It's struck me over the course of debates over the RAF and RN that there is one glaring omission.
That had EE produced a Lightning with side by side engines, trading the extra fuel bulge's increase in cross sectional area for achieving this. That the resultant Lightning is a more practical design, potentially much easier to maintain, and more amenable to further development (such as a solid nose, VG wings etc...). Also easier to move the undercarridge into the fusilage and expand the stores capacity of the wing with more pylons.
As I pondered this I was also struck by how much cheaper the Lightning was, compared to the alternatives once it was in production and service.
Why bother with the F4 for the RAF if this 'other Lightning' could tote the WE.177?
The only answer seems to be radar missile combination.
That had EE produced a Lightning with side by side engines, trading the extra fuel bulge's increase in cross sectional area for achieving this. That the resultant Lightning is a more practical design, potentially much easier to maintain, and more amenable to further development (such as a solid nose, VG wings etc...). Also easier to move the undercarridge into the fusilage and expand the stores capacity of the wing with more pylons.
As I pondered this I was also struck by how much cheaper the Lightning was, compared to the alternatives once it was in production and service.
Why bother with the F4 for the RAF if this 'other Lightning' could tote the WE.177?
The only answer seems to be radar missile combination.