Fairey Delta 2
- Thread starter Tube alloys
- Start date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Delta_2
For those who are confused by the thread title... no offense TubeAlloys.
BTW the FD2 was not designed to ever be capable of housing weapon systems, missiles were on the verge of becoming mainstream but afaik most fighters then used guns and the fuselage n wings don't seem to have enough space to mount internal guns.. maybe external gun pods like they did in the F4 Phantoms?
For those who are confused by the thread title... no offense TubeAlloys.
BTW the FD2 was not designed to ever be capable of housing weapon systems, missiles were on the verge of becoming mainstream but afaik most fighters then used guns and the fuselage n wings don't seem to have enough space to mount internal guns.. maybe external gun pods like they did in the F4 Phantoms?
Giving the Aviation Ministry and Ministry of Supply a kick up the arse for a start. For some reason they just weren't interested, the classic example being that it was Fairey who pushed for the 1956 attempt on the air speed record which smashed the standing record by 300 mph reaching a speed of 1,132 mph, an increase of a little over 33%, yet which Fairey had to pay for the insurance for it themselves and were charged by the government for the hire of the recording equipment and personnel. A short while later they also banned supersonic test flights in the UK which meant aircraft manufacturers often had to test their aeroplanes abroad. Looking at the comparable Dassault Mirage III - and they were comparable, I've seen illustrations of the two aircraft overlaid against one another and thanks to form following function they're incredibly similar - with the move to making it a production aircraft I think it would have come out pretty much the same. On the question of guns and missiles I don't think it would have been a problem since Dassault didn't seem to have run into any. Even before they had got a development contract for the Delta 2 they were already looking at possibly enlarged two-seater versions like the Mirage IV that grew out of the Mirage III, and then there's also the Fairey Delta 3 that was developed from it.
The two main obstacles to overcome are the ministries not really being all that enthusiastic for several reasons and the RAF starting to lean more towards heavier more high-tech aircraft than lighter ones. One idea I had was for the government to take something of an interest but either not having or not wanting to spend the money to carry on its development approach the French government about a possible collaboration. IIRC Dassault hadn't yet managed to obtain their complete stranglehold on the French aviation industry so aren't a completely insurmountable problem. I'm guessing it would probably end up being jointly-funded, either being built in both the UK and France or possibly just France depending on how tough a deal they negotiate and sold with the option of SNECMA Atar or Rolls-Royce Avon engines depending on customer choice.
Whilst this might not fully meet Tube Alloys' question it's close enough I'd say. A couple of interesting knock-ons this could throw up are the English-Electric Lightning not being developed or retired sooner as improved variants of the Fairey-Dassault Mirage take over its job and the extra revenue from its sales possibly being channelled into Fairey's missile research and development side of the company. Could throw up some interesting ideas.
FD2 w/radar.
The air ministry was again the greatest enemy, by specifying a mix of Blind Bat IR missiles and Blue Whale radar missiles, since guns were so passe. If an aircraft doesn't meet specification, it can be dismissed. If an aircraft does meet specification, it's too heavy and expensive.
The air ministry was again the greatest enemy, by specifying a mix of Blind Bat IR missiles and Blue Whale radar missiles, since guns were so passe. If an aircraft doesn't meet specification, it can be dismissed. If an aircraft does meet specification, it's too heavy and expensive.
Found the illustration I mentioned before which was from Derek Wood's Project Cancelled. Did a quick search but couldn't find any on-line copies so took a quick photograph of it with my phones camera, apologies for quality but I think it suffices for illustrative purposes.
According to the book from test flying they had already decided that the droop nose wasn't really needed and were proposing a re-designed one housing a Ferranti radar, some small changes to the wings and a pair of wing tip mounts for carrying missiles. There are also some other pictures of variants that included moving the air intakes forward and likewise with the droop nose being replaced by a fixed one the cockpit being sited forward as well. So even without joining forces with Dassault it looks as though they could have ended up with an aircraft that was similar to the Mirage if development had been continued domestically.
According to the book from test flying they had already decided that the droop nose wasn't really needed and were proposing a re-designed one housing a Ferranti radar, some small changes to the wings and a pair of wing tip mounts for carrying missiles. There are also some other pictures of variants that included moving the air intakes forward and likewise with the droop nose being replaced by a fixed one the cockpit being sited forward as well. So even without joining forces with Dassault it looks as though they could have ended up with an aircraft that was similar to the Mirage if development had been continued domestically.
Cheaper to procure / operate, more growth potential, longer legged (sans heavy drooping mechanisms = more internal space), less likely to self combust??
Regards,
Frank
Long legs is a myth, the Lightning was not much different to the Mirage III in range, and since the FD2 is almost identical in size to a Mirage III it is unlikely to be able to hold significantly more fuel. As for growth potential the Lightning had plenty but it was not taken up due to the requirements of the RAF and the limited export base, but the only combat action the Lightning saw was bombing/rocketing/strafing tribesmen by the RSAF in the late 60s.
EDIT: The FD2 had so little fuel that it ran short while still accelerating, to fix this would require a major redesign.
EDIT: The FD2 had so little fuel that it ran short while still accelerating, to fix this would require a major redesign.
Last edited:
Nominal operational radius for the F. 3 was approx 400nm (slightly less for an F. 6 assuming gun pack in the forward part of the ventral tank) whereas the Mirage IIIE could run to 550nm approx.
FD 2 as built DID have somewhat restrictive fuel capacity (a common theme for British aircraft of the period, particularly research aircraft) although this could have been increased as the basic airframe already stood, and certainly so with a redesign aimed at producing an operationally viable service variant. Certainly, the FD 2 wouldn't have seen service as was any more than the Lightning P1 progenitor did. A redesign for service would not have been an option but a necessity - check out Faireys own proposals. By the way, the fact that she was still accelerating as the fuel dwindled is usually taken to illustrate the potential of the aerodynamic design rather than the paucity of the fuel load.
As an aside, those overwing combined SNEB pods / tanks were never flown but rather offered for future development. As is documented, the RAF's F. 6's WERE flown with overwing tanks to extend the ferry range and latterly when flown by BAe as radar targets on the Foxhunter trials prior to the Tornado F. 3's service entry. So, 4 underwing SNEB pods or a couple of 1,000 pounders was the only option for ground attack. Compare and contrast with what the basic Mirage airframe was able to achieve.
Regards,
Frank
FD 2 as built DID have somewhat restrictive fuel capacity (a common theme for British aircraft of the period, particularly research aircraft) although this could have been increased as the basic airframe already stood, and certainly so with a redesign aimed at producing an operationally viable service variant. Certainly, the FD 2 wouldn't have seen service as was any more than the Lightning P1 progenitor did. A redesign for service would not have been an option but a necessity - check out Faireys own proposals. By the way, the fact that she was still accelerating as the fuel dwindled is usually taken to illustrate the potential of the aerodynamic design rather than the paucity of the fuel load.
As an aside, those overwing combined SNEB pods / tanks were never flown but rather offered for future development. As is documented, the RAF's F. 6's WERE flown with overwing tanks to extend the ferry range and latterly when flown by BAe as radar targets on the Foxhunter trials prior to the Tornado F. 3's service entry. So, 4 underwing SNEB pods or a couple of 1,000 pounders was the only option for ground attack. Compare and contrast with what the basic Mirage airframe was able to achieve.
Regards,
Frank
Nominal?
The Mirage IIIEA of the Argentine Air Force based at Rio Gallegos, some 435 nm from Stanley airfield, were forced to use two of the big ferry tanks rather than the thin supersonic tanks. Despite this big and aerodynamically draggy external fuel load which limited performance of the Mirage they were extremely limited in their time in the combat zone and their use of afterburner. All of this well inside the 'nominal' combat radius of 550 nm in actual combat.
Big ferry tanks.
thin supersonic tanks, with low drag pylon.
As for Lightning development, as I said the requirements of the RAF and limited export base meant that the ground attack capabilities were not developed. But that doesn't mean they weren't practical.
The Mirage IIIEA of the Argentine Air Force based at Rio Gallegos, some 435 nm from Stanley airfield, were forced to use two of the big ferry tanks rather than the thin supersonic tanks. Despite this big and aerodynamically draggy external fuel load which limited performance of the Mirage they were extremely limited in their time in the combat zone and their use of afterburner. All of this well inside the 'nominal' combat radius of 550 nm in actual combat.
Big ferry tanks.
thin supersonic tanks, with low drag pylon.
As for Lightning development, as I said the requirements of the RAF and limited export base meant that the ground attack capabilities were not developed. But that doesn't mean they weren't practical.
Yes, that's correct - nominal. As in: "Stated or expressed but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value".
No - one, least of all me, would suggest that those figures would apply at all flight regimes and / or under combat conditions.
But wasn't your original point that as the FD 2 has a similar airframe size to the Mirage III that the fuel fraction would be similar and, therefore, similar to that of the Lightning? (And a Lightning of any mark isn't flying a mission profile like that quoted under ANY circumstances, tanks or not, without AAR). As I stated already, the FD 2 as built didn't capitalise fully on the available atrframe space simply as no - one thought to do so. An operationally developed variant certainly would have. Take a look at Fairey's own proposals. It's also worthy of note that the early ATAR has a higher sfc than the comparable Avon and I'm sure you don't need me to point out that one Avon will use less fuel than two. Ergo....
As for the ability to develop the Lightning into ANY sort of meaningful ground attack platform, well, with THAT wing, really?? It's pretty much at the limits already for reasons of aerodynamics rather than power. It's for much the same reason that you don't see anything with a similarly high wing loading toting much other than AAM''s or the odd "Special weapon". If you ever bump into a former Marineflieger pilot, ask him just how operationally useful the F 104 would've been burdened with two Kormorans, providing, of course, you can wait ten minutes for his laughter to subside.
Regards,
Frank
No - one, least of all me, would suggest that those figures would apply at all flight regimes and / or under combat conditions.
But wasn't your original point that as the FD 2 has a similar airframe size to the Mirage III that the fuel fraction would be similar and, therefore, similar to that of the Lightning? (And a Lightning of any mark isn't flying a mission profile like that quoted under ANY circumstances, tanks or not, without AAR). As I stated already, the FD 2 as built didn't capitalise fully on the available atrframe space simply as no - one thought to do so. An operationally developed variant certainly would have. Take a look at Fairey's own proposals. It's also worthy of note that the early ATAR has a higher sfc than the comparable Avon and I'm sure you don't need me to point out that one Avon will use less fuel than two. Ergo....
As for the ability to develop the Lightning into ANY sort of meaningful ground attack platform, well, with THAT wing, really?? It's pretty much at the limits already for reasons of aerodynamics rather than power. It's for much the same reason that you don't see anything with a similarly high wing loading toting much other than AAM''s or the odd "Special weapon". If you ever bump into a former Marineflieger pilot, ask him just how operationally useful the F 104 would've been burdened with two Kormorans, providing, of course, you can wait ten minutes for his laughter to subside.
Regards,
Frank
Last edited:
My point is that in the real world the Mirage III is not significantly better than the Lightning was, or with a bit of development could have been. However in some respects such as climb and acceleration the Mirage III was drastically inferior to the Lightning. If the FD2 was going to be similar to the Mirage presumably those things would still hold true, thus the RAF would get an inferior aircraft than they did IOTL.
What good is the FD2 going to be to the RAF? The British government will be the one paying for the development and it doesn't require a lightweight fighter bomber in the early 60s.
What good is the FD2 going to be to the RAF? The British government will be the one paying for the development and it doesn't require a lightweight fighter bomber in the early 60s.
The real point is not what was a better aircraft, but what was a better warplane, and I would presume that export sales indicate that the Mirage series was the better warplane in the eyes of a lot of foreign customers. Also, the general Mirage configuration is mirrored in other later designs, while that of the Lightning seems dead-ended. A final point would be that the British aviation industry had in hand a potential success, and were forced to let it slip away by a disinterested (or worse) government establishment.
And just to be frivolous, has anyone ever considered what would have been required to make Hunter supersonic?
Indeed, I'm sure they would try, but funding from potential foreign customers means not having to say you're bankrupt. Potential foreign sales means profits, and profits are taxable. Employment means income, and income is taxable.
Even the British government is greedy, if they think about it.
Of course, it's not the company they would have, or did support. If only Richard Fairey had not bought those Curtiss engines.
But if the Lightning is the primary interceptor, and the FD 'series' becomes a more of a multi-role aircraft - which more development and export potential, then is it one or the other, or a combination of the two?
Won't it mean less need for the Jaguar and Phantom? Who knows - a FD 5 may look more like the Viggen !??
Won't it mean less need for the Jaguar and Phantom? Who knows - a FD 5 may look more like the Viggen !??
Depends upon how you define "Better". Was the Lightning better in the one specific role it was designed for (point defence of the V bomber bases)? Undoubtedly (and in case you were wondering, I'm a big fan of EE's finest). Was the Lightning better in terms of it's adaptability or operational flexibility beyond that narrow role? Absolutely not. As for the Mirage III being drastically inferior, in raw performance terms, that simply isn't the case. Sure, if you want to get to FL50 & 650 knots IAS as quickly as possible, nothing really touches the Lightning until the mid 70's but the Mirage isn't "Drastically" far behind as you state. For starters, it has an awful lot more aerodynamic lift to play with which, to a greater extent than you seem to believe, partially offsets the sheer grunt of those two Avons. Above 10,000 ft or so, the Lightning won't be achieving anywhere near the 50,000 ft/min initial climb rate and nor will the Mirage be anywhere near it's own baseline figures. The Mirage will, however, have a flatter performance curve due to the extra lift from the large delta planform. Furthermore, once it's there, a Mirage is going to be burning less fuel not only as it's one engine vs two but also because that extra lift requires less thrust to maintain altitude. Dassault didn't manage to sell 1,400 of the things without good reason you know - it wasn't drastically inferior to anything. Imagine what a militarised FD 2 might have achieved with the higher thrust and greater efficiency of the Avon in a similar airframe.
As for the RAF not requiring a lightweight fighter - bomber to replace their Venoms in the late fifties / early sixties, why then, are Hawkers converting all those Hunter F 4's & F 6's (also with range / payload issues) into FGA 9's??
I'm struggling to understand what the small radar / shit AAM's thing is all about. Had the FD 2 been developed, it wouldn't have had the Cyrano / R530 fit that the Mirage had. Rather, it would surely have had AI 23 (a small yet capable little set) and Red Top (arguably, the world's most advanced and capable AAM of ANY type, let alone IR guided in period).
I love the Lightning, I really do and I miss the thrill and spectacle of seeing them fly but, with the benefit of hindsight, I can't help but think it was the wrong (albeit the only realistic) choice of airframe. The Sandys future never came to pass - manned fighters are still with us today and as that reality became clear in the mid / late sixties, it rather left the Lightning as an evolutionary dead end with no place left to go*.
Regards,
Frank
* Really, despite the line drawings, the scale models, the VG proposals etc the airframe just isn't going any further down the development path. It's too constrained by the original design parameters and by the time development is either desirable or necessary, there are better solutions available.
As for the RAF not requiring a lightweight fighter - bomber to replace their Venoms in the late fifties / early sixties, why then, are Hawkers converting all those Hunter F 4's & F 6's (also with range / payload issues) into FGA 9's??
I'm struggling to understand what the small radar / shit AAM's thing is all about. Had the FD 2 been developed, it wouldn't have had the Cyrano / R530 fit that the Mirage had. Rather, it would surely have had AI 23 (a small yet capable little set) and Red Top (arguably, the world's most advanced and capable AAM of ANY type, let alone IR guided in period).
I love the Lightning, I really do and I miss the thrill and spectacle of seeing them fly but, with the benefit of hindsight, I can't help but think it was the wrong (albeit the only realistic) choice of airframe. The Sandys future never came to pass - manned fighters are still with us today and as that reality became clear in the mid / late sixties, it rather left the Lightning as an evolutionary dead end with no place left to go*.
Regards,
Frank
* Really, despite the line drawings, the scale models, the VG proposals etc the airframe just isn't going any further down the development path. It's too constrained by the original design parameters and by the time development is either desirable or necessary, there are better solutions available.