Lightning Vertically Stacked Engines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightning Vertically Stacked Engines
Lightning seems to be only fast jet designed with vertical stack arrangement of its 2 engines.
What was the disadvantage that meant it was not continued with any subsequent fast jets?
Also, any particular advantage for vertical stack?
What was the disadvantage that meant it was not continued with any subsequent fast jets?
Also, any particular advantage for vertical stack?
From https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%201766.html
Inspired design led to the unique Lightning staggered-engine configuration—both engines being installed on the aircraft centre line, viewed from above, but with the upper engine to the rear of the lower engine, thereby giving an effective powerplant frontal area only 1.5 times that of a single powerplant. This configuration not only minimises drag but also eliminates asymmetric engine-cut effects and allows the possibility of low-altitude cruising on one engine, as well as providing the only chance of getting home to base after an engine failure. It also simplifies the duplication of essential services, allowing increased reliability.
Liked the 'increased reliability' bit. Not many of us who worked on Lightnings (the early ones at least) would agree with that statement.
The advantage was reduced frontal area with the resultant reduction in drag. However it came at a huge price - no fuselage fuel. So the Lightning was very quick but not for long. Another downside was poor accessibility for engine ancillary components. Virtually all replacements required an ECU removal.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it barely counts as a 'fast' jet, but the stacked Avons on the Shorts Sperrin were arranged thusly to enable the wing spars to run uninterrupted from root to tip, passing aft of and between the engines, whereas on the other V-bombers a double-banjo or holes in the spars were required.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another jet-stacker, and for different reasons yet again. The F+W Arbalètte had four Turboméca Piméné turbojets disposed in vertical pairs; it was a 60% scale test-bed for the N-20 fighter and didn't have enough internal volume for buried engines.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
as well as providing the only chance of getting home to base after an engine failure.
I'd say it is actually a requirement for a twin engined aeroplane. For some older designs there certainly are examples that cannot maintain altitude on a single engine in certain weight/density altitude combinations, but not for anything designed in the past 40 years or so.
(actually, all aircraft will get down... but whether you can use the aircraft again afterwards...)
(actually, all aircraft will get down... but whether you can use the aircraft again afterwards...)
SOP for Farnborough based Lightnings was when returning on minimum fuel [300lb was it?](which they invariably did after a 'shoot' over Cardigan Bay) and unable to land at the first attempt in IMC, shut down one engine and divert to Brize. They would normally try to return with enough fuel to divert to Boscombe but this would mean they were marginally overweight to land straight away so would burn off in the visual circuit in a way that only a Lightning could!!.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These days they're aiming for stealth, which tends to benefit from a wide, flat fuselage (blended into the wings) rather than a tall, narrow one. Having the engines side-by-side also allows space for a weapons bay between them (or at least between the intakes) and that improves stealth too.
Recovery fuel
chevron
A couple of points on your post, firstly 'normal' minimum recovery fuel pre diversion was 800lbs/side as I recall and secondly the Lightning did not have any 'overweight' landing restriction except that the F6 could not land with fuel in the overwing ferry tanks (if carried) and I doubt very much that they would have been for any activity in Aberporth Range.
A couple of points on your post, firstly 'normal' minimum recovery fuel pre diversion was 800lbs/side as I recall and secondly the Lightning did not have any 'overweight' landing restriction except that the F6 could not land with fuel in the overwing ferry tanks (if carried) and I doubt very much that they would have been for any activity in Aberporth Range.
chevron
A couple of points on your post, firstly 'normal' minimum recovery fuel pre diversion was 800lbs/side as I recall and secondly the Lightning did not have any 'overweight' landing restriction except that the F6 could not land with fuel in the overwing ferry tanks (if carried) and I doubt very much that they would have been for any activity in Aberporth Range.
A couple of points on your post, firstly 'normal' minimum recovery fuel pre diversion was 800lbs/side as I recall and secondly the Lightning did not have any 'overweight' landing restriction except that the F6 could not land with fuel in the overwing ferry tanks (if carried) and I doubt very much that they would have been for any activity in Aberporth Range.
As for being overweight for landing, maybe the pilots told us this because they enjoyed throwing it around when back in the circuit; I can remember it running if for a break just as a Buccaneer rolled; I warned the Bucc about the Lightning and the Lightning driver (Jack Frost if I recall) said 'do you have to give the game away' then there was the bang of reheat lighting he and promptly chased the Bucc as far as Basingstoke!
Last edited by chevvron; 21st Feb 2017 at 13:28.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Out in the desert
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However it came at a huge price - no fuselage fuel. So the Lightning was very quick but not for long.
The final evolution of the Avro 730 supersonic bomber was intended to have 8 engines, arranged in a 2x2 stacked pair on each outboard wing section.
No doubt an engine failure on take-off would have involved more than one engine, so the pilot would have had a fine old time trying to keep straight on the bicycle undercarriage with only a periscope to view the outside wotld...
No doubt an engine failure on take-off would have involved more than one engine, so the pilot would have had a fine old time trying to keep straight on the bicycle undercarriage with only a periscope to view the outside wotld...
Pegasus,
Your friend was not far off the truth. However because the F6 was limited to M2.0 (directional stability) this could be achieved (just) without AAR. Indeed it was part of conversion to type when first joining an F6 squadron. In my case the sortie lasted 40' and as I recall was from abeam Wick to abeam Leuchars. It was the first and last time that I ever flew at M2.0 This was before the installation of the ventral gun pack with its associated reduction in fuel load and extra drag. Might have been a bit more knife-edge thereafter.
Your friend was not far off the truth. However because the F6 was limited to M2.0 (directional stability) this could be achieved (just) without AAR. Indeed it was part of conversion to type when first joining an F6 squadron. In my case the sortie lasted 40' and as I recall was from abeam Wick to abeam Leuchars. It was the first and last time that I ever flew at M2.0 This was before the installation of the ventral gun pack with its associated reduction in fuel load and extra drag. Might have been a bit more knife-edge thereafter.
Last edited by nipva; 25th Feb 2017 at 09:11.
