Cannons on the Lightning F2/F2A
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannons on the Lightning F2/F2A
Taking my two year old grandson around Scotland's National Museum of Flight at East Fortune earlier today reminded me how odd I always find it that their Lightning F2A, done up in 92 Sqn colours and RAF Gutersloh all-over-green has four cannons, two in the upper part of the nose, and two in the lower part of the nose.
After all, everyone knows that Lightnings had, at best, two cannons, and some marks had none at all. Or do they? My Lightning references tend to be a bit light on the F2 and F2A, presumably because they were slightly removed from the mainstream of Lightning development and used by only two squadrons.
But I did unearth a passing reference to the F2 getting four cannons, and looking closely at the superb photographs on the "Spotting Group Gutersloh" website appears to suggest that the F2A could be, and very occasionally was, fitted with four cannons, but that the lower pair were an "either/or" option with the two missiles: No92SquadronF2A | Spotting Group Gütersloh - Flugplatz von 1937 bis heute The normal fit seemed to be one (upper) pair of cannons and a pair of missiles, with the lower cannon nozzles fitted with blanking plates.
Does anyone know if this is a correct deduction? The National Museum of Flight aircraft that started this line of thought can be seen below, complete with four cannons, two missiles, and red nozzle surrounds...
After all, everyone knows that Lightnings had, at best, two cannons, and some marks had none at all. Or do they? My Lightning references tend to be a bit light on the F2 and F2A, presumably because they were slightly removed from the mainstream of Lightning development and used by only two squadrons.
But I did unearth a passing reference to the F2 getting four cannons, and looking closely at the superb photographs on the "Spotting Group Gutersloh" website appears to suggest that the F2A could be, and very occasionally was, fitted with four cannons, but that the lower pair were an "either/or" option with the two missiles: No92SquadronF2A | Spotting Group Gütersloh - Flugplatz von 1937 bis heute The normal fit seemed to be one (upper) pair of cannons and a pair of missiles, with the lower cannon nozzles fitted with blanking plates.
Does anyone know if this is a correct deduction? The National Museum of Flight aircraft that started this line of thought can be seen below, complete with four cannons, two missiles, and red nozzle surrounds...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure your info is correct and that the museum have removed the blanking plates - I'm pretty certain it was an either/or for the belly pack. There was one F2A fitted with a 27mm Mauser in the ventral, I believe.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
Sorry, I can't help re your weapons query, but you should note the shot of "P" actually in flight in the excellent link....given that it spent about 1 year on the ground, 10months of which I spent repairing it after a "series of misunderstandings"...more like a Greek tragedy actually.... post its left leg collapse due to a spurious fire warning and firm arrival back at Gut.
Probably the most satisfying repair I ever did to be honest due to numerous reasons.
I understand that it subsequently gave a repeat performance of the fire warning however.
Probably the most satisfying repair I ever did to be honest due to numerous reasons.
I understand that it subsequently gave a repeat performance of the fire warning however.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that having skipped the cannons altogether on the F3, they remedied the error on the F6 (originally intended to be known as the F3A) by fitting a pair in the front section of the enlarged ventral tank.
If, and I suspect it's a pretty big "if", there was cross compatability between F2A and F6 ventral tanks then physically carrying 6 cannons on an F2A with an F6 ventral tank forward section would presumably have been a theoretical possibility.
The irony of the twists and turns of the cannon argument in the Lightning, and especially the absenceof any on the F3, is the echo in the rather more recent debate about providing ammunition for the Typhoon cannon.
If, and I suspect it's a pretty big "if", there was cross compatability between F2A and F6 ventral tanks then physically carrying 6 cannons on an F2A with an F6 ventral tank forward section would presumably have been a theoretical possibility.
The irony of the twists and turns of the cannon argument in the Lightning, and especially the absenceof any on the F3, is the echo in the rather more recent debate about providing ammunition for the Typhoon cannon.
I am pretty sure that the 2A had the ventral gun pack like the 6 and the nose cannon. I am not sure what the lower guns shown were. Also I believe that there was the idea of the alternative weapons pack which gave the option of another 2 cannon but that would be at the expense of the missiles. Not sure whether the RAF took up the option ever.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These two sites here and here have some gen, essentially the lower pair of weapons were optional, but policy was 'the missile is the way of the future' so these were usually fitted in preference.Remember the Lighting was the only fighter to survive the '57 Defence White Paper, as an interim wepon system until SAMs were available. This one is for a group of enthusiasts. The 92 Sqn spotters site you reference is fascinating.
This is an early variant (F1 I think); note the muzzle position below the nose either side of the nose gear and short ventral tank. The lower weapons seem to be in a removable pack which I presume held either guns or the missile gubbins but not both:
This is an F6, see the longer ventral tank with the gun muzzle just visible below the Red Top missile fin
This is an early variant (F1 I think); note the muzzle position below the nose either side of the nose gear and short ventral tank. The lower weapons seem to be in a removable pack which I presume held either guns or the missile gubbins but not both:
This is an F6, see the longer ventral tank with the gun muzzle just visible below the Red Top missile fin
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, I remember reading a magazine with a "Cutaway" drawing [Flight?] in the '60s. This showed a "Ventral pack" of interchangeable [sp]Firestreaks/Unguided Rocket packs (drop down doors. ala F86D)/Twin cannon pack. I think that the cannon muzzles were external tho' A good website is Thunder and Lightnings....not just for this Beauty...
Last edited by chiglet; 22nd Jan 2012 at 22:36. Reason: speeling
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the ORP
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Mk2/2A had 2 cannons permanently installed in the upper nose. The lower guns could be installed as a pack but that pack replaced the missile pack so it was either/or. Basically, the aircraft was always flown with 2 guns and 2 Firestreak, very, very ocassionally would the 4 gun fit be flown. There was a ground-air rocket pack which could be fitted but don't believe the RAF ever operated with this ground attack option although maybe the Saudi guys used it.
The more advanced OR 946 instrument system in the Mk3/6 used up the gun space in the upper nose ergo no guns on the F3 and ventral tank guns on the F6.
We used to fire the guns at regular but fairly infrequent intervals, usually into the sea off the coast near Leeuwarden, I well recall bringing a MK2 back to Gutersloh with no ASIs as the vibration from the guns broke the tubing to the instrument panel.
The more advanced OR 946 instrument system in the Mk3/6 used up the gun space in the upper nose ergo no guns on the F3 and ventral tank guns on the F6.
We used to fire the guns at regular but fairly infrequent intervals, usually into the sea off the coast near Leeuwarden, I well recall bringing a MK2 back to Gutersloh with no ASIs as the vibration from the guns broke the tubing to the instrument panel.
2 TWU
Your post is 100% factually correct.
The only thing I would add is to say that the FMk2A was, by far, the best mark of Lightning - two cannon, two missiles, more fuel than the FMk6 (because the cannon in the ventral took away fuel space in the FMk6), less-thirsty Avon 200 series (as opposed to the FMk6 300 series) and no fueldraulic pumps - so less fire prone than the FMk6.
I have very happy memories of Gutersloh in the early 70s.
Your post is 100% factually correct.
The only thing I would add is to say that the FMk2A was, by far, the best mark of Lightning - two cannon, two missiles, more fuel than the FMk6 (because the cannon in the ventral took away fuel space in the FMk6), less-thirsty Avon 200 series (as opposed to the FMk6 300 series) and no fueldraulic pumps - so less fire prone than the FMk6.
I have very happy memories of Gutersloh in the early 70s.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm grateful for the replies, and thanks for clearing this one up: you learn something every day! Incidentally, that link was to the 92 Sqn section of a German site covering the history of Gutersloh more widely, and there are many more photos of the same quality elsewhere on the site, whose main page is here: Startseite | Spotting Group Gütersloh - Flugplatz von 1937 bis heute
