What if

General Modelling Forum => General Modeling topics => The Idea Bank => Topic started by: McColm on June 11, 2021, 03:42:35 am

Title: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 11, 2021, 03:42:35 am
 What if the USAF had chosen the Eurofighter Typhoon instead of the F-22 Raptor. With stiff competition from the F-15 camp and likewise the F/A-18 . The politicians debated whether or not a foreign built aircraft had a place in the Air Force.
The USNavy asked for a carrier version to be built. An extended nose wheel,  folding radar: vertical tail fin and folding wings witha reinforced arrestor hook. This was passed to the USMarines who took up the gauntlet.
The USMarines quickly saw the potential for the Typhoon as a ground attack,  reconnaissance and EW platform as well as a fighter/interceptor. Opting for the two seater as the standard layout.
Lockheed won the contract to modify 12 Typhoons using American engines and a familiar cockpit so that it wasn't necessary for dedicated trainers to be built. With the second cockpit Lockheed lengthened the fuselage slightly to compensate for the fuel lost.
 The USNavy took an interest when the Typhoons started trials on the assault ships,  the short take off without a catapult was very impressive which led to trials with a ski ramp. Monies were made available for an initial batch of 30 aircraft to be pooled by both the USNavy and USMarines.
 The USAF would have the  F/A-19 A /B a mixture of single and two seaters,  whilst the USNavy were designated the     
F/A-19 C with the USMarines the D.
 During the sea trials conformal fuel tanks were fitted and became standard issue this was designated with a +.
 The Typhoons would start to replace the older Hornets and Super Hornets,  although not built in the numbers as the
F-16 the Typhoons once again replaced the F-16s with the most flying hours. Some F-15 A, B C and D Squadrons were replaced with the Typhoons. Whilst plans for a dedicated E/F bomber with a 25% bigger wings made it into production. The wings at the production stage had grown to 30% with a hydraulic edge that dropped downwards whilst in flight to aid super cruise.
Well that's the theory.
 The build
I have in the past experimented with larger wings on the Airfix 1/72 Eurofighter Typhoon kit and Revell single plus twin seater. They might not be the best kits to build but with a bit of putty/filler you can turn out something decent. I don't know if Freightdog still sells the extended nose wheel leg for the F-4 Phantom but I used one of those on my attempt of the Sea Typhoon and raided my spares boxes for a slightly larger arrestor hook. I ended up using the wings from the Airfix F-18 Hornet but kept the single tail fin.
The wings from a 1/72 F-15 and a F-117 also fit the Airfix Typhoon old kit. Something larger would be the Dassault Mirage  IVP wings. I think I have the kit in the stash somewhere.
I will probably buy a few more so I can build the USAF pre-production version,  I haven't seen any 1/72 Typhoon conformal fuel tanks but they do sell the ones for the F-16 and they seem to fit.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Dizzyfugu on June 11, 2021, 04:04:48 am
I doubt that the F-16 tanks would fit - the Typhoon's conformal tanks rather look like simple, large drop tank halves, just stuck to the fuselage. Should be easy to mimic. The F-16 tanks have a much different shape and the surface they cling to is concave!

(https://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonline.com/files/styles/ain30_fullwidth_large_2x/public/uploads/725_5dwm5056_0.jpg?itok=9fm_f41G&timestamp=1384796375)

(https://i.imgur.com/VJs80DO.jpg)

BTW, the Rafale could have been an alternative, too, and there was/is also a navalized version radily available?
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 11, 2021, 05:26:42 am
'Conformal' tanks seem to have only to conform to the existing shape of the aeroplane. None of them 'conform' to the outer shapes, almost every version looks as ugly as sin!
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 11, 2021, 08:18:45 am
No wonder I had to cut the F-16 conformal fuel tanks to fit. I was saving the Rafale for a rainy day. In my alternative history the Eurofighter Typhoon was cancelled causing the M.O.D. U.K .to buy the Rafale underlience for the RAF and FAA for carrier operations but kept the name Typhoon using British/European  engines and avionics.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Pellson on June 11, 2021, 09:07:29 am
I doubt that the F-16 tanks would fit - the Typhoon's conformal tanks rather look like simple, large drop tank halves, just stuck to the fuselage. Should be easy to mimic. The F-16 tanks have a much different shape and the surface they cling to is concave!

Did the Eurofighter consortium ever certify these tanks for use? I’ve only seen them in photos from static displays - and of course the oh so pretty Omani sales painting.
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/arabic-typhoon.jpg)
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: scooter on June 11, 2021, 12:13:45 pm
'Conformal' tanks seem to have only to conform to the existing shape of the aeroplane. None of them 'conform' to the outer shapes, almost every version looks as ugly as sin!

Dunno...IMHO, F-15C/D/E/etc. conformal tanks actually improve the look of the airplane.

Instead of this:
(https://media.defense.gov/2007/Oct/15/2000441427/-1/-1/0/071015-F-1234S-013.JPG)

You get this
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/the-drive-staging/message-editor%2F1517872788919-mh98.jpg)
(And just by sheer coincidence, its an Eagle from the 57th FIS/FS from NASKEF)
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 11, 2021, 12:28:55 pm
Yes, you could be right there.  :thumbsup:

But the F-16's and the Typhoons look like they're stuck on there. :(
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Knightflyer on June 11, 2021, 01:19:44 pm
I doubt that the F-16 tanks would fit - the Typhoon's conformal tanks rather look like simple, large drop tank halves, just stuck to the fuselage. Should be easy to mimic. The F-16 tanks have a much different shape and the surface they cling to is concave!

(https://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonline.com/files/styles/ain30_fullwidth_large_2x/public/uploads/725_5dwm5056_0.jpg?itok=9fm_f41G&timestamp=1384796375)


I must admit these look like something I'd attempt as a modeller ......  ;D

I can understand that 'conformal' relates to how they fit to the surface of the fighter underneath them, and I suppose 'half drop tanks' are fairly aerodynamic, but the F-15 conformal tanks do at least look like somebody made a bit of effort..... rather than the design stage being an Airfix kit and some spares from the stash!  ;D
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 12, 2021, 12:48:38 am
The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Pellson on June 12, 2021, 12:54:42 am
The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.

So probably certified, then. Thanks Mac. Much appreciated.
I actually do like the looks of them whereas I find the F-16 ones hideous. Can’t say why, but I will need to do something about a Typhoon any day soon.  :wub:
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 12, 2021, 01:48:58 am
I think that I am right in saying that the RAF are waiting for a flying prototype of the Tempest before they order the Tranche 5 Typhoon.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 12, 2021, 05:11:25 am
Overwing tanks, like a Lightning, that's the way to go.  :thumbsup:

That'll be a REAL Lightning, the one with its engines on top of each other...............
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 12, 2021, 09:21:04 am
Overwing tanks, like a Lightning, that's the way to go.  :thumbsup:

That'll be a REAL Lightning, the one with its engines on top of each other...............
I wonder why no one else has copied that layout?
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: kitbasher on June 12, 2021, 10:01:25 am
Because it’s a pig of a design in maintenance terms.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: kerick on June 12, 2021, 10:08:17 am
The Jaguar had over wing Sidewinders which must have been fun for the weapons loaders.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: perttime on June 12, 2021, 10:56:00 pm
The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.
I'm wondering about the effect of conformal tanks on aircraft performance.
When I see Finnish Hornets, drop tanks are not an unusual sight. But at least you can get rid of a drop tank, mid-flight.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: scooter on June 13, 2021, 01:58:52 am
The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.
I'm wondering about the effect of conformal tanks on aircraft performance.
When I see Finnish Hornets, drop tanks are not an unusual sight. But at least you can get rid of a drop tank, mid-flight.

It's a toss up between aerodynamic efficiency and dead weight when empty.  At least the CFTs on Eagles\Strike Eagles\Silent Eagles double as weapons carriage.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: zenrat on June 13, 2021, 04:07:01 am
Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 13, 2021, 05:51:37 am

Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.


That's WHY they work so well on Lightnings.  ;D

Almost everything on a Lightning is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it being a real classic.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Scotaidh on June 13, 2021, 07:59:44 am
The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.
I'm wondering about the effect of conformal tanks on aircraft performance.
When I see Finnish Hornets, drop tanks are not an unusual sight. But at least you can get rid of a drop tank, mid-flight.

It's a toss up between aerodynamic efficiency and dead weight when empty.  At least the CFTs on Eagles\Strike Eagles\Silent Eagles double as weapons carriage.

I was always rather fond of the look those trailing edge fairings on the Victors.;  For some reason I always fancied they were fuel tanks ... like the bullet fairings on the leading edges, only aft (if that makes any sense)?

 What about detachable tip tanks?  I know that now that's home for a lot of Sidewinders et al, but they could find other homes - put the launch rails either sides of the stabilizer?  Put a fuselage plug fwd of the wing to keep your CG, and voila!  Tip tanks now viable, plus added internal tankage!

No?   :wub:
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: perttime on June 14, 2021, 03:01:32 am
...
 What about detachable tip tanks?  I know that now that's home for a lot of Sidewinders et al, but they could find other homes - put the launch rails either sides of the stabilizer?  Put a fuselage plug fwd of the wing to keep your CG, and voila!  Tip tanks now viable, plus added internal tankage!

No?   :wub:
I think wing tips is now the favored place for counter measures on many fighters. At least that is what I recall seeing on Eurofighters and Gripens.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 14, 2021, 04:16:51 am

Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.


That's WHY they work so well on Lightnings.  ;D

Almost everything on a Lightning is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it being a real classic.  :thumbsup:
The EE Lightning was underdeveloped, if more money had been spent on it to make improvements it might be still flying today in frontline service with a third world country.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: zenrat on June 14, 2021, 04:27:05 am
Wingtip tanks add mass as far from the aircraft's centre of roll as possible.  This will increase the required roll-moment and slow down roll rate when a combat aircraft wold want it as fast as possible.
Mounting conformal tanks on the fuselage puts the fuel closest to centre of roll without putting it inside.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: rickshaw on June 14, 2021, 04:51:31 am

Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.


That's WHY they work so well on Lightnings.  ;D

Almost everything on a Lightning is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it being a real classic.  :thumbsup:
The EE Lightning was underdeveloped, if more money had been spent on it to make improvements it might be still flying today in frontline service with a third world country.

The Lightning was originally a development/test aircraft that got turned into a fighter.  As a consequence it was all designed wrong and was a real maintenance hog for an operational aircraft.  Engine changes were apparently a real nightmare and not looked forward to by the ground crew at all.  As Kit suggests, its unusual appearance is what makes it so interesting.  The overwing tanks worked and quite well by all accounts just as the overwing Sidewinders of the Jaguar did.  They were just a little difficult to attach/detach.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 14, 2021, 08:51:09 am
From the feedback,  when I was in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force 1986 to 1997 was the over wing fuel tanks created so much drag that the speed had to be reduced to mach 1.5. This allowed upto 40 minutes endurance hence the inflight refuelling probe. The Lightning was also limited to the amount of underwing pylons it could carry.
I think over wing 'Y' pylons might have been a better solution.
According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state, but we are discussing the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 14, 2021, 12:19:03 pm

According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state,


That would have been the big winged and big engined PR9s. They took off on 75% throttle or they'd cook the brakes and tyres!  :o
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: kitbasher on June 14, 2021, 12:25:35 pm

According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state,


That would have been the big winged and big engined PR9s. They took off on 75% throttle or they'd cook the brakes and tyres!  :o

The PR9 is an incredibly underrated aircraft.  It's performance was very impressive - climb, endurance, you name it.  Powered by a pair of Lightning Avons sans reheat, in its final years a number were equipped with U-2R cameras that required fairly sizable ports to be cut out of the fuselage.  Certainly the pinnacle of RAF wet film PR - of course digital photography has progressed in leaps and bounds since its retirement.

I remember very clearly the sight of a one-eyed nav climbing out of the hinged nose of a PR9 when I was holding at Wyton ahead of air traffic training.  Got a trip in a T4 while I was there.  Was sworn to secrecy not to mention the tiny bit of aerobatics over Lincolnshire, so I haven't.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 14, 2021, 12:36:16 pm

According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state,


That would have been the big winged and big engined PR9s. They took off on 75% throttle or they'd cook the brakes and tyres!  :o

The PR9 is an incredibly underrated aircraft. 


Absolutely, a totally different aeroplane to other Canberras, except possibly an RB.-57F.

When I worked on XH131, also at Wyton, the ground air crews could do nothing but sing their praises.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on June 14, 2021, 12:52:38 pm
Overwing tanks, like a Lightning, that's the way to go.  :thumbsup:

That'll be a REAL Lightning, the one with its engines on top of each other...............

I think overwing tanks would be problematic on a REAL Lightning.  ;D ;)

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2016/post-46143-0-97750100-1456665341.jpg)

Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: scooter on June 14, 2021, 01:31:27 pm
Overwing tanks, like a Lightning, that's the way to go.  :thumbsup:

That'll be a REAL Lightning, the one with its engines on top of each other...............

I think overwing tanks would be problematic on a REAL Lightning.  ;D ;)

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2016/post-46143-0-97750100-1456665341.jpg)

I think the engines on top of each other would also be a problem on a real Lightning
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 14, 2021, 04:11:32 pm
That's an American Lightning, not the same thing at all..................
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: scooter on June 14, 2021, 04:57:41 pm
That's an American Lightning, not the same thing at all..................
:wacko: :wacko:
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 14, 2021, 10:51:53 pm
And people complain about me going off topic it's the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: zenrat on June 15, 2021, 03:35:10 am
Overwing tanks, like a Lightning, that's the way to go.  :thumbsup:

That'll be a REAL Lightning, the one with its engines on top of each other...............

I think overwing tanks would be problematic on a REAL Lightning.  ;D ;)

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2016/post-46143-0-97750100-1456665341.jpg)

I think the engines on top of each other would also be a problem on a real Lightning

I'm sure Tophe can come up with something...
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on June 16, 2021, 01:31:55 pm
That's an American Lightning, not the same thing at all..................

But it was named by y'all.  ;)

It's also why the F-35 is the Lightning II.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Pellson on June 16, 2021, 02:43:14 pm
That's an American Lightning, not the same thing at all..................

But it was named by y'all.  ;)

It's also why the F-35 is the Lightning II.

Having grown up in a Europe guarded by real Lightnings, I feel the F-35 rather should be called the “Short Circuit”..  ;)

Sorry. Too obvious a piss to take to leave it dry..  ;D
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 16, 2021, 03:05:12 pm
That's an American Lightning, not the same thing at all..................

But it was named by y'all.  ;)

It's also why the F-35 is the Lightning II.
A white elephant would be an appropriate name.
Having grown up in a Europe guarded by real Lightnings, I feel the F-35 rather should be called the “Short Circuit”..  ;)

Sorry. Too obvious a piss to take to leave it dry..  ;D
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 16, 2021, 03:24:10 pm
That's an American Lightning, not the same thing at all..................

But it was named by y'all.  ;)

It's also why the F-35 is the Lightning II.


It should be the Lightning III then.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on June 16, 2021, 03:55:36 pm
That's an American Lightning, not the same thing at all..................

But it was named by y'all.  ;)

It's also why the F-35 is the Lightning II.


It should be the Lightning III then.

That would only work if the EE Lightning had been built by Lockheed
and used by the US military. 
;D
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 16, 2021, 06:51:50 pm
It's still the THIRD Lightning that's been flown by the RAF.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 16, 2021, 07:59:25 pm
He's right you know,  the RAF flew the Lockheed P-38s during WWII.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Scotaidh on June 17, 2021, 02:01:29 am
He's right you know,  the RAF flew the Lockheed P-38s during WWII.

I beg to differ - from The History Of War.org we have this:

Unlike many American aircraft of the Second World War the Lockheed Lightning did not see service with the RAF. However, the aircraft did gain its famous nickname from the British, during a period when it was being evaluated by the RAF.

France had placed the first export order for the Lightning, known for export as the Lockheed Model 322. The French order had been for 667 aircraft, using the Allison “C” series engines used on the XP-38, and without the turbo-supercharger. The supercharger seems to have been omitted partly for simplicity, and partly because the French saw the Lightning as a ground attack aircraft rather than as a high performance fighter.

After the collapse of France in June 1940, the RAF took over the French order. However the first three aircraft, by then given the British name Lightning Mk I did not reach Britain until 1942. By that time the need for them not as urgent as in 1940, and the un-turbo-supercharged Lightning did not perform well in RAF tests. The order was thus cancelled. The contract was then taken over by the USAAF, with early aircraft designated the P-322 and later aircraft merged into the P-38F and P-38G production runs.


IIRC, the US considered the P-38's turbochargers "secret" and wouldn't let them be exported. 

I've read a lot of stuff on this, and rarely do any two sources have the same info, so I'm sure someone somewhere has a source that says the RAF did fly the P-38.  I know they did order and evaluate them - but actually use them?  Not sure.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 17, 2021, 02:19:57 am
You are correct,  there were no RAF P-38 Squadrons during WWII but that didn't stop American pilots from flying them with RAF roundels painted on them.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 17, 2021, 02:42:25 am
It'd have been difficult to 'evaluate' the turbo-less P-38s without flying them....................
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Pellson on June 17, 2021, 02:46:05 am
It'd have been difficult to 'evaluate' the turbo-less P-38s without flying them....................

I don’t know about that, considering the track record of military procurement in general.. ;)
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: Knightflyer on June 17, 2021, 03:02:22 am
It'd have been difficult to 'evaluate' the turbo-less P-38s without flying them....................

I don’t know about that, considering the track record of military procurement in general.. ;)

So I think we need to agree on the difference between operational flying (the RAF operated 'Aircraft X' during the war) and flying carried out for evaluation purposes (the RAF evaluated 'Aircraft X but decided it didn't meet requirements) The RAF has flown three 'Lightnings' (anybody want to add the Arado 'Blitz'  ;D) but has only operated two 'Lightnings' ..... somebody is now going to find an obscure First World War aircraft called the Lightning now! ;D
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: kitbasher on June 17, 2021, 04:03:04 am
Four Lightnings:
P-38 (ordered, tested then cancelled but one or two subsequently ‘borrowed’ and used on ops.
Arado 234 ‘Blitz’
EE/BAC Lightning
F-35 Lightning II (to the US, that is - should we Brits get like we did with James VI/James I and call it ‘Lightning III?)

EDIT: since posting have seen Kit’s interjection regarding Lightning III.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: zenrat on June 17, 2021, 04:05:47 am
Thunderbolt is also a name for lightning.

Just saying...

Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: kitbasher on June 17, 2021, 04:06:19 am
You are correct,  there were no RAF P-38 Squadrons during WWII but that didn't stop American pilots from flying them with RAF roundels painted on them.

Really?  Not convinced.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: McColm on June 17, 2021, 05:31:39 am
I think my medication is kicking in please ignore anything that doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: NARSES2 on June 17, 2021, 06:01:35 am

IIRC, the US considered the P-38's turbochargers "secret" and wouldn't let them be exported. 


I've certainly read that somewhere in the past.
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: scooter on June 17, 2021, 06:21:54 am
F-35 Lightning II (to the US, that is - should we Brits get like we did with James VI/James I and call it ‘Lightning III?)

Yes.  Because it'll mess with USN/USMC squadrons cross-decking on to the QE(II) and PoW(VII)  :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Title: Re: Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on June 18, 2021, 12:14:59 pm
The secret turbochargers thing is a bit of a myth, the Anglo-French Purchasing Commission
ordered the Model 322(P-38) with the same Allison V-1710-C15 engines used in the Hawk
81A(P-40) they had already ordered. The decision was taken for logistical reasons.

The engines were not "handed", unlike the rest of the various Lightning models, which
probably played a role in the negative impression during the RAF testing of the three
examples that were sent to the UK.

I can imagine that the lack of counter-rotating propellers, in combination with the relatively
small vertical stabilizers and rudders of the P-38 design, would have been detrimental to the
handling of the aircraft.