Uncle Dick Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The following pages of Flight International circa 1968, show some interesting loads, but what really knocked me for "six" is that one could load 1,000lb retarded bombs on the over wing pylons - how do they drop those? is it the case that they would fly off over the wing once released and not hit anything such as the tail planes (of course we know that was not a problem on the Airfix F.6 as it had no tail planes ) but jokes aside, mounting bombs over wing?????? and yes I did consider that James Bond types could simply go inverted and release... amazing what you can find in the archives of Flight International! Also check out that fuselage rocket pack... http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201765.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201766.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201772.html lastly and slightly off topic, did you ever know the RR Avon engines were offset to such a degree in the fuselage? see below page at bottom right (and to think I thought they fit snuggly next to each other vertically aligned below the tail ) http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201769.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningMk6 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The EE Lightning never had over wing pylons, over wing fuel tanks yes. If you want to find out correct information, the best bet is to visit http://www.lightnings.info where you will find all you wanted to know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Mossie105/Aircraft/LightningSaudiwithJL-100.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/EE_Lightning_F.53_418_G-AXEE_Kuw_LEB_07.06.69_edited-5.jpg Cheers, Andre Edited September 30, 2014 by Hook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Mossie105/Aircraft/LightningSaudiwithJL-100.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/EE_Lightning_F.53_418_G-AXEE_Kuw_LEB_07.06.69_edited-5.jpg Cheers, Andre Those were the proposed set ups for export customers. Whether they were ever fitted up that way by Kuwait and Saudi i don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifer54 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 https://picasaweb.google.com/107645514498566597638/53686ZF592?noredirect=1#6062293642649781826 appears to suggest that the proposed setup was demonstrated at Farnborough . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 must be a pain to load overwing-weapons anyway. I mean, what would a lift look like to put the bomb safely over the wing? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Jones Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The EE Lightning never had over wing pylons, over wing fuel tanks yes. If you want to find out correct information, the best bet is to visit http://www.lightnings.info where you will find all you wanted to know. Several trials aircraft did indeed have overwing pylons, as the photos linked show they could carry twin combines rocket pod/ fuel tanks. If one wishes to be pedantic the RAF's lightnings carried fuel tanks on overwing pylons. Andrew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningMk6 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The original post mentioned bomb pylons, these pics look like SNEB rocket pods. Maybe I should have clarified my other post by saying British Lightnings did not carry weapons on over wing pylons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) The Flight article shows proposed Bomb (and other) carrying pylons on the overwing positions. This was for the developed/improved F.53 project http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201766.html A few pages l;ater it mentions that the overwing bombs would be 'blown off' by cartridge links http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201770.html Mmm, a use for those Rocket pods from the Airfix MIrage IIIC....... Still think the most interesting Lightning weapon was the test installation of the AIR-2 Genie Edited September 30, 2014 by Dave Fleming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperService Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 All very thought provoking. Thanks for the links. Why wasn't the Sidewinder ever used? It would seem a natural choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 All very thought provoking. Thanks for the links. Why wasn't the Sidewinder ever used? It would seem a natural choice. BAe proposed a number of solutions in the early '80s that allowed the Sidewinder to be carried but none of these was ever implemented. The main reason was that when these designs were proposed, the RAF considered the Lightning to be at the end of its career. That the aircraft was only retired several years later is another story.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 How about this one: http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=183944&stc=1&d=1271672087 Jari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Why wasn't the Sidewinder ever used? It would seem a natural choice. One of my future "what-if" plans is either an old Airfix F.3 or Hasegawa F.6 with an eight-AIM-9L load - dual launchers on both the fuselage and overwing hardpoints. Bubble canopy, perhaps. Chaff / flare buckets and RWR pimples, for certain. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagRigger Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Nothing wrong with overwing stores 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I know the various armament fits were proposed - and even fitted for display - but were any of them ever actually TESTED ??? Did trials ever take place for releasing 1,000lb bombs from the overwing stores stations?? I would have thought that it would quite a bit of work to clear all the combinations for release to service - and I suspect it never happened. But.... I have been known to be wrong before!!! Ken PS - Maybe they were hoping for the buyer to pay for the trials once they had signed on the dotted line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 PS - Maybe they were hoping for the buyer to pay for the trials once they had signed on the dotted line? Not likely - EE had to pay through the nose for range facilities during the trials of air-to-ground weapons for the Kuwaiti and Saudi Lightnings. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I know the various armament fits were proposed - and even fitted for display - but were any of them ever actually TESTED ??? Did trials ever take place for releasing 1,000lb bombs from the overwing stores stations?? I would have thought that it would quite a bit of work to clear all the combinations for release to service - and I suspect it never happened. But.... I have been known to be wrong before!!! Ken PS - Maybe they were hoping for the buyer to pay for the trials once they had signed on the dotted line? Yes they were tested. In the early Sixties. I remember seeing some film of this at Farnborough in the mid -Sixties. Release of many weapons is/was done uising explosive charges to ensure clean separation. No great difference with this. What I don't recall is whether the overwing tanks used by the RAF were jettisonable in flight. I suspect they may not have been. As said elsewhere,the Lightning was always viewed by MoS as 'about to be scrapped', so little development was funded until too late. A consequence of that total clot Duncan Sandys and his treview. He was mesmersied by rockets way back from WW2 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Overwing 1000 pounders are a great example of "outside the box" thinking and a good way to make use of the Lightning's load-carrying capacity. I wonder if delivery of these had to be a careful combination of airspeed and attitude? I'm guessing that the average F-100 or F-105 pilot would have looked with considerable alarm at that arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Reasons against carrying bombs above the wing: Excessive drag compared with below-wing installations. Inaccuracy Difficulty in loading Delivery of any bombs have to be at careful combinations of airspeed and altitude, if you want to hit anything specific. Or at least at the ones fed into your aiming mechanism, but only certain ranges will be cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Loading the bombs in that configuration would have been interesting. Looks like the bomb would have to be rotated 180 degrees (onto it's back) and then lowered onto the rack by means of some type of sling. The suspension lugs certainly would have locked solidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Reasons against carrying bombs above the wing: Excessive drag compared with below-wing installations. Inaccuracy Difficulty in loading Delivery of any bombs have to be at careful combinations of airspeed and altitude, if you want to hit anything specific. Or at least at the ones fed into your aiming mechanism, but only certain ranges will be cleared. True. But where else to hang 'em on a Lightning? No room underneath except outer wings, with all sorts of structural and malfunction penalties. I have to say that trying to make a Lightning into a multi role aircraft, or a fighter bomber seemed utterly silly to most of us at the time. So clearly a pure interceptor. Good, imaginative attempt though. Not sure bombing accuracy was much degraded by over wing mounting actually. Once the release - firing - mechanism delays were understood from the trials, , relatively low level horizontal lay down or shallow dive attacks need not be significantly less accurate than any other machine's delivery - they were all fairly dreadful and heavily reliant on pilot judgement before precision guidance, which is why we needed lots of aircraft and bombs, rockets, to actually hit anything ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Agreed there was nowhere else: attempting to convert the Lightning to ground attack does count as desperation. Whilst agreeing about the inaccuracies of any such attacks, I still say that blowing them off overwing would be even less accurate. They would have a longer trajectory (bad), reach a slower speed at the top before falling (also bad) and then have to fall through the aircraft's wake, which would add yet more variables into the flight path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 As an engineer, I feel for the poor guys at BAC that tried to add ground attack capabilities to the Lightning and had to come up with similar solutions. Unfortunately the original design did not take into consideration any future development of this kind, any later addition had to overcome this "original sin". Had the specifications foreseen the potential need for a ground attack role or even a larger warload, things would have been much easier. This lack of flexibility of the Lightning was also one of the main reasons for its lack of export success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 There was one other potential export that very nearly happened. In the 80's Austria wanted an interceptor to replace their Tunnens. Enter BAe with an offer of second hand ex Saudi Lightnings. Although theirs was the cheapest quote, in order to continue the non aligned theme, they took former Flygvapnet Drakens instead. Forbidden by their neutrality to have AAM's all they would have toted would be the cannon. So all the permutations of the armament would have been superfluous. Would have looked good and have often thought of a WHIF. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Dick Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) That's what I love about it "Classic British Boffinry" at its best! When the Yanks were buying "Made in Britain" Harriers! Thank you all for your responses chaps, very informative indeed - if anyone has a photo source of a 'bomb over wing' on the Frightning that would be superb and pure gold! Just imagine the look on the faces of your local ill-informed Model Club members if you make a Frightning tooled up with 2 over wing retarded bombs, 2 under wing retarded bombs or twin SNEB packs, fuselage rocket packs or a pair of AAM's (Who's this RUDDY IDIOT putting bombs on the wing! they will say!) Saudi (in dessert camo), Kuwaiti, or an EE all silver test bird would be my pick of the bunch - but an RAF bird is not out of the question with a bit of artistic license (or perhaps a Boscombe tester!) As Billy Connolly says "I Luv it" or even an In flight Frigtning low level, with one retarded bomb just released with parachute type retard device deployed and one bomb still on the over wing while the air brakes are deployed! JagRigger thought you would like it - wonder if it was ever considered or tested on the Jag?????? After all, Sidewinders and Magics were adopted so not much of a stretch for bombs then ....as it is more the Jags trade as it were...! Cheers Edited October 1, 2014 by Uncle Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now