EE Lightining what-if thread
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
That's the cutie I was hoping for, when I've suggested that 1-engined 'Lightning lite' is made instead of the OTL Lightning.
Vickers/BAC schemed that many VG things it is difficult to keep track of the numbers and what they were for, not to mention the differing iterations within a specific type.
I’ve seen a VG Swift drawing but I don’t recall downloading it or even where I saw it. I think the pivot is outboard of the u/c.
One of the criticisms of P8 by the MoS was that it didn’t have inbuilt rocket boost. All the other F.155 contenders did, although those fitted to the Hawker P.1103 were detachable. The Double Scorpion pack would do to answer that.
P6 would have had the wings shoulder mounted rather than mid fuselage. Had they been mid mounted there would have been weight penalties.
Yes, there were some engine fires, it was a very cramped installation that was difficult to work on, but saying "spontaneous combustion" is over egging the pudding by a wide margin. It's not like they were Heinkel He 177s...
I have the histories of all Lightnings built, but not to hand, so could quickly ID those lost. If it's any higher than 10℅ I'd be amazed. I know one of the early ones was written off after Mercury spillage following a hard landing on its delivery flight. It had less than three hours on the clock...
I have the histories of all Lightnings built, but not to hand, so could quickly ID those lost. If it's any higher than 10℅ I'd be amazed. I know one of the early ones was written off after Mercury spillage following a hard landing on its delivery flight. It had less than three hours on the clock...
I read a couple of old Friteninig hands on PPRUNE who had flown and serviced them. Engine fires were the main source of emergencies and hull loss.
This is the Wiki page for losses only, it won't include any that made it down in one piece or had an emergency on the ground not resulting in a aircraft loss.
Yeah that's pretty much what I go for as well. It's a nice looking aircraft.
English Electric P.8 Proposal
The RB.106, as I understand things Thames being an Internet invented name, is an interesting one. The aim was for a drop-in Avon replacement generating thrust of 15,000 lbf dry and 20,750 lbf with reheat. Assuming that they met those goals and the specific fuel consumption is acceptable that would be roughly a 18% and 26% improvement in thrust respectively over the 301 in our timeline.
Why go through the extra steps? Just buy Mirage III jets but specify that they be fitted with British equipment. Assuming that Rolls Royce were successful with their design aims for the RB.106 it looks as though it would be smaller than the Atar engine. I'm sure there would be some changes required such as mounting points, but nothing as major as with the F-4K. It might even generate some interest from Mirage buyers who want to upgrade.
The name Thames for RB106 came from author and researcher Tony Buttler, mentioned in the first volume of British Secret Projects. He's not the type to make it up. It was apparently interchangeable with Avon.