Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

English-Electric Lightning / Hotas Question

Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:16 am

I remember hearing that one of the interesting characteristics of the English Electric Lightning was it's use of HOTAS and a side-stick. In regards to this, did the English-Electric Lightning utilize FBW technology, or did it use ordinary mechanical-set-up?

If it did feature a mechanical set-up, why couldn't such a side-stick controller use FBW signalling and have a mechanical-signalling back-up for use on say a transport-category plane?

Andrea Kent
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: English-Electric Lightning / Hotas Question

Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:38 am

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
HOTAS and a side-stick


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard J Curtis
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TZ Aviation



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Polidano
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Polidano



Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
did the English-Electric Lightning utilize FBW technology

No.

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
why couldn't such a side-stick controller use FBW signalling

Because it was built to a 1947 specification, and the last version first flew in 1965.

English Electric once built electric trams (streetcars). Not electric jets.

Peter 

[Edited 2007-08-17 03:41:53]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: English-Electric Lightning / Hotas Question

Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:44 pm

Silly me, I mis-read the title as English Electric Lightening and HOTOL which is something entirely differant ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: English-Electric Lightning / Hotas Question

Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:07 am

HOTAS is all about ergonomics, easing the task of pilots flying highly complex machines in operations that are often 'swing role'.

Lightning was built in a previous era, for one thing, to scramble then reach the missile range of the Soviet bombers attacking UK airspace, as fast as possible.
By missile range, meaning a few miles, for the two Firestreak tail chase, or later semi all-aspect Red Top, IR guided missiles.
Range, payload, were very low priorities.

That said, it was a fine aircraft, blunted like so many other post war UK military aircraft, by lack of development.
It only survived the 1957 Defence Review, that axed most military aircraft programmes for an intended nuclear deterrence orientated force of SAM's and IRBM's, because as the paper put it unfortunately it is too advanced in development.'
Development meaning the stage from essentially technology demonstrators, to P.1 prototypes.

But the '57 review axed the planned P.8, it's area ruled rear fuselage accommodating a new main landing gear, not retracting into the wings like the Lightnings built, hence more fuel and potential for weapon pylons.
As the '57 review was slowly rescinded after the real damage was done, BAC by the mid 60's, was designing upgraded Lightnings wing swing wings, further from that, swing wings with a new 'solid' nose and side intakes.
But by then, it was too late, the RN had picked the F.4, the cancellation of the over ambitious P.1154 supersonic VSTOL, meant F-4's were heading the RAF's way too.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirlineCritic and 12 guests