The EE Lighning with 'horizontal' jet engines layout?

[tomo pauk]

The Lightning, jet fighter by English Electric, was a true hot rod. The favorable thrust-to-weight ratio made it an excellent climber (so it can intercept the Soviet bombers before they can bomb UK), and dash speed & acceleration were also top-notch (even with belly tank and missiles). The price for that was lack of internal fuel (fuselage is little more than wrapping of the engines and air tunnels; wing - where most of the internal fuel was kept - is very thin), that forced the company to install the belly tank so the endurance could be stretched to the meaningful level, and that change was one of things that got Saudi and Kuwaiti orders (at least by this documentary). Later, the Lightnings got the over-wing tanks that could be ejected. The fighter didn't enjoyed much of the export success, the F-104, F-4 and Mirage III carving most of the non-Soviet fighters' market.
So, let's have EE designing the Lightning with engines seated one next to another, instead of one above another, and have extra fuel tanks behind the pilot and above the engines; obviously the belly tank is not needed now, but it can carry a 'normal' drop tank in the place from day one if more range/endurance is needed. Can this change make the Lightning more appealing to the people abroad, while the economy of scales making the fighter cheaper to buy for the RAF?
Further - any point in making a combat-worthy all weather 2-seater from it now?

 

[buffnut453]

Side-by-side engines could have enabled the undercarriage to be mounted on the fuselage, which would have freed wing area for fuel and underwing stores.

 

[Kevin J]

The Lightning, jet fighter by English Electric, was a true hot rod. The favorable thrust-to-weight ratio made it an excellent climber (so it can intercept the Soviet bombers before they can bomb UK), and dash speed & acceleration were also top-notch (even with belly tank and missiles). The price for that was lack of internal fuel (fuselage is little more than wrapping of the engines and air tunnels; wing - where most of the internal fuel was kept - is very thin), that forced the company to install the belly tank so the endurance could be stretched to the meaningful level, and that change was one of things that got Saudi and Kuwaiti orders (at least by this documentary). Later, the Lightnings got the over-wing tanks that could be ejected. The fighter didn't enjoyed much of the export success, the F-104, F-4 and Mirage III carving most of the non-Soviet fighters' market.
So, let's have EE designing the Lightning with engines seated one next to another, instead of one above another, and have extra fuel tanks behind the pilot and above the engines; obviously the belly tank is not needed now, but it can carry a 'normal' drop tank in the place from day one if more range/endurance is needed. Can this change make the Lightning more appealing to the people abroad, while the economy of scales making the fighter cheaper to buy for the RAF?
Further - any point in making a combat-worthy all weather 2-seater from it now?

IMO, the next step in the sixties, would be to have created a new aircraft of a similar overall size. So twin RR Spey, side by side, VG wing, two seats in tandem, all weather, to replace both Sea Vixen and Lightning. So no P1154, no purchase of MD Phantom II, no AFVG design. Hindsight or common sense? A rival to the Tomcat but in the F-111 timeline. Perhaps the USN would have bought. After all the USMC did buy the Harrier.

 

[Capt. Vick]

20% less ugly...maybe?

 

[buffnut453]

20% less ugly...maybe?

Them's fightin' words, brother!