EE Sea Lightning project help

[raptormodeller]

You may be wandering why this isn't in the what-if section... Let me explain...

At the moment I'm planning on what kits (whiffs) to construct after the what if III GB, so far these include:

- Second generation BAC-TSR.2 GR.8, barely started.

-Vengeance class aircraft carrier, barely started

- some sort of F-18

- A-10D Thunderbolt III

- Annnnnd the one which is the cause of inquiry, a navalised EE Lightning (preferably based on the F.6)

My following question is: What sort of aerodynamic (realistic) improvements are needed for a nasalised version, would an extended/revised wing be needed; if so how would realistically look like (I'm thinking mig-21 style)? How beefed up would the undercarriage need to be and would I need a new canopy for better visibility?

The reason why this isn't in the what-if section is because I thought that the people who don't do whiffs (might) have a better knowledge... Of course I may be catastrophically wrong Still any tips and enlightenments are COMPLETELY welcome no matter how stupid or unrealistic they are!

Many, Many thanks

chomp chomp

-raptor

Edited November 3, 2015 by raptormodeller

[fatalbert]

They were looking at a swing wing Naval lightning based on the T55 with swing wings but it didn't get off the drawing board

[Duncan B]

Not as WIF as you might think. I believe there was a design study put forward for a variable geometry 2 seat version intended for the FAA (or anyone else in the market). Google should provide a few drawings etc.

Duncan B

[Procopius]

You mean....THIS?

[raptormodeller]

You mean....THIS?

I didn't EXACTLY mean that... I might try to some scratch build some VG wings but i wanted to stay clear of VG for a while but those side intakes are making me think...

Edited November 3, 2015 by raptormodeller

[Procopius]

Freightdog is releasing VG Lightning wings at Telford for the Airfix 1/72 kit, so you wouldn't need to scratchbuild, should you so desire. The intakes were, I believe, to allow for a somewhat larger radar than the dinky little one in the shock cone. The Chinese did something similar with the MiG-19 to develop the Q-5 FANTAN.

[raptormodeller]

MMMmmmm, sadly I won't be going to Telford this time.

Edited November 3, 2015 by raptormodeller

[canberra kid]

Raptor, the VG wings would be the only realistic option for a RN Lightning

[mike romeo]

Stupid and unrealistic, you say. Fair enough!

I apologise if the following is a bit nerdy - and negative in tone - but I do think the Lightning design is a non-starter in the navalisation stakes. However, it's your model and whatever you choose to do with it will be different and should draw attention wherever it is exhibited.

What I've tried to do is use any aero engineering nous I may possess and try to answer the question as realistically as I can. I recognise that this may not meet your need, but maybe some of the comments I make will spark further thoughts.

OK, if I were trying to navalise the Lightning, I'd ditch the wing entirely and design something with more area, much less sweep on both leading and even more on the trailing edge. I'd also make the wing thicker to try to get some fuel volume. I'd also want both leading and trailing edge flaps, with the rear being very powerful (double-slotted?). I'd try to arrange sufficient volume in the fuse for the landing gear to retract (I wonder if that's where it's meant to go in the VG example; it certainly ain't retracting into the wing as it is!) and to carry more fuel (this is a naval aircraft, after all, and it's runway tends to wander a bit between take off and landing). I'd also increase tailplane area and reduce trailing edge sweep, for more pitch control at low speed.

Plenty of power, of course, to cope with the no-doubt significant extra weight for structural strengthening - particularly to react hook loads down the rear end and catapult loads on the nosegear (twin wheels to allow a catapult shuttle to fit inbetween* with increased stroke length to get a bit of nose added lift on take-off - although the high lift system should help with that), and for the increased rate of descent on the main gear. Then improve maintainability so that you can get either engine out without having to remove the other, allowing (the lower) engine to be removed downwards within the length of the aircraft (not much room on a hangar deck) and the upper engine to be removed by deckhead crane.

You want a decent radar in the nose? OK, then side intakes do look like a must.

It's difficult to make an aircraft heavily optimised against a single design point (high and fast, in this case), also do well in a completely different environment. I can happen, but more by luck (or good engineering judgement) than deliberate intent, I suspect. I'm left with the unsurprising thought that modifying a Lightning to be ship-based is going to result in an entirely different aircraft, sharing little with the Lightning we know and love than the name.I'm reminded of the response of the Irish local who, when asked the way to another village in the same general area, says, "I wouldn't start from here . . . "

* Let's assume CVA01 was built and had more powerful catapults than the Ark Royal, Eagle et al.

<Edit: Nice brochure, Canberra kid, but I'd want more data than BAC provided before I recommended spending taxpayer's pounds on a Lightning avalisation project>

Edited November 3, 2015 by mike romeo

[Gary West]

My following question is: What sort of aerodynamic (realistic) improvements are needed for a nasalised version,

Realistically, you'd need to slow the beast down on approach as our carriers (remember them flat topped things with aircraft?) were quite small - wings would need (within a re-design) extended slats, horizontal stabs would need to pivot, beef up the arrestor hook, and as youve pointed out beef the u/c up too. Wings would also presumably need to fold for storage depending upon the re-design? Would a wing re-design therefore allow for the air defence missiles to be re-positioned?

[TomW]

Maybe the addition of hot air surface blowing (a la Buccaneer) would be a useful feature. You could also switch to a delta wing to increase surface area with increased aileron area for slow speed handling. The Lightning has plenty of power for carrier ops but you'll need to address the fuel capacity to make it a worthwhile concept. Obviously you'll need an arrestor hook, maybe a double nosewheel would help with deck landings?

Food for thought anyways.

Regards

Tom

[Flankerman]

I always fancied making a Lightning with an F-8 Crusader-style undercarriage housed in a fattened belly tank.

That would free up the underside of the wings for weapons - dunno where the fuel would go though........

Maybe even an F-8 style radome with chin intake??? - and twin sidewinder pylons on the fuselage sides?

Good luck with your WHIF.

Ken

[The wooksta V2.0]

Look more to the English Electric P.8 for a carrier Lightning. More power, area ruled fuselage, fuselage mounted u/c.

[Max Headroom]

I'd suggest a ruddy great big airbrake somewhere instead of the two small things on the crab version. Maybe lengthen the thing as well for more internal fuel.

Trevor

[bentwaters81tfw]

Jack up windscreen, replace airframe. I had seen drawings showing the main u/c retracting like a Crusader. No option, given the wing design and the landing speeds and forces. A crab Lightning could get a max of four landings out of a set of tyres. To make it carrier operable you are looking at at totally new airframe. Everything would need to be redesigned.

[theplasticsurgeon]

Here's one that I prepared earlier.


Mine isn't VG, but two sets of wings.

One of the images has a belly tank that's bulged right upto the nose, for more fuel.

Well I stuck with the F6 size T55 fuselage belly - but compromised it with Crusader style fuselage undercarriage.

'Fraid I didn't really consider airbrakes either, making it further impractical.

However I've got a model that I call my EE Lightning VG FAA - and it draws attention at shows.

And here's a sales picture that I found.

Edited November 3, 2015 by theplasticsurgeon

[Giorgio N]

Best way to have a carrier capable Lightning ? Ditch the thing and buy Phantoms instead !

[Michou]

How one guy did it:

http://www.gengriz.co.uk/sealightning2.htm

Mike

[goon]

What sort of aerodynamic (realistic) improvements are needed for a nasalised version

It'll need a bigger nose for a start. (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[raptormodeller]

Thanks for all of your suggestions, I'm starting to build a bigger picture of what it (might) look like. The suggestions I'm most likely to incorporate are:

- massive delta wings with double blown flaps, which are thicker to accommodate more fuel.

- Nose landing gear robbed from my revell 1:72 F-18C box and maybe the main u/c if I can make it fit.

- Side intakes to supplement the main intake and means that a bigger radome (might) be fitted.

- A pretty beefy arrestor hook.

- A new tail.

- And many more things that I haven't decided yet.

THANKS for all your suggestions

chomp chomp

-raptor

Edited November 4, 2015 by raptormodeller

[sloegin57]

Thanks for all of your suggestions, I'm starting to build a bigger picture of what it (might) look like. The suggestions I'm most likely to incorporate are:

- massive delta wings with double blown flaps, which are thicker to accommodate more fuel.

- Nose landing gear robbed from my revell 1:72 F-18C box and maybe the main u/c if I can make it fit.

- Side intakes to supplement the main intake and means that a bigger radome (might) be fitted.

- A pretty beefy arrestor hook.

- A new tail.

- And many more things that I haven'y decided yet.

THANKS for all your suggestions

chomp chomp

-raptor

Ah ! you mean the Dassault Rafale.

Dennis

[raptormodeller]

Well I think it might look a bit like a mig-21...

Edited November 4, 2015 by raptormodeller