Zen9
Banned
This a fairly simple scenario that might resolve around a fairly simple conversation quite early in the story of the Lightning.
Firstly the scene.
English Electric tenders to the research into supersonic flight (Er.103) in November 1948. The P.1 was being born.
April '49 extensive tunnel testing and a mockup authorised.
Spe. F.23/49 and OR.268 was written around the revised tender of Feb '49. Issued May that year.
All it would take now is for someone to note how the jet engine was increasing in power thoughout the early 50's and the examinations into extra fuel tanks 'scabbed on', which would become the famous belly tank of later marks of the military fighter......
And right during this someone should have asked the obvious Area Rule Question.
Because to achieve the requirement, the design had stacked the engines and placed one behind and ever slightly overlapping the other. This cut Cross Sectional Area down that bit more to achieve the figures they wanted.
But at a cost.
The engine installation of the Lightning was terrible from a maintenance perspective and the stacked engine arrangement made certain alterations for later developments much more risky.
But once you start increasing Cross Sectional Area with those scabbed on fuel tanks, it all blows the original reason for why the engines are like that. This increase in CSA was obviously overcome by improvements in the inlet, reheat chamber exhaust nozzle and the engine itself.
All further undermining the reason for that engine arrangement.
So spool back and have someone say just in passing "why bother with that when for similar CSA you can have side-by-side engines and stuff the fuel in parts of the fuselage?"
Bingo!
Side-by-side and removable from beneath the aircraft, easy thanks to the main gear location.
Side-by-side making the internal systems easier to access.
Side-by-side making a solid nose version a lot less risky.
Suddenly you have a series of knock on effects that change things utterly....
Call it the P.1C
Having come up during the discussions in 11 July '51
P.1C is ordered over the P.1B...why? More potential as a military machine. This with the circular inlet and shock cone centerbody.
20 machines?
Risky? Yes but not as much as you might think. P.1 is validating the wing and tail and general layout bar the engine arrangement. So this is less of a step that it seems.
Come '53 EE would propose a P.6/2 with the side-by-side layout and twin RB.106 to Er.134T.
In OTL this was won by Bristol with the T.188 which proved a failure and also proved building with steel wasn't worth it.
Fly-able with Avons or Sapphires until the new engine is available and also modify-able for the new Gyron Junior. RAE will push for all steel airframe.
The engine installation means changes to the accommodate ASM's P.176 or RR's RB.127 are quite feasible. This mates with the rational for the research aircraft and it's relationship with the supersonic bomber, won by Avro's 730.
Winning 28 August '53. Construction is slow, but not as slow as Bristol that one OTL. After all this is a modifed P.1C with a increase in diameter for the larger reheat chambers and built of steel.
Flight might thus be earlier than '62....
Come '54 and the second tunnel testing of side inlets on the 'new' engine arrangement this will prompt EE to make a submission to F.155T in '55 likely a side inlet version of the ER.135T miltarised. This differs from the OTL P.8 in engines and their arrangement, as well as inlets. With the 30" dish AI.18 'Lightweight' set expected. A rocket motor and fuel tank could be added along the centerline, available in such an engine arrangement.
Assuming it 'wins' in 27 March '56 then further tunnel testing and a mockup are being funded and a rocket driven shape is fired off from Larkhill test range on 25 Oct '56. Reaching mach 1.4 and mach 1.8.
Then the Sandystorm, the 1957 Defence White Paper. Closes F.155T, but not in this scenario all the research
----
By August '54 the P.1 is flying and proving the aerodynamics of the wing, tail general features of the this design.
P.1C is flying by April '57.
On 25 November 1958, a P.1C fitted with early afterburning Avons exceeded Mach 2.
Solid nose side inlets having been proven, even if with thirsty Gyron Juniors, makes the transition to a Javelin FAW replacement an easy process by '61.
Delivery F.1 in '59, Squadron 74 IOC '61. Around the time F.1A's are being delivered.
Solid nose side inlet version ordered as F.3 in '62, stepping stone to FAW mk1. This with just a bigger dish AI.23....
By this time Ferranti was finally getting a grip on adding an illuminator to the monopulse set and at least two options of SARH seeker for a improved Red Top were proposed.
At 1960 the mutlirole PL.1 studies begin. Based on the twin seater, but crucially in this timeline changing either for the RB.168 Spey or the RB.153 engines.
The Spey's reheat chamber is close in diameter to the RB.103 (no coincidence) making the transition a lot easier as most of the design work and calculations are already done.
In '61 BAC is studying the use of VG on various existing aircraft, Type 588 includes the use of VG on the Lightning.....
RAF's needs for MRI strike with tactical nukes is driving their side of NMBR.3. The failure of the process, still leaves the P1154 'Harrier', but the RN has an alternative......and by '64 opts for the VG solid nose Lightning over the F4K ordering 140 aircraft.
Why? Because it's much more a known quantity than in OTL. Essentially the FAW with radar Red Top is already funded 'post-sandys', along with the enhanced AI.23 set.
RAF accept that for MRI, since VG gives the short field capability wanted and it's a simple extension to the existing stocks of Lightning.
And here's the hidden saving.....training is a simpler process across the varying marks of Lightning, and maintenence is simpler, easier and cheaper thanks to the great deal with commonality between various marks of Lightning. Resulting in lager production of common parts, resulting on lower unit costs....
Firstly the scene.
English Electric tenders to the research into supersonic flight (Er.103) in November 1948. The P.1 was being born.
April '49 extensive tunnel testing and a mockup authorised.
Spe. F.23/49 and OR.268 was written around the revised tender of Feb '49. Issued May that year.
All it would take now is for someone to note how the jet engine was increasing in power thoughout the early 50's and the examinations into extra fuel tanks 'scabbed on', which would become the famous belly tank of later marks of the military fighter......
And right during this someone should have asked the obvious Area Rule Question.
Because to achieve the requirement, the design had stacked the engines and placed one behind and ever slightly overlapping the other. This cut Cross Sectional Area down that bit more to achieve the figures they wanted.
But at a cost.
The engine installation of the Lightning was terrible from a maintenance perspective and the stacked engine arrangement made certain alterations for later developments much more risky.
But once you start increasing Cross Sectional Area with those scabbed on fuel tanks, it all blows the original reason for why the engines are like that. This increase in CSA was obviously overcome by improvements in the inlet, reheat chamber exhaust nozzle and the engine itself.
All further undermining the reason for that engine arrangement.
So spool back and have someone say just in passing "why bother with that when for similar CSA you can have side-by-side engines and stuff the fuel in parts of the fuselage?"
Bingo!
Side-by-side and removable from beneath the aircraft, easy thanks to the main gear location.
Side-by-side making the internal systems easier to access.
Side-by-side making a solid nose version a lot less risky.
Suddenly you have a series of knock on effects that change things utterly....
Call it the P.1C
Having come up during the discussions in 11 July '51
P.1C is ordered over the P.1B...why? More potential as a military machine. This with the circular inlet and shock cone centerbody.
20 machines?
Risky? Yes but not as much as you might think. P.1 is validating the wing and tail and general layout bar the engine arrangement. So this is less of a step that it seems.
Come '53 EE would propose a P.6/2 with the side-by-side layout and twin RB.106 to Er.134T.
In OTL this was won by Bristol with the T.188 which proved a failure and also proved building with steel wasn't worth it.
Fly-able with Avons or Sapphires until the new engine is available and also modify-able for the new Gyron Junior. RAE will push for all steel airframe.
The engine installation means changes to the accommodate ASM's P.176 or RR's RB.127 are quite feasible. This mates with the rational for the research aircraft and it's relationship with the supersonic bomber, won by Avro's 730.
Winning 28 August '53. Construction is slow, but not as slow as Bristol that one OTL. After all this is a modifed P.1C with a increase in diameter for the larger reheat chambers and built of steel.
Flight might thus be earlier than '62....
Come '54 and the second tunnel testing of side inlets on the 'new' engine arrangement this will prompt EE to make a submission to F.155T in '55 likely a side inlet version of the ER.135T miltarised. This differs from the OTL P.8 in engines and their arrangement, as well as inlets. With the 30" dish AI.18 'Lightweight' set expected. A rocket motor and fuel tank could be added along the centerline, available in such an engine arrangement.
Assuming it 'wins' in 27 March '56 then further tunnel testing and a mockup are being funded and a rocket driven shape is fired off from Larkhill test range on 25 Oct '56. Reaching mach 1.4 and mach 1.8.
Then the Sandystorm, the 1957 Defence White Paper. Closes F.155T, but not in this scenario all the research
----
By August '54 the P.1 is flying and proving the aerodynamics of the wing, tail general features of the this design.
P.1C is flying by April '57.
On 25 November 1958, a P.1C fitted with early afterburning Avons exceeded Mach 2.
Solid nose side inlets having been proven, even if with thirsty Gyron Juniors, makes the transition to a Javelin FAW replacement an easy process by '61.
Delivery F.1 in '59, Squadron 74 IOC '61. Around the time F.1A's are being delivered.
Solid nose side inlet version ordered as F.3 in '62, stepping stone to FAW mk1. This with just a bigger dish AI.23....
By this time Ferranti was finally getting a grip on adding an illuminator to the monopulse set and at least two options of SARH seeker for a improved Red Top were proposed.
At 1960 the mutlirole PL.1 studies begin. Based on the twin seater, but crucially in this timeline changing either for the RB.168 Spey or the RB.153 engines.
The Spey's reheat chamber is close in diameter to the RB.103 (no coincidence) making the transition a lot easier as most of the design work and calculations are already done.
In '61 BAC is studying the use of VG on various existing aircraft, Type 588 includes the use of VG on the Lightning.....
RAF's needs for MRI strike with tactical nukes is driving their side of NMBR.3. The failure of the process, still leaves the P1154 'Harrier', but the RN has an alternative......and by '64 opts for the VG solid nose Lightning over the F4K ordering 140 aircraft.
Why? Because it's much more a known quantity than in OTL. Essentially the FAW with radar Red Top is already funded 'post-sandys', along with the enhanced AI.23 set.
RAF accept that for MRI, since VG gives the short field capability wanted and it's a simple extension to the existing stocks of Lightning.
And here's the hidden saving.....training is a simpler process across the varying marks of Lightning, and maintenence is simpler, easier and cheaper thanks to the great deal with commonality between various marks of Lightning. Resulting in lager production of common parts, resulting on lower unit costs....
Last edited: