Lightning with side-by-side engines

I think the intakes could be better integrated myself but the rest looks reasonable.
 
"The intake and engine instillation and design needs Time Lord technology"....

I know but, WHICH TIME LORD????????????? Serious business.
 
Rather than start a new thread, as this one has died off, I will use it to look at a more prosaic upgrade for UK Lightnings.

The Lightning in fact served the RAF rather well. But its thirsty engines and heavy Red Top/Firestreak AAMs could have been replaced as an alternative to the F4.
In particular the two fast reaction Ligjtning squadrons in Germany could have stayed in service longer.if each had received 4.Sidewinders instead of Red Top.
Could two alternative engines have replaced the Avons?
 
I've always admired the English Electric Lightning as a truly *radical* innovative design, utterly ignoring *established* conventions and breaking the mold - two jet engines staggered on top of each other instead of just side by side, swept wings with a wing tip trailing edge perpendicular to the airflow instead of parallel to it, and pylons on top of the wings instead of just underneath - there is so much innovation that went into that plane, especially considering it came from a place called English Electric, a brand name that conjures the idea of a better light bulb or vacuum...
 
Last edited:
I missed this the first time, so I have a couple of comments on the originally linked alt-history design.

First, the only thing that makes their intake placement remotely possible is the shorter length of the F414s compared to the Avon* - as they were NOT "on top/on bottom", but were staggered... with the lower engine in front of the upper! In fact, the front of the lower engine was nearly at the leading edge of the wing/body joint!

Yes, both reheat modules were stacked vertically at the rear of the aircraft, due to differing length tailpipes.

Using F414s allows the front of the upper engine to be 48" aft of the Avon, and therefore the lower would be moved that far aft, making the front of the lower engine 96" (8') aft of the Avon's front location! This barely allows the intake location shown (it would more-likely have to go a few feet forward if their proposal).

As all of the removed engine weight would be at the main wing box, fore-aft CG would not be significantly affected, which means that adding electronic equipment in the former nose intake ducting location would require weight to be added aft to compensate. But since fuel & electronics could be added in the vacated ducting & engine volume between the main wing-fuselage junction without causing any issues (and with the F414s only weighing 2/3 of what the Avons did, some 1,700lb weight will have been removed from that location), not much equipment would have to go forward.



* Avon length (300-series as in Lightning Mk3/5/6): 138" engine body
F414 length: 94" engine body


Lightning cutaway.jpg
 
uk 75 said:
Rather than start a new thread, as this one has died off, I will use it to look at a more prosaic upgrade for UK Lightnings.
Click to expand...
On reflection this is both an insult and a hijacking away from the very basis of this thread.
 
zen said:
uk 75 said:
Rather than start a new thread, as this one has died off, I will use it to look at a more prosaic upgrade for UK Lightnings.
Click to expand...
On reflection this is both an insult and a hijacking away from the very basis of this thread.
Click to expand...
I am sorry that you feel like that. I was only observing the fact that it had not been used since 2020.
By raising simpler options I have also allowed new readers to go back to the earlier discussion. This includes your side by side option.
It seems silly to me that you can in any way see this as a negative intent or outcome.
 
zen said:
uk 75 said:
Rather than start a new thread, as this one has died off, I will use it to look at a more prosaic upgrade for UK Lightnings.
Click to expand...
On reflection this is both an insult and a hijacking away from the very basis of this thread.
Click to expand...
Hello Zen, I saw that something in my post above made you angry - I apologize if you found anything in my remarks provocative or derogatory, since I meant no disrespect and am genuinely an admirer of the Lightning design. I am just fascinated by the history of English Electric, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric, since aircraft clearly fell outside its original core business.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how building aircraft was "outside their original core business"... since the company had built aircraft starting in WW1!

The only time the company had not done so was between 1926 and 1938-39.

The English Electric Company Limited (EE) was a British industrial manufacturer formed after the armistice of World War I by amalgamating five businesses which, during the war, had been making munitions, armaments and aeroplanes.
.....
Both Dick, Kerr & Co. and the Phoenix Dynamo Manufacturing Company built aircraft in the First World War, including flying boats designed by the Seaplane Experimental Station at Felixstowe, 62 Short Type 184 and 6 Short Bombers designed by Short Brothers. Aircraft manufacture under the English Electric name began in Bradford in 1922 with the Wren but lasted only until 1926 after the last Kingston flying boat was built.

With War in Europe looming, English Electric was instructed by the Air Ministry to construct a "shadow factory" at Samlesbury Aerodrome in Lancashire to build Handley Page Hampden bombers. Starting with Flight Shed Number 1, the first Hampden built by English Electric made its maiden flight on 22 February 1940 and, by 1942, 770 Hampdens had been delivered – more than half of all the Hampdens produced. In 1940, a second factory was built on the site and the runway was extended to allow for construction of the Handley Page Halifax four-engined heavy bomber to begin. By 1945, five main hangars and three runways had been built at the site, which was also home to No. 9 Group RAF. By the end of the war, over 2,000 Halifaxes had been built and flown from Samlesbury.

In 1942, English Electric took over D. Napier & Son, an aero-engine manufacturer. Along with the shadow factory, this helped to re-establish the company's aeronautical engineering division. Post-war, English Electric invested heavily in this sector, moving design and experimental facilities to the former RAF Warton near Preston in 1947. This investment led to major successes with the Lightning and Canberra, the latter serving in a multitude of roles from 1951 until mid-2006 with the Royal Air Force.

At the end of the war, English Electric started production under licence of the second British jet fighter, the de Havilland Vampire, with 1,300 plus built at Samlesbury. Their own design work took off after the Second World War under W. E. W. Petter, formerly of Westland Aircraft. Although English Electric produced only two aircraft designs before their activities became part of BAC, the design team put forward suggestions for many Air Ministry projects.

The aircraft division was formed into the subsidiary English Electric Aviation Ltd. in 1958, becoming a founding constituent of the new British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) in 1960; English Electric having a 40% stake in the latter company. The guided weapons division was added to BAC in 1963.
Click to expand...
 
BlackBat242 said:
I'm not sure how building aircraft was "outside their original core business"... since the company had built aircraft starting in WW1!

The only time the company had not done so was between 1926 and 1938-39.

The English Electric Company Limited (EE) was a British industrial manufacturer formed after the armistice of World War I by amalgamating five businesses which, during the war, had been making munitions, armaments and aeroplanes.
.....
Both Dick, Kerr & Co. and the Phoenix Dynamo Manufacturing Company built aircraft in the First World War, including flying boats designed by the Seaplane Experimental Station at Felixstowe, 62 Short Type 184 and 6 Short Bombers designed by Short Brothers. Aircraft manufacture under the English Electric name began in Bradford in 1922 with the Wren but lasted only until 1926 after the last Kingston flying boat was built.

With War in Europe looming, English Electric was instructed by the Air Ministry to construct a "shadow factory" at Samlesbury Aerodrome in Lancashire to build Handley Page Hampden bombers. Starting with Flight Shed Number 1, the first Hampden built by English Electric made its maiden flight on 22 February 1940 and, by 1942, 770 Hampdens had been delivered – more than half of all the Hampdens produced. In 1940, a second factory was built on the site and the runway was extended to allow for construction of the Handley Page Halifax four-engined heavy bomber to begin. By 1945, five main hangars and three runways had been built at the site, which was also home to No. 9 Group RAF. By the end of the war, over 2,000 Halifaxes had been built and flown from Samlesbury.

In 1942, English Electric took over D. Napier & Son, an aero-engine manufacturer. Along with the shadow factory, this helped to re-establish the company's aeronautical engineering division. Post-war, English Electric invested heavily in this sector, moving design and experimental facilities to the former RAF Warton near Preston in 1947. This investment led to major successes with the Lightning and Canberra, the latter serving in a multitude of roles from 1951 until mid-2006 with the Royal Air Force.

At the end of the war, English Electric started production under licence of the second British jet fighter, the de Havilland Vampire, with 1,300 plus built at Samlesbury. Their own design work took off after the Second World War under W. E. W. Petter, formerly of Westland Aircraft. Although English Electric produced only two aircraft designs before their activities became part of BAC, the design team put forward suggestions for many Air Ministry projects.

The aircraft division was formed into the subsidiary English Electric Aviation Ltd. in 1958, becoming a founding constituent of the new British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) in 1960; English Electric having a 40% stake in the latter company. The guided weapons division was added to BAC in 1963.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was referring to the second paragraph in the article, which states: "It *initially* (my emphasis) specialised in industrial electric motors and transformers, railway locomotives and traction equipment, diesel motors and steam turbines. Its activities were *later* (once again, my emphasis) expanded to include consumer electronics, nuclear reactors, guided missiles, military aircraft and mainframe computers."
 
But the company English Electric had, at its initial formation, incorporated two companies that had already, and at least one of which still was, for 4 years after the formation of EE, actively involved in production of military aircraft.

Therefore building military aircraft was, from the start, one aspect (of many) of EE.

Your quote of the second paragraph lacks the qualifier "exclusively" - so while EE specialized in those things, it was not those things exclusively (i.e. to the exclusion of all else).

The second sentence is a bit sloppy... it should have said "Its activities were later expanded to re-incorporate military aircraft and to add consumer electronics, nuclear reactors, guided missiles, and mainframe computers."
 
Last edited:
For those interested in English Electric, I recommend reading English Electric Aircraft and their Predecessors by Stephen Ransom and Robert Fairclough, Putnam 1987. The 1997 reprint devotes pages 1-73 to EE and its predecessors' history, a tale that starts with the 1889 sale of Joseph Wright & Co's 'Boiler Yard' to Hiram Maxim. It ends with the 1959 formation of English Electric Aviation Ltd and its intregration as BAC's Preston Division during BAC's final consolidation in 1964.
 
uk 75 said:
This has been an interesting thread. It does get me wondering what more the RAF could have done to improve its existing F2a and F6 Lightnings in the 70s.
I have a little Matchbox toy F2a which has a Sidewinder mounted each side where the Red Top was. Could that have been done easily with the real thing? would it have been worthwhile?
Click to expand...
Not sure about easily, but Sidewinders are ~180lbs, nearly half the weight of a Red Top (~340lbs).

My question is how good the seeker in Red Top was, because if it was all aspect or even rear half aspect, that big warhead makes it easier to break bombers. But if the seeker isn't any better than same-year Sidewinder, you're better off converting to carry 4x Sidewinders for roughly the same weight.

Obviously, by the time AIM9Ls are available, my vote is to install Y racks like on Crusader IIs and carry 4x all-aspect Sidewinders. But who would have thought that a mid 1950s interceptor would still be flying in the 1980s?!?


uk 75 said:
At the other end of the argument, if more money could have been found should the Lightnings have been junked in favour of F4s from 1975?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The F-4 was so much more capable as an interceptor/BARCAP fighter, even without the gun. Hang three drop tanks on the F-4, maybe 5 if the inner wing pylons are plumbed for fuel tanks, and it will have some significant loiter time.

(Side note, I would have wanted the F-4B or similar, no guns installed and still keeping the IRST)
 
Having read Tony Wilson's English Electric Lightning, Genesis & Projects, the answer to this might be simpler. The P.6 of February 1953 had a larger fuselage, English Electric stated that the increased fuselage volume would allow for a fuselage mounted undercarriage, more fuel stowage and improved weapons carriage. The book doesn't contain specific details but Dan Sharp's RAF, Secret Jets of Cold War Britain has a diagram of the slightly later P.6/2. Whilst the P.6/2 used the standard Lightning wing and undercarriage configuration it did have a larger volume fuselage and a 120 imp. gallon fuel tank is shown in the fuselage in addition to the standard Lightning wing tanks. In the P.6 with the relocated undercarriage, the undercarriage would presumably have folded into the sides of the rear fuselage between the engines (as on the P.8) so freeing up more wing space for fuel, a total load of approximately 1,000 imp. gallons seems reasonable - coincidentally the overload capacity of the P.8.

At around the same time, RAF officers visiting Warton had shown interest in the P.6 carrying four Blue Jays. If we make some assumptions about the P.6:

1. It retains the forward fuselage pylons
2. It has four underwing pylons
3. The ventral pack is still viable with the relocated undercarriage

Then we can get to an aircraft with approximately 1,600 gallons of fuel (including 610 imp. gallons in the ventral pack), able to carry six 1,000lb bombs (one under each of the outer wing pylons and two under each inner wing pylon) and a pair of Red Tops for the tactical fighter role, or 4 Red Tops for the interception role to which a pair of 260 gallon under wing tanks could be added for CAP or ferry.

I still prefer the P.1121, it has more internal fuel, but its over three years later than the P.6.
 
Last edited:
It's a valid case to make.
A quick ponder and examination of BSP diagram reminds me that the RB.106 reheat chamber is over 42" diameter....possibly the same 44" diameter as used for Medway and Spey later on.?
Far in excess of Avon's 28" or 33.8" options.
This would obviously drive a larger diameter fusilage to house it, although of less cross sectional area than the twin Avon fusilage designs.
As is....a bit of a Soviet style development and in dire need of a solid nose for a proper military system.
But easier in theory to maintain.

As an aside, when one looks at the likes of Type 584, when wings sweep back to 'normal' maximum sweep of 60 degrees the planform looks somewhat like the Lightning with side inlets.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not sure about easily, but Sidewinders are ~180lbs, nearly half the weight of a Red Top (~340lbs).

My question is how good the seeker in Red Top was, because if it was all aspect or even rear half aspect, that big warhead makes it easier to break bombers.
Click to expand...
In coffee-table books, Red Top is described as all-aspect - but everything I've picked up around this forum suggests that this was a best-case against an oncoming enemy supersonic bomber that's generating plenty of surface friction.

Red Top is probably better in seeker terms than most early marks of Sidewinder. My recollection of BSP4 is that someone described Firestreak as better than Sidewinder but not (at that time) yet in service, and Red Top is better still.

Red Top is not much smaller than Sparrow, and the warhead (68lb) is a fraction heavier than in contemporary versions of the American missile (I recall a figure of 66lb). I'm not sure Sidewinder's warhead is much above 25lb in current versions, and I think AIM-9B's was even smaller (I recall a figure of 10lb).

The problem with carrying multiple Sidewinders as per Crusader is that while the Crusader's side racks are fitted to the fuselage proper, the Lightning's missiles are mounted on a drop-out pack that slots into the belly (one for Firestreak and a different one for Red Top) and handles things like liquid nitrogen supply to the seeker and an interface to talk to the missile and slave the seeker before launch. Does that pack have enough structural strength to take the weight plus the extra drag of not only the missiles but also the rail? Then there's the development time required to work up a pack to allow the AI.23 to talk to Sidewinder (I can't remember how far Sidewinder got in development before the seeker could be slaved to the target).
 
pathology_doc said:
Red Top is not much smaller than Sparrow, and the warhead (68lb) is a fraction heavier than in contemporary versions of the American missile (I recall a figure of 66lb). I'm not sure Sidewinder's warhead is much above 25lb in current versions, and I think AIM-9B's was even smaller (I recall a figure of 10lb).
Click to expand...
If you think of Red Top as an AIM-7C Sparrow with an IR seeker, you're not a million miles off. Six years later in service, but that's not unusual for UK counterparts to US weapons systems.
 
Visually speaking...that over-under set up is jarring.

Side-by-side perhaps a bit like a SuperSaber?
 
Yellow Palace said:
If you think of Red Top as an AIM-7C Sparrow with an IR seeker, you're not a million miles off. Six years later in service, but that's not unusual for UK counterparts to US weapons systems.
Click to expand...
That's a useful idea to me. For whatever reason, my brain keeps seeing "IR guided missile" and thinks "200lb guided Zuni" aka Sidewinder, not anything bigger.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom