Maybe you'd like to own and fly a Lightning or Buccaneer?

[kamanya]

I've lurked for ages. Have absolutely no connection to the auction or planes.

I thought some of your would like to know about this:

Not one, but three of each type. Airworthy and last of their kind flying.

If you've been saving for that rainy day...


Thunder City Aircraft Company - Historical Military Jets - GoIndustry DoveBid (http://www.go-dove.com/event-15794/Thunder-City-Aircraft-Company-Historical-Military-Jets)

http://www.go-dove.com/data/auctions/Auction15794/featured/Event%2005.JPG

http://www.go-dove.com/data/auctions/Auction15794/featured/Event%2003.JPG

[Flying Lawyer]

We can dream. :)

I hope they go to homes where they'll be flown.
Not allowed in the UK unfortunately.

Here are a couple of close-ups from AFB Ysterplaat, Cape Town, September 2008.
(The pics aren't mine - my own weren't as good as these.)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Flying%20Lawyer/AAD%20Ysterplaat/YsterplaatLightning.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Flying%20Lawyer/AAD%20Ysterplaat/YsterplaatLightning2.jpg

[Capetonian]

What stunning photos. Thank you!

[Herod]

There are also four Hunters listed, and I believe they can be flown in the UK. I gather they're classed as "simple" jets, although I think they would be beyond me; I flew the Jet Provost, but was sidelined to helicopters rather than Gnats.

[JEM60]

FLYING LAWYER
Lovely pics. I had to resort to my friends pics. I was at Ysterplaat show in 2005 and my video camera expired at the start of the show!. Long way to go for no video, but great memories.

[Groundloop]

The Buccaneer IS cleared to fly in the UK ( after the Sea Vixen set the precedent). Just the company that owns one is looking for a long-term commercial contract before they do it.

[Evanelpus]

Not allowed in the UK unfortunately.

Excuse my ignorance but why not?

[Jhieminga]

Because the CAA classes the Lightning as a 'complex' jet. Meaning that for such an aircraft a support system is needed (think engineering, maintenance, design authority and more) to enable it to conform to civil safety standards, which is beyond what civil (private) operators can supply.

[Evanelpus]

Thanks for the prompt answer to my question.

[hurn]

Because the CAA classes the Lightning as a 'complex' jet. Meaning that for such an aircraft a support system is needed (think engineering, maintenance, design authority and more) to enable it to conform to civil safety standards, which is beyond what civil (private) operators can supply.It's not impossible for civil operators to get the backing and support needed to fly complex aircraft though. Just look to the Vulcan for proof of that.

Not that I would expect a Lightning would get the required support (unless you had cash to burn), and there's probably a multitude of other reasons why the CAA wouldn't want one buzzing around in UK airspace. :p

[Above The Clouds]

Because the CAA classes the Lightning as a 'complex' jet. Meaning that for such an aircraft a support system is needed (think engineering, maintenance, design authority and more) to enable it to conform to civil safety standards, which is beyond what civil (private) operators can supply


Its more likely because the Lightning has very little or no mechanical redundancy to its flying control system, two hydraulic control systems plus it poor record of inflight fires leaves one option eject, now on top of everything else the CAA don't want see PPL's in an aircraft capble of supersonic flight at sea level being left to its own devices at mach one towards built up areas while someone comes down on a parachute. I think Cape Town proved their point so I doubt you will ever see one fly in the UK again, given that the Victor got airbourne at Bruntingthorpe it may not be long before they ban them from being taxied which would be sad.

[DucatiST4]

The CAA have no interest whatsoever in aircraft being taxied so it won't be them who put a stop to it. The insurance companies might though!

[Rollingthunder]

Reminds me of CF-104. See a red light in front of you - eject!

[Jhieminga]

Its more likely because the Lightning has very little or no mechanical redundancy to its flying control system, two hydraulic control systems plus it poor record of inflight fires leaves one option eject,
AtC: indeed that's one of the reasons that it is classed as 'complex'. I'll need to look up the exact specs but the lack of backup in the flight control department is definitively in there.

The Vulcan is also a complex type but they did get the whole line up of design authority, engineering support etc. working so well done to them. OTOH it is costing a lot of people an arm and a leg to keep it going. If you come up with a good plan and the proper support the CAA isn't against stuff like this but it does tend to be easier in countries that offer more empty space to crash in. ;)

[Above The Clouds]

jhieminga


The Vulcan is also a complex type


Quite true, but what helped convince the CAA to allow a Vulcan to fly was its control redundancy in the form of multiple control sufaces powered by multiple hydraulic systems, you would certainly be having a very bad day in peace time to loose all those control systems, were as the lightning with its two hyd systems running around the aft fuselage they could be taken out with an engine bay/reheat fire or bird strike causing an uncontained engine failure with of course no mechanical redundancy. Aircraft such as the Hunter, JP etc with mechanical linkages in the system don't present these sorts of issues which narrows down the chances of having to eject which was one of the CAA's main issues.

The following link will take you to an all familiar Lightning sequence of failures, although a slightly long but interesting story the paragraph "Mayday Recovery" highlights just what I have described above and the reason for the CAA's restriction on this particular aircraft.

Issue 5 - English Electric Lightning: The 'Hole in the Wall' - Aviation Classics Magazine (http://www.aviationclassics.co.uk/news/issue-5-english-electric-lightning-the-hole-in-the-wall)

[Jhieminga]

Here's the bit I was looking for on the categories of ex-military aircraft:
The CAA defines three categories: a) Simple: single piston engine types (eg Spitfire). b) Intermediate: multiple piston engine or turbine (single or multiple) engine types with simple mechanical flying controls or with powered controls having an independent back-up system that can enable continued safe flight following failure of the powered system (eg the Hunter or Canberra) c) Complex: all other types, including those having features that require specialised knowledge and/or equipment to maintain, aircraft without independent back-up systems for powered flying controls or having automatic stabilisation systems or electronic engine controls.

That's an interesting article ATC! Makes for a thought or two before pulling out the checkbook ;)

[Lightning Mate]

Maybe I was just lucky, but during five years flying the Lightning I never had a fire or a hydraulic failure.

Considering the numbers of aircraft in service, I think the RAF lost more Jaguars than Lightnings, and I spent considerably more time on the Jaguar than on the Lightning.

It was indeed the Jaguar which earned me a Martin Baker tie.

[captplaystation]

Just happened upon this thread, gutted. . . it had been my ambition to treat myself to a Lightning sortie for my 50th (having done the Formula 1 car bit for my 40th) but, at that moment I had just become unemployed, so blowing 4 or 5 grand on a 45min supersonic jolly didn't seem such a good idea. Like many of these things I let it go for a bit, thinking "one day" but, alas, too late.
I guess there is probably a Mig/Sukhoi alternative in some dodgy ex Soviet state, but really it is somehow not the same. Happy teenage memories of BofB airshows on cold Sep Saturdays in Leuchars means that the Sov era wonderplanes don't float my boat in the same way.
Damn & blast ! :{

[safetypee]

LM, “… I never had a fire or a hydraulic failure.”
You were obviously below average (sent to Jags!). ;)
My boss worked on the principle that if you did not have a fire or major hyd failure once per tour then you were below average. I managed one of each in 2 tours – and fortunately didn’t lose an aircraft.

c p s, it’s a sad loss of opportunity. Not necessarily the supersonic bit – you could do that during the recovery to base, just the acceleration and carefree handling, and pleasure of being in something which felt ‘right’. Maybe not as ‘right’ as the hunter, but age divides them as does modern high performance fighters from the Lightning - but are they as much fun.

[D120A]

As a (much) retired Lightning engineer, who had his fair share of flights in (and frights with) that wonderful machine, my ambition now is to own a pair of cars with the cherished number plates HYD 1 and HYD 2.:ok: