F.177
Delivers with Attack and Recce stories to MRI-Jaguar but earlier.
With VG and a solid nose (previously funded for F.155) delivers a potential FGR

Is it a bit Soviet......yes in way, they took what worked and developed it.
We tried jumping generations and most of the time fell at the hurdles.
Designation Systems / Re: Other ASCC/ASIC/US DoD Reporting Names
« Last post by Grey Havoc on Yesterday at 06:31:34 am »
Flat Box-A/Flat Box-B = Ranging only radar found on a number of Soviet/Russian short range air defence vehicles such as the SA-9 (initially battery commanders vehicles only) and SA-13.
Hat Box = Passive radar detection/ELINT system found on a number of Soviet/Russian vehicles including the SA-9 and SA-13. When first introduced it was initially misidentified by Western analysts as a datalink antenna system for importing early warning and target cueing information from friendly battlefield radars such as the B-76 (Gun Dish).
Please note that a number of post-Cold War sources have conflated the Flat Box and Hat Box systems.

Gun Dish = Also known as B-76. Target acquisition and fire control J/K band radar system, Soviet designation RPK-2. Found primarily on the ZSU-23-4 Shilka SPAAG. Also seen on some SA-9s replacing Flat Box, these examples were apparently issued to elite units/formations such as Guards Divisions.
Alternative History and Future Speculation / Re: The other Lightning
« Last post by kaiserd on December 07, 2018, 12:00:40 am »
Actually the first solid nose studies seem to be before the P1 flew. Tunnel models were run around the mid 50's, though my information is vague on the precise layout and the results.

As for the rest I'll have to get back to you as typing on this phone is no fun.

I’d refer you to Tony Butler’s and Chris Gibson’s excellent books in this area for the actual chain of designs and events.

And I’d point out the rather basic point that suddenly having a solid noise wouldn’t magically  turn the Lightening into what you appear to want it to be, a flexible tactical fighter.
It would remain a dedicated short range rapid climbing fast interceptor.
It wouldn’t have the avionics to do anything else and would likely be chronically short ranged if it ever tried to. And that’s before we get into its limited weapon load, and payload-to-range characteristics etc. Or the UK’s lack of better fighter radars than that already in the Lightenings of this period. Or the frankly pathetic state of the UK’s efforts to build effective radar guided air to air missiles during this time period.

And I write this as a fan of the Lightening.....
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10