Fairey Delta 2, not the English Electric Lightning

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Hunters had already been paid for . . .

Fair enough.

. . . by the Americans . . .

Why is who paid for the 160-odd Hunter F.6s that were converted to FGA.9s & FR.10s for the RAF relevant to this topic?

That they were existing aircraft that had already been paid for is extremely relevant as the cost of converting them was probably a lot less than buying new aircraft.

But I don't understand why it's important that they were originally paid for by the Americans and not the British, because as far as I know the conversions of these aircraft to FGA.9 & FR.10 standard were paid for by the British taxpayer.

. . . and the conversions were relatively straightforward.

Fair enough.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Given that the P.1083 would probably have taken the place of the OTL F.6, it's likely that the alt-FGA.9 and FR.10 would have been based on it as well, which gives you a bit more performance and longevity from that force.

For what it's worth that's similar to my preferred solution. Unfortunately, the thread is FD.2 or Lighting, so it's not allowed.

The idea of a transonic trainer (equivalent to OTL's T.66) is quite appealing too, though of course the UK trainers were based on the F.4.

I think that could be got around.

For what it's worth the source that I used before says that a total of 210 two-seat Hunters were produced for the RAF, RN & export of which 102 were new aircraft & 108 were converted single-seaters. Unfortunately, it doesn't say how many were base on the Mk 4 airframe and how many were based on the Mk 6 airframe. However, as already written, I think that could be got around in our timeline.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

May I cheat and suggest both? That is, develop the Lightning as the interceptor as IOTL and develop the FD.2 as a ground attack and recce aircraft (with a secondary fighter capability) instead of the Hunter FGA.9 & FR.10. A multirole version of the FD.2 can be developed for the export market.

Somehow I don't see there being enough cash/will to have two projects of such magnitude successfully running. Why not somehow combine the radar equipped P.1109 Hunter and the supersonic P.1083 Hunter? A lot less ambitious by mostly building on existing hardware and knowledge. It could have been a potent opponent to the Mirage III I reckon! P.1083 also fell under the sword of constantly changing requirements while P.1109 at least made it to prototype form.

My guess is that it wouldn't be significantly cheaper or easier to develop than the FD.2 and it wouldn't be significantly cheaper to build than the FD.2 that I proposed. Does a reheated Avon engine cost more whether it's fitted to a FD.2 or a P.1109/P.1083 hybrid? Would the avionics cost more whether it was installed in a FD.2 or P.1109/P.1083 hybrid?

That is unless it takes place in a timeline where the P.1083 wasn't cancelled and went into service with the RAF instead of the OTL P.1099/Hunter F.6 as suggested by @Yellow Palace and endorsed by me. Then the TTL-Hunter FGA.9s & FR.10s would have been converted P.1083s or a next generation Hunter with thinner wings & more powerful Avons than the P.1083.

However, it can't be used because this is a FD.2 or Lightning thread not a FD.2 or Hunter or P.1083 thread.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

These things always come back to money and time.

Britain was already behind the curve on the deployment of modern aircraft as it took the gamble bypassing the transonic generation (F100, Super Mystere, Mig 19, F8) and went directly from subsonic Hunters and Javelins to the Mach 2 Lightning. This gamble paid off since the British got the mach 2 Lightning into sqn service in 1960, however they cannot wait any longer than that without a transonic combat fleet.

Then there's the money. The Lightning development was already paid for, 50 F1 and F1A lightnings were ordered in November 1956. The Hunter FGA9/FR10 were conversions of existing F6 day fighters so were very cheap, although the cost has to be measured against the short service life.

The ER103/C will be a similar size and complexity to the Lightning, vastly more complex than the Hunter conversions, delivered later than both and cost as much as the former to develop and buy, much more than the latter, be delivered too late and for all that offer marginal performance advantages over the Lightning.

Is that a reaction to my suggestion of developing the Lighting and FD.2 with the latter being built for the RAF instead of the Hunter FGA.9 and FR.10?

I admit that the R&D and production cost of 160 FD.2s would be much more than the R&D and conversion cost of the 160 Hunter FGA.9s & FR.10s produced IOTL. However, I'm not the person that suggested developing the FGA version of the Lightning soon enough for it to be built instead of the Hunter FGA.9 & FR.10. Plus some of the R&D and production costs would be shared with other aircraft. E.g. the R&D and production cost of the reheated Avon would have been shared with the Lightning.

However, there's enough time to have the FD.2 enter service at the same time as the Hunter FGA.9 & FR.10 which if I remember correctly was once proved by me to @Riain on Alternatehistory.com.

 

[XtraSaltee]

The English Electric Lightning ll is well superior to the F.D.2. Mainly for the fact the F.D.2 is a Research aircraft used for testing new concepts, 2 were produced after the maiden flight, but they still used the first gen fighters like the meteor and never went back to the F.D.2, however, the F.D.2 set the stage for the lightning.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

My guess is that it wouldn't be significantly cheaper or easier to develop than the FD.2 and it wouldn't be significantly cheaper to build than the FD.2 that I proposed. Does a reheated Avon engine cost more whether it's fitted to a FD.2 or a P.1109/P.1083 hybrid? Would the avionics cost more whether it was installed in a FD.2 or P.1109/P.1083 hybrid?

A P.1109/1083 hybrid is effective because you save on the most expensive part - the airframe as a lot of initial Hunter building blocks,tooling and jigs remained. P.1083 was very close to reaching a flying protortype, the P.1109 has three prototypes in various forms of advancement in the A and B versions. All this is significany closer to a prototype than a concept demonstrator in the Fairy Delta I and II. Reheated Avon is already in the Lightning too so it is not one project xarrying the cost burden. RR is doing the work anyway.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Unfortunately, it doesn't say how many were base on the Mk 4 airframe and how many were based on the Mk 6 airframe.

AFAIK, the only two-seat Hunter in UK service based on the F.6 airframe was the single Mk.12.

A P.1109/1083 hybrid is effective because you save on the most expensive part - the airframe as a lot of initial Hunter building blocks,tooling and jigs remained. P.1083 was very close to reaching a flying protortype, the P.1109 has three prototypes in various forms of advancement in the A and B versions. All this is significany closer to a prototype than a concept demonstrator in the Fairy Delta I and II. Reheated Avon is already in the Lightning too so it is not one project xarrying the cost burden. RR is doing the work anyway.

It's also, crucially, at a different time. P.1083 is likely flying in 1954, and is in large scale service before 1957. It's therefore Sandys-proof. The comparable F-100 was in production until 1959, and in USAF service until 1979, so it has some legs.

 

[Rule of cool]

Is that a reaction to my suggestion of developing the Lighting and FD.2 with the latter being built for the RAF instead of the Hunter FGA.9 and FR.10?

I admit that the R&D and production cost of 160 FD.2s would be much more than the R&D and conversion cost of the 160 Hunter FGA.9s & FR.10s produced IOTL. However, I'm not the person that suggested developing the FGA version of the Lightning soon enough for it to be built instead of the Hunter FGA.9 & FR.10. Plus some of the R&D and production costs would be shared with other aircraft. E.g. the R&D and production cost of the reheated Avon would have been shared with the Lightning.

However, there's enough time to have the FD.2 enter service at the same time as the Hunter FGA.9 & FR.10 which if I remember correctly was once proved by me to @Riain on Alternatehistory.com.

Not really, more that the ER103 version of the FD2 is not a suitable combat aircraft and would need to be developed into the ER103/C which was a bigger aircraft not in the single Avon class. This is like the SR53 but unlike the EE P1 and P1B which were easily converted into a point defence interceptor.

We know what the RAFs fighter requirements from 1957 were: ~11 sqns of fighter-interceptors and ~9 sqn of fighter-bomber/recce to be in sqn service from 1960. The FD2 doesn't appear to deliver any significant advantages over virtually any Lightning/Hunter mix that would warrant the cost of scaling it up to the ER103/C spec and waiting an extra couple of years for that to enter service.

 

[tomo pauk]

We know what the RAFs fighter requirements from 1957 were: ~11 sqns of fighter-interceptors and ~9 sqn of fighter-bomber/recce to be in sqn service from 1960. The FD2 doesn't appear to deliver any significant advantages over virtually any Lightning/Hunter mix that would warrant the cost of scaling it up to the ER103/C spec and waiting an extra couple of years for that to enter service.

A working and timely FD2 means that UK has a hot commodity wrt. the export of modern military aircraft. Neither Lightning nor Hunter were filling that slot from 1960 on.
Granted, expecting that RAF can pull their head from the sand wrt. the need to keep the industry healthy and liquid (achievable by industry having a desired product for export) is a pretty high bar.

 

[Rule of cool]

A working and timely FD2 means that UK has a hot commodity wrt. the export of modern military aircraft. Neither Lightning nor Hunter were filling that slot from 1960 on.
Granted, expecting that RAF can pull their head from the sand wrt. the need to keep the industry healthy and liquid (achievable by industry having a desired product for export) is a pretty high bar.

Why would an F106/Lightning class FD2 development be a hot commodity on the export market? It's a bigger and more expensive aircraft than the F104 and Mirage III.

 

[tomo pauk]

Why would an F106/Lightning class FD2 development be a hot commodity on the export market? It's a bigger and more expensive aircraft than the F104 and Mirage III.

I was favoring the FD2, not something bigger and more expensive.

 

[Rule of cool]

I was favoring the FD2, not something bigger and more expensive.

The FD2 wasn't something you could fit an AI23 radar to and slap on a couple of Firestreaks and get a ready made fighter. Apparently the plan was a 2 step one; to make a bigger fuselage with the same wings, then fit this bigger fuselage with 50% bigger wings. This would result in a plane able to fit an AI23 and lug around a pair of heavy Firestreaks, buts not a Mirage sized FD2.

 

[tomo pauk]

The FD2 wasn't something you could fit an AI23 radar to and slap on a couple of Firestreaks and get a ready made fighter. Apparently the plan was a 2 step one; to make a bigger fuselage with the same wings, then fit this bigger fuselage with 50% bigger wings. This would result in a plane able to fit an AI23 and lug around a pair of heavy Firestreaks, buts not a Mirage sized FD2.

Slap a couple of Firestreaks, and as big a radar as it can fit.
It is not as if the Ligtning was an all-weather interceptor that was supposed to operate without the GCI support either.

 

[Rule of cool]

Slap a couple of Firestreaks, and as big a radar as it can fit.
It is not as if the Ligtning was an all-weather interceptor that was supposed to operate without the GCI support either.

What radar would that be? Britain was developing one radar in the late 50s, the AI23 which was an advanced and innovative radar that was tailored to the RAFs needs.

In addition loading up a Mirage III sized aircraft with 600lbs of Firestreaks will put a big dent in its performance. The RAAF Mirage IIIE could only do mach 1.2 and reach 45,000' with an R530, 2 x Aim9B and 2 'supersonic' tanks. The Lightning F6. could do mach 2 with 2 x Red Tops.

 

[red admiral]

The historical development plan was for something with ultimate performance to meet F.155

Not trying to do as much and sticking to a similar size and single Avon leads to a UK Draken equivalent for which it's definitely possible to fit AI.23 and multiple missiles + guns, with only slightly lower climb rate than Lightning, but better range, development potential, and much lower production costs

 

[tomo pauk]

What radar would that be? Britain was developing one radar in the late 50s, the AI23 which was an advanced and innovative radar that was tailored to the RAFs needs.

Whatever the industry can come up with. I'm indifferent to the nomenclature there.

In addition loading up a Mirage III sized aircraft with 600lbs of Firestreaks will put a big dent in its performance. The RAAF Mirage IIIE could only do mach 1.2 and reach 45,000' with an R530, 2 x Aim9B and 2 'supersonic' tanks. The Lightning F6. could do mach 2 with 2 x Red Tops.

Drop the darned tanks.

 

[Rule of cool]

The historical development plan was for something with ultimate performance to meet F.155

Not trying to do as much and sticking to a similar size and single Avon leads to a UK Draken equivalent for which it's definitely possible to fit AI.23 and multiple missiles + guns, with only slightly lower climb rate than Lightning, but better range, development potential, and much lower production costs

That's a big ask from a technology demonstrator that lacked the fuel capacity to fully exploit its potential performance. My guess is ER103/C was the minimum required change to make the FD2 into a fighter.

 

[zen]

Well what happens if say Fairey had opted for Olympus 100 instead of Avon?

 

[Rule of cool]

Whatever the industry can come up with. I'm indifferent to the nomenclature there.



Drop the darned tanks.

The AIRPASS is what the industry came up with, it started development in 1951 and was the worlds first airborne monopulse radar.

The RAAF wouldn't have used the tanks if they didn't need them. In any case these are the slim, 500l 'supersonic' tanks on a tiny pylon that makes little drag, not the big 1700l 'ferry' tanks on the long pylon that makes the tank clear the flaps but produces a lot of pylon and pod drag.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well what happens if say Fairey had opted for Olympus 100 instead of Avon?

The cynic in me says it gets cancelled because its too big and expensive for a supersonic research aircraft.

Failing that Fairey still designs the Olympus FD2 with too little fuel capacity to fully exploit its performance potential, just like they did with the Avon, meaning that it needs major changes to make into a fighter.

Can you clear something up please Zen? The FD2 ER103/C is not the FD3 proposal for F.155, they are in fact different aircraft? IIUC the ER103/C was a scaled FD2 and offered as an interim to the FD3 which had rockets for additional propulsion.

 

[tomo pauk]

The AIRPASS is what the industry came up with, it started development in 1951 and was the worlds first airborne monopulse radar.

Excellent.
Have industry make a version suitable for the FD2.

The RAAF wouldn't have used the tanks if they didn't need them. In any case these are the slim, 500l 'supersonic' tanks on a tiny pylon that makes little drag, not the big 1700l 'ferry' tanks on the long pylon that makes the tank clear the flaps but produces a lot of pylon and pod drag.

Drop the tanks when high speed is required.
UK is a far smaller place than Austraila anyway.

 

[Rule of cool]

Excellent.
Have industry make a version suitable for the FD2.



Drop the tanks when high speed is required.
UK is a far smaller place than Austraila anyway.

There was a simple airpass backup known as the AI20 that eventually was installed in V bombers as the Red Steer tail warning radar. Its pretty simple and not very useful, so would be perfect for the small FD2.

The fuel tanks thing is a rabbit hole, but an instructive one that I won't go down on my phone.

 

[zen]

The cynic in me says it gets cancelled because its too big and expensive for a supersonic research aircraft.

So a 37" diameter turbojet is just right and a 40" one is too big?

Failing that Fairey still designs the Olympus FD2 with too little fuel capacity to fully exploit its performance potential, just like they did with the Avon, meaning that it needs major changes to make into a fighter.

It's quite plausible to design in more fuel tankage.

Can you clear something up please Zen? The FD2 ER103/C is not the FD3 proposal for F.155, they are in fact different aircraft?

It's quite likely it's part of a continuum of design.
The Single engined design is visible on this site somewhere.

Here

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fairey-f155t-or-329-interceptor-fairey-delta-3.3083/page-2#post-439036

 

[Rule of cool]

So a 37" diameter turbojet is just right and a 40" one is too big?

It's quite plausible to design in more fuel tankage.

It's quite likely it's part of a continuum of design.
The Single engined design is visible on this site somewhere.

Here

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fairey-f155t-or-329-interceptor-fairey-delta-3.3083/page-2#post-439036

Yes 100%. In all seriousness I thought the Avon about about 30" in diameter. The Avon 67 offered to the RAAF Mirage III had a 28.8" exhaust nozzle.

They could have designedin more fuel to the Avon FD2 but didn't. I'm not overly critical on this point, reaching mach 2 in the 50s was HARD and all sorts of tradeoffs had to be made. Whoda thunk that Britain would be in a position to have to turn a research aircraft into a fighter, where this failing would matter so much.

Thanks, it looks like ER103/C and the OR329 designs are significantly different, using a lot of the same cues of course.

 

[red admiral]

Its entirely possible to have a single Avon powered fighter with high performance, sufficient range, AI.23-esque radar, missiles and guns when you look at the likes of Draken, Mirage III, F-104, MiG 21 etc. Draken is a good example given it was even planned to put AI.23 in it.

There's no "need" to go for a 30-50% scale incease from Olympus or Gyron unless you really want marginal performance gains in climb rate and much higher cost (in which case a rocket pack is a much easier way of achieving this)

Much like the P.1 to Lightning, there's going to be some changes in design between FD.2 research aircraft and a fighter version; I think that some of the most visible ones would be new multi-shock intakes as per Fairey's ER103/C and FD3, and an axisymmetric nozzle rather than the eyelid type, and a crank near the tip to add additional span for wingtip rails. Below the surface then more changes e.g. Avon 200 series and then 300 series. Reprofiled nose for AI.23. Fitting bag tanks in more bays, or a small fuselage stretch as per BAC221. And all the structure and vehicle systems to support these. And hopefully they ditch the droop nose.

Its not some incredible world beater, but a perfectly adequate single engined fighter to go alongside the likes of Draken, Mirage etc. at much lower cost than Lightning.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Well said red admiral. No idea why a single engined Avon fighter is just assumed to not fit the lightning avionics package... Lightning was a really big aircraft for what it lugged around the sky avionics and weapons wise! Yes, you sacrifice the pure performance advantage of the Lightning by going single but looking at the arguably much more successful types developed by other nations it doesn't really matter in the real world.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

AI 23 was pretty compact, but is probably better paired with AIM-9 than Firestreak/Red Top for a single Avon fighter - these missiles were bulky and required extra support.

 

[zen]

I thought the Avon about about 30" in diameter

The jet pipe was 31" or 32" in diameter externally I forget which. This impacted efforts to fit reheat to the Hunter, and was solved by making the chsmber outside the rear external surface.

Olympus wasn't that bad, and offered better performance across the speed and altitude range. Bristol gained a license on Solar reheat chamber of 38"

 

[red admiral]

AI 23 was pretty compact, but is probably better paired with AIM-9 than Firestreak/Red Top for a single Avon fighter - these missiles were bulky and required extra support.

It would be nice to see where Fairey and others in F.155 competition were going to put the on board support equipment for wingtip / outboard carried Firestreak/Red Top. I don't have enough info to know whether it'd just be running out power lines to the wing tips or more.

But roughly then 2 x Firestreaks = ~ 4 x Sidewinders and Hawkers seemed to manage getting Firestreak into Hunter/ P.1109 without issue so I don't think it's infeasible. The on board equipment takes up a fair amount of room, but then so do 30mm rounds.

There's also zero chance of getting Red Dean / Red Hebe on this aircraft, but I'd view that as a good thing.

 

[Rule of cool]

How about my understanding? Source : PROJECT CANCELLED, BSP JET FIGHTERS SINCE 1950, etc...
View attachment 628286

A nice picture from another thread to encapsulate what we're talking about. To be clear I'm talking about the FD2 ER103 being too small to be a fighter so it has to be scaled up into the ER103/C which will be the same 16.56m length as the ER103/B but with 50% larger wings = 50m2. It still has a single seat and single engine without a rocket, so is not the F.155 proposals.

 

[Rule of cool]

Its entirely possible to have a single Avon powered fighter with high performance, sufficient range, AI.23-esque radar, missiles and guns when you look at the likes of Draken, Mirage III, F-104, MiG 21 etc. Draken is a good example given it was even planned to put AI.23 in it.

Yes and no.

I have no doubt Britain has the technical ability to build something as good these fighters, and even fit a suitably sized AI23 into it. The problems arise when this smaller aircraft is loaded with a pair of Firestreaks, Britain's 1959 AAM, when a similar load slowed the Mirage IIIE to Mach 1.2 and 45,000' when the Lightning could do Mach 2 with 2 x Red Tops. Further the small dish AI23 (the mirage III had a 15" radar dish) will lack the range of the 21" dish of the Lightning and the ability to slave the missiles to the radar will likely be lost.

The other problems are financial and time. The 20 development batch P1Bs were ordered in Feb 1954 8 months before the FD2s first flight, Lightning F1 and F1A production models were ordered in November 1956 9 months after the FD2s record flight and were in sqn service from 1960. The FD2 can't come close to this time. Linked to this time is funding, just as the FD2 needs development funds to make into a fighter the Lightning is both ready to go and the MoD needs to cust 100 million from it's 1.7 billion budget.

It would be nice to see where Fairey and others in F.155 competition were going to put the on board support equipment for wingtip / outboard carried Firestreak/Red Top. I don't have enough info to know whether it'd just be running out power lines to the wing tips or more.

But roughly then 2 x Firestreaks = ~ 4 x Sidewinders and Hawkers seemed to manage getting Firestreak into Hunter/ P.1109 without issue so I don't think it's infeasible. The on board equipment takes up a fair amount of room, but then so do 30mm rounds.

There's also zero chance of getting Red Dean / Red Hebe on this aircraft, but I'd view that as a good thing.

I've read that the Firestreak seeker coolant gas (ammonia) was stored in spherical 'bottles' because Britain couldn't make high pressure gas cylinders at the time. This meant fuselage mounted missiles so the pluming from the spherical ammonia bottles to the missiles was short.

The Red Top didn't have active seeker cooling so might not have needed s[spherical ammonia bottles and short plumbing, but it didn't get it's start until Nov 57 and in response to the cancellation of F155.

It's a mystery. Or maybe they expected to be able to make or otherwise get ammonia cylinders by ~1962.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well said red admiral. No idea why a single engined Avon fighter is just assumed to not fit the lightning avionics package... Lightning was a really big aircraft for what it lugged around the sky avionics and weapons wise! Yes, you sacrifice the pure performance advantage of the Lightning by going single but looking at the arguably much more successful types developed by other nations it doesn't really matter in the real world.

The devil is in the details. I think a lot of people assume that a radar is a radar, a missile is a missile and supersonic is supersonic and therefore most planes of the early 60s are pretty much interchangeable.

The AI23 in the F1/1A/2 had a bomber detection range of ~65km compared to the ~40km of the Mirage IIIs Cyrano II. The AI23B increased this range to ~100km, the F4D had a detection range of ~110km and introduced an S band receiver so the Lighting could passively track targets using returns from ground based radar. Then there was the slaving of the Ted Tops to the radar, something the Sidewinder didn't do.

The missiles themselves were more in the sparrow class than the sidewinder class, 300 & 330lb in weight. Red Top could undertake launches against targets up to 21km away in good conditions and launch beam and other angle attacks at ranges far beyond the sidewinder with the lethality of a 50 & 68lb warhead.

The aircraft performance is also much different, the Lightning could achieve mach 2 with it's 2 missiles, the RAF thought even this was marginal against the mach 1.5 Blinder for tail chase interceptions so developed the head-on capable Red Top. When loaded with 2 sidewinders, a Matra R530 and a pair of supersonic tanks the Mirage IIIE topped out at Mach 1.2 and 45,000', so was manifestly unable to take on a mach 1.5 Blinder in this configuration. The big Lightning with its huge power gave a major boost in real world conditions that don't get captured in paper specs and brochures.

 

[zen]

Lightning had climb rate that wasn't matched until the F15 in the West.

Only the F.177 and F.155 would have been faster climbers.

 

[Rule of cool]

Lightning had climb rate that wasn't matched until the F15 in the West.

Only the F.177 and F.155 would have been faster climbers.

It's a nice paper spec, but what it means in the real world is a very fat performance envelope when loaded up with weapons and fuel or in hot and high conditions that you can only read about in anecdotes and the like.

 

[MadRat]

Fairey Delta 2 had planned quite a bit more motor than a Mirage III or Starfighter, so its unecessary to expand upon them in this thread. If you are going to bring them up it seems only fair to do like some did already, and explain relevance or irrelevance.

 

[red admiral]

I think the timing is fine for the UK, the P.1 was also ordered for production/pre-production prior to first flight. The same could happen for FD.2. probably "instead of" rather than "as well" makes more sense, if the decision is for a more affordable multi-purpose aircraft than dedicated interceptor.

Development of FD.2 would be about a year quicker than historically if choice made for Sapphire rather than Avon - as per P.1. Then switch back when the Avon 200 and 300. For development into production then it's smaller than Lightning so might be a bit quicker - but the main issue coming into this is that Fairey is a small company with limited resources; probably the main factor in deciding to single source Lightning rather than FD.2

On performance, then when you look at Draken or F-104 rather than MIII it seems pretty reasonable to carry a "full size" AI.23 (e.g. F-104 had a larger antenna) and 2 x Firestreaks (e.g. 2 x Sparrows on F-104, AIM-26 on Draken, 4 x Sidewinders on both). Performance with weapons is still way into the supersonic region.

For integration of Firestreak then I wonder where the put the onboard systems for P.1109? I assume they'd be replacing some of the 30mm ammo boxes in the fuselage. Not sure where the systems would go in the wing. So I think wing mounted Firestreak isn't a no-no.

Lightning had climb rate that wasn't matched until the F15 in the West.

I think it's worth remembering that many others weren't that far behind (when loaded). It's more like ~10% better i.e. <30s out of multiple minutes time to climb and accelerate, rather than being say ~50% better. Marginal performance gain for large additional cost.

 

[zen]

Ok well...

We can say the nose would be reprofiled to fit the AI.23 of either 18" diameter as per F.177, or the 21" diameter (as per the Lightning).
Cockpit gaining the AIRPASS system.
We can easily imagine Fairey fitting their 2D variable inlets. This would certainly benefit transonic and supersonic flight, but needs the most additional work.

We can envision the RR Reheat chamber for Avon (either the early 28" or later 33.8"), or the AS Reheat chamber for Sapphire, the Bristol licensed chamber or a possible negotiation for the Swedish Reheat chamber used on the Draken.

Using Avon opens up RR development options. This is a known quantity for Avon and a potential for RB.106 "Thames" or RB.168 Spey.

Using Sapphire opens up AS development options. Mostly improved Sapphires and a version of their Supersonic next generation technology.

Using Olympus allows Bristol development options and potential BE.30 Zeus next generation or some version of a bypass Orpheus (Pegasus like) engine.

Opting for the military version to use Gyron Junior is an alternative.

A Double Scorpion rocket pack was trialled on Canberra and a Lightning. As part of a ventral bulge like the Lightning and this would offset the lower climbing performance.

Pylons would mount missile 'shoes' or a cranked wing would allow wingtip missile shoes.
Fairey did like the wingtip solution.

Most of this would be funded anyway for the P.1B, so alternating to Fairey's Delta II is hardly a world shattering decision....if Fairey can achieve things on time.

But...
Such a development directly conflicts with Avro 720 and it's development.

But in turn.....Avro and Fairey be in HSA if memory serves.....?
Could there be a synergy here?
Could the two come together, share resources on the wing, fin and other elements?
A Delta II with a single ventral inlet and maybe without 'droop snoot' nose sounds very close to Avro's work.

Arguably a single engined system is cheaper to buy and maintain. But crucially if using a slipper tank based rocket motor system, upgrades to that extend performance affordably in the perspective of the times.

However it's just as plausible to have HSA fund Hawkers P.1082, which is vaguely like a development of the Hunter with reheat, high wing, low tail and scope for navalisation.

And ironically Fairey did scheme a Lightning like option as well.

 

[BROF]

Fairey Delta FD2 was designed as an experimental aircraft for aerodynamic research.

As a combat aircraft it is a terribly bad design:
- the engine is located right behind the intakes, and the reheat at the other end of the fuselage. In-between is large duct. The fuselage is basically full of hot gases. No room for fuel, avionics.
- fixed-geometry intakes that limit max Mach.
- the wing is mid-set. Large heavy forgings to carry the loads around said duct. "Heavy" is the trademark of their aircraft industry at the time.
- because the wing is mid-set and the fuselage occupied by a large (empty) tube, main landing gear legs are long, stalky, have very large diameter but narrow wheels (not good for mediocre runways), and have to retract into the wings, spoiling wing tankage and underwing surface for hard-points.

In order to produce a real combat aircraft, a completely new design is needed :
- as compact as possible a propulsion unit in the rear of the fuselage, leaving the central area free for a large fuel tank;
- simple yet effective VG intakes including as few moving parts as possible;
- low-set wing, a simple and sturdy tip-to-tip structure / tank that provides a large flat belly/underwing surface for hard-points;
- and makes possible short, sturdy MLG legs that retract in the fuselage beneath the front end of the engine.
BTW I just described the GAMD Mirage III.

 

[red admiral]

I both agree and disagree with all of that

• Engine position is very similar to MIII and Draken; engine face is about at the cg. There is loads more space for avionics than say a nose intake because you have large bays in front and behind the cockpit.
• Fixed geometry intakes reduce thrust at high Mach numbers (>1.6), but simple variable geometry intakes were planned. 2D wedge with movable lip if you look at the likes of FD.3. Draken managed fine with a simple fixed pitot.
• Wing is also mid set on Draken (and many other aircraft) with load paths going around circular ring frames rather than straight through.
• I'm definitely not convinces on the landing gear side. Yes its long, but looks really robust with a nice trailing link and double nose gear. Should be better for poor runways than MIII.
• The mid wing position also provides more ground clearance for larger stores e.g. external fuel tanks, MERs

Aircraft design is a bunch of trade offs and none of those things are either "bad" or don't enable a "real combat aircraft"

There's still a bunch of work to get to an in service aircraft, just as there was for Mirage I to III-001 to IIIA to IIIC or P.1 to P.1A to P.1B to Lightning F.1, F.3, F.3A

 

[zen]

It's certainly true there be tradeoffs.
Example
The further from the center of lift a weight is, like a 2,000lb engine and 1,000lb reheat chamber, the greater the weight of the structure to carry that load.

And 'o' rings distribute load carrying evenly and do so regardless of the direction of forces.

The tradeoff for wings and undercarriage is not a trivial one. Obviously the wing is already having to carry all the weight in flight. But point loads such as all the weight on undercarriage requires more structure to bear the loads. But housing undercarriage in the wings interrupts the wing structure and imposes more weight to distribute that load.
Whereas the wing has to carry the fusilage anyway so often the best location is in that fusilage.

So it's a pretty glib thing to trot out that Fairey got it 'wrong' somehow. Weight was a critical thing to manage with the relatively low power of early jets. Their choices seem reasonable for the times.