Giorgio N Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I hit a hurdle while building my Matchbox kit for the Lightning STGB: here the bulges for the gun equipped tank are misplaced, being almost 10 mm too far forward.Now I'm thinking of the possible options and one of them would be to sand these off and reproduce a gunless F.6.... however, I'm not sure this would be enough ! The shape of the F.6 tanks with and without guns don't look to be the same to me in the front area. The gunless tank looks flatter there with the gun equipped tanks more bulbous. Is this an effect of the lack of bulges and gun throughs or is this actually the case on the real Lightning ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) I hit a hurdle while building my Matchbox kit for the Lightning STGB: here the bulges for the gun equipped tank are misplaced, being almost 10 mm too far forward. Now I'm thinking of the possible options and one of them would be to sand these off and reproduce a gunless F.6.... however, I'm not sure this would be enough ! The shape of the F.6 tanks with and without guns don't look to be the same to me in the front area. The gunless tank looks flatter there with the gun equipped tanks more bulbous. Is this an effect of the lack of bulges and gun throughs or is this actually the case on the real Lightning ? Georgio. I answered a similar question sometime back and illustrated it to show what I meant. There was a distinct difference in cross section and partial profile between the "No.1 engine hatch tank", as it was known, and the "combined engine hatch tank/gun pack". Give me half hour and I'll search through this new Mac and sort out the illustrations and explanation and re-post. Dennis Edited October 20, 2014 by sloegin57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 Thanks Dennis, you are confirming my fears ! Sounds like I have to find a way to move the bulges on my model.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) OK Giorgio. This shot shows a "gun tank" installed on an F6. Note the flat area on the underside front and the cross section delineated by the trestle markings:- This next shot shows the more rounded shape of the Number 1 engine hatch tank, again the cross section is delineated by the trestle markings:- Although the front tanks of either sort were the same width, the "gun tank" was slightly more portly at the lower sides. In side profile the two tanks were virtually identical. One other mater. To enable the guns to fit inside the reshaped tank and also that the feeds were accessible for cocking, the two guns were not "side-by-side". See attached from the course notes and although not mentioned, the two access doors were similarly displaced, at least on the F.Mk.53:- Most drawings of the Lightning internals show the guns side-by-side, this is the only one that I have that shows the actual configuration but bear in mind that the gun muzzles on the front of the tank were side-by-side I have not checked out the new Airfix F.Mk.6 but none of the other kits show this. The "gun-tank" from the F.Mk.53 (which was based on the F.Mk.3A which later evolved into the F.Mk.6) was later adopted for the F.Mk.6 after the RAF found out how useful it was. Originally, the F.Mk.6 was intended to a be pure missile aircraft. HTH Dennis Edited October 20, 2014 by sloegin57 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Didn't all 'operational' F6's have the ventral cannon? the aircraft with large ventral tank with no cannon were F2a's?? Having their cannon in the nose?? . . . Kes (bit of a Lightning fan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Thanks for posting this info, Dennis and thanks to Giorgio for asking the question. It's very helpful to see the differences so well illustrated and intriguing to learn of the cannon pack history. cheers, Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Didn't all 'operational' F6's have the ventral cannon? the aircraft with large ventral tank with no cannon were F2a's?? Having their cannon in the nose?? . . . Kes (bit of a Lightning fan) The F.6 as delivered had no guns. These were retrofitted from 1970 on, as the disadvantages of a missile-only aircraft became obvious. For an early F.6, you can use the cannonless F.2A-style belly parts in the new Airfix kit. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 That's some great information Dennis, thanks for posting ! Now that you mention the access hatches are displaced between left and right, I wonder if the bulges were the same ? A first look at pictures seem to show they weren't, but it's not easy to tell 8.4 inches when comparing relative positions to other features of the fuselage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I understand the guns had to be cocked on the ground before flight, and that the fuel was used to cool them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I understand the guns had to be cocked on the ground before flight, and that the fuel was used to cool them. All ADEN guns are cocked on the ground using High pressure gas. The ADEN Gun Is and always was Air cooled. Selwyn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 When Frank Brown and I were researching for his Echelon kit, we heard rumours of Germany-based F2As, during an armament exercise in the Mediterranean, borrowing tank fronts from F6s, and fitting 6 guns, some of which were .5", not cannon, but we could never find anyone to ask. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Is it also true that the nose guns were angled up slightly for air intercepts (or was it the belly guns angled down for ground attack)??? Either way, to use them, the aircraft had to be inverted to fire the belly guns for A2A (or was it the nose guns for ground attack). Or am I mis-remembering things as usual ??? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 When Frank Brown and I were researching for his Echelon kit, we heard rumours of Germany-based F2As, during an armament exercise in the Mediterranean, borrowing tank fronts from F6s, and fitting 6 guns, some of which were .5", not cannon, but we could never find anyone to ask. I heard that at Leuchars from an ex-23Sqdn rigger It would certainly be feasible, take about 25 mins, Edgar, to fit the engine hatch/gun tank to the F.Mk.2A. Indeed it would be quite feasible to fit that to any of the "Lightning" family from the P.1A onwards as the attachment points were exactly the same. Slight modifications to the P.1 series, F.Mk.1/1A/2's and3's would be needed to fit the rest of the belly tanks though. With regards to fitting the nose guns in the lower position, that might explain the panels screwed, not riveted, over allegedly lower gun ports on the decoy F.2A aircraft at Leuchars. But certainly fitting the "gun tank" to an F.2A would be easy - all you need would be some electric string to fire them. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Is it also true that the nose guns were angled up slightly for air intercepts (or was it the belly guns angled down for ground attack)??? Either way, to use them, the aircraft had to be inverted to fire the belly guns for A2A (or was it the nose guns for ground attack). Or am I mis-remembering things as usual ??? Ken All fighter guns are fixed in position and usually angled very slightly upwards to meet the Gunsight at Harmonisation Distance This is used for both air to air and air to ground use. Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I heard that at Leuchars from an ex-23Sqdn rigger It would certainly be feasible, take about 25 mins, Edgar, to fit the engine hatch/gun tank to the F.Mk.2A. Indeed it would be quite feasible to fit that to any of the "Lightning" family from the P.1A onwards as the attachment points were exactly the same. Slight modifications to the P.1 series, F.Mk.1/1A/2's and3's would be needed to fit the rest of the belly tanks though. With regards to fitting the nose guns in the lower position, that might explain the panels screwed, not riveted, over allegedly lower gun ports on the decoy F.2A aircraft at Leuchars. But certainly fitting the "gun tank" to an F.2A would be easy - all you need would be some electric string to fire them. Dennis If it happened (and I very much doubt it!) it would have been a seriously major modification. Certainly not a quick try out on APC. You would also potentially have serious A/C C of G problems as the 30mm Gun installation and Ammunition is very heavy, also the F2A would probably not be stressed to take the additional firing loads of two extra guns, would potentially cause serious and catastrophic airframe damage. As for the .5 gun Its totally unfeasable to fit .5 Guns in place of Adens in the mounting without major engineering changes to both the gun mounts and Ammunition feed, not withstanding the gun sightingchanges you would need to make. The alternative would be a specially designed " gun pod," Not a quick or cheap job, and why would you do it? A 30mm is a far better weapon that .5 so I could see no advantage to do this. As for decoy airframes These were often made up bits of old aircraft, so its quite feasable that someone fitted a old F6 Tank/Gun pod to a F2A to make it "look like a proper lightning," and you would blank the gunpod holes any way you can, to stop birds( or wasps! ask me how I know) nesting in the airframe. If you had some old F2A barrel blanking plates lying around you could drill a few holes and mount them on with some gash screws, lets face it this aircraft isn't going to fly again so who cares? just the job! Because you see it on a old decoy frame don't assume it was used operationally! Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 With regards to fitting the nose guns in the lower position, that might explain the panels screwed, not riveted, over allegedly lower gun ports on the decoy F.2A aircraft at Leuchars. But certainly fitting the "gun tank" to an F.2A would be easy - all you need would be some electric string to fire them. Dennis When were there F2A decoys at Leuchars Dennis? I remember the ex LTTF/ex 23 Sqn F1A's over but the Eden side (XM144 'X' being one of them) but I don't remember F2A's during my time there. Duncan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 As for the .5 gun Its totally unfeasable to fit .5 Guns in place of Adens in the mounting without major engineering changes to both the gun mounts and Ammunition feed, not withstanding the gun sightingchanges you would need to make. The alternative would be a specially designed " gun pod," Not a quick or cheap job, and why would you do it? A 30mm is a far better weapon that .5 so I could see no advantage to do this.The informant said the .5" were fitted in the top bays, either side of the cockpit, since the cannon tended to fill the cockpit with smoke; he also said that they found that a simple chinagraph cross, drawn on the windscreen, was easier to use than a gunsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 chinagraph I wonder how many people under 50 have a clue what that is? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I wonder how many people under 50 have a clue what that is? Like this ??? Sorry - couldn't resist and yes I'm old enough to have used one - a Chinagraph pencil that is.... Ken 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yes, a somewhat different China graph We just called them grease pencils, and when I was in USAF signals intel, we used them by the gross to plot things on our big wall-sized maps of the USSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dambuster Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I wonder how many people under 50 have a clue what that is? And you only ever forgot to leave a spare 'refill' in your shirt pocket in the laundry once..... Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 When were there F2A decoys at Leuchars Dennis? I remember the ex LTTF/ex 23 Sqn F1A's over but the Eden side (XM144 'X' being one of them) but I don't remember F2A's during my time there. Duncan B Possibly wasn't decoy but BDR ? XN776 now at East Fortune was there 1977ish to 1982 when it went to museum. Richard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yes, a somewhat different China graph Chinagraph was what we used to put our leave up on the Squadron notice board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Chinagraph, AKA crayon, as in, "You can tell aircrew wrote it, it's in crayon" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Possibly wasn't decoy but BDR ? XN776 now at East Fortune was there 1977ish to 1982 when it went to museum. Richard Thanks for that Richard, I don't remember that although I would have seen them. (old age doesn't come on it's own!). Duncan B 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