Why can't English Electric Lightnings fly in UK airspace

[diddy1234]

I was wondering why can't English Electric Lightning's fly in UK airspace.
I did read that the CAA will not license any lightning's (reference wikipedia). why ?

Is there a proper reason as to why they can't fly in UK airspace or is the FAA ashamed of 'our' past achievements ?
sorry to sound cynical but we (as a nation) should be proud of our past.

RD

[Load Toad]

No doubt someone will explain that there are certification / safety issues that have to be met that can't be met - or would be difficult to meet in UK.

I'm interested why you think not flying Lightnings in UK is due to someone or something being 'ashamed' - how did you get to that conclusion?

[diddy1234]

Just undertones from our dwindling aviation history and a complete lack of national pride !

For example, the Dehavilland Hatfield site produced the first Jet Airliner in the world yet all we have to show for it is a control tower that is now a gymnasium and a few roads near by with aeronautical names.

RD

[GeeRam]

I was wondering why can't English Electric Lightning's fly in UK airspace.
I did read that the CAA will not license any lightning's (reference wikipedia). why ?

Is there a proper reason as to why they can't fly in UK airspace or is the FAA ashamed of 'our' past achievements ?

If you had done a search here or on Flypast you'll get the answer.

Basically, the CAA (not FAA:rolleyes:) go to BAe who hold the DA, and they laugh, and the CAA laugh and so say no.

But, seriously, the Lightning had a high loss rate in service, and the CAA get a bit touching about high risk lumps falling earthwood.

Even out in SA where their authorities let ThunderCity fly their 4 x Lightnings, they still have a number of restrictions about overland flying, and they can effectively operate them because of Cape Town Int's proximity to the sea.

[mr fish]

fly em from blackpool then, if they crash it will be over IRELAND assuming they get that far:}

[Jhieminga]

Do a search as GeeRam said, it's on these forums somewhere. It has to do with BAe as the Design Authority but also because CAA classifies the Lighting as 'complex' and normally they don't allow complex aircraft on the civil register (the Vulcan now being the exception to the rule).

[tonker]

Did it have something to do with the fact they didn't want a 50 year old aircaft in private ownership, that up until recently could outperform current RAF frontline aircaft in some aspects?

[diddy1234]

tonker, thats quite a funny idea.

maybe thats the real reason.

I can just picture it now, a planned airshow and the pilot takes off and performs a zoom climb to 80,000ft instead !

[tonker]

Leaving the dowdy old Tornado wheezing in its wake!

[Prangster]

Taking the last point first. Rapid climb out = equally rapid RTB either 'cos the damn things running out of fuel or the lower engines on fire. We (RR) (Never say die dept) almost, but not quite sorted the engine fires problem. Given there were more Lightnings littering the bottom of the North Sea than actually left in service by the end of their operational life sense says they's best left grounded. Nice aircraft for its day (which is long long over) English Electric. Martin Bakers best customer !

[Tim McLelland]

The short answer is that the CAA simply will not allow Lightnings to be flown. It's easy to get wrapped-up in all the technical babble about complex catergories, design authority issues and all the rest of it, but ultimately it's a simple issue. The CAA take the view that the Lightning isn't safe enough, even though the aircraft would receive more direct and intensive attention than they ever did whilst in RAF service, and yet the MoD judged the aircraft perfectly safe to fly in UK air space for decades - but now they're not...

If you look at it like that, you can see why I (and lots of others) think the CAA's attitude is ridiculous. The CAA is very good at wrapping things up in technical jargon and red tape but ultimately it's simply down to their judgement and I think their judgement is flawed. Likewise, I'd love to know how bodies such as the CAA are allowed to sit in judgement on such issues while we citizens and taxpayers have no right to question them or appeal against their jumbled logic.

But that's the way it is I'm afraid. Some "expert" decides he knows best and we're stuck with it. Of course there is no logic to the notion that a Lightning is somehow more dangerous than your average Cessna. They'd both ruin your day if they landed on your roof and yet, when you work out the odds of both types of aircraft ever actually causing any such damage, you realise that it's absurd to imagine that one or two airworthy Lightnings would be any more of a risk to our lives than having a road going past your front door.

But then, that's our Nanny State for ya!

[Krystal n chips]

even though the aircraft would receive more direct and intensive attention than they ever did whilst in RAF service, and yet the MoD judged the aircraft perfectly safe to fly in UK air space for decades - but now they're not...


Erm, would you care to "review" this observation please ?......it's just that I seem to recall spending an awful lot of time, along with others, embodying some rather detailed mods. on the RAFG fleet along with 10 months doing a very complicated "one of" repair on 92's "P" after the port u/c parted company on landing with a spurious fire warning...and then there were the many happy hours doing fuel leaks at Binbrook....so in essence, your comment can best be described as, er, utter bolleaux. Hardly "superficial " maintenance as you imply. :}

[seac]

I'm still trying to get the PRC out of my armpits after doing centre section bolts and collector boxes.

[JEM60]

But Tim, you know as well as I do that IF there was a problem involving a Frightning and the public, then people would be sued from now to kingdom come. This is NOT the CAA's fault. It is a problem that came here from America 20 years ago. Sadly, we have to go along with it, but basically it is the USA's fault, not the CAA's. The Americans are responsible via their Product Liability culture.

[Blacksheep]

a control tower that is now a gymnasium and a few roads near by with aeronautical names.You forgot the Hatfield Police Station and the KFC outlet in the Grade 3 Listed DeHavilland office buildings. ;)

...the aircraft would receive more direct and intensive attention than they ever did whilst in RAF service, Having spent long periods in both RAF and civilian maintenance I can assure you that no civilian aircraft receives more direct and intensive attention than an aircraft in RAF service.

For evidence of what happens when a group of enthusiasts try to restore an ex-RAF aircraft to flight and maintain it in that condition, look no further than TVOC. Apart from trained and highly skilled labour, it takes lots & lots of money and spare parts to fly a complex military jet aircraft. From where would your prospective civilian E/E Lightning operator secure the revenue to stay in business?

[Groundloop]

Of course there is no logic to the notion that a Lightning is somehow more dangerous than your average Cessna.

Excuse me!!! I think if you compared some statistics, eg percentage of Lightnings built that crashed cf with percentage of Cessnas built that crashed I think you will see your statement is utter rubbish.

[pulse1]

I recently organised a lecture by a friend who has extensive Lightning experience. When asked this question he said that there were not many UK runways suitable for the high wheel loads from Lightning operations. I seem to remember that 10 landings was the limit for the tyres.

[pmills575]

10 Landings, some hope! If there was anything like a little crosswind breeze you'd be lucky to get two landings. For some reason, once put down to the location of the pilots heart, the left tyre was generally worse for wear.

Lightnings are very support intensive, even ground runners, add the flight requirements and this would probably multiply the support required by a considerable amount. The implication of all of this comes home when the bills need to be paid. The rumour is that since Mike Beachyhead sold the majority stake in Thunder City they don't fly so often. No doubt someone will know!

pmills575

Gatwick Aviation Museum - Charlwood (http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk)
PROJECT53 (http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk/lightning/mainsite.htm)

[Tim McLelland]

I think some folks need to be a little more realistic - you're starting to sound like the CAA!

Come on - do the math. How many private aircraft bumble around the UK on a daily basis? How many Lightnings stood a reasonable prospect of flying again and how often? So, what are the odds of a Lightning ploughing into your attic compared to a humble Cessna. It's a no-brainer.

As for your comment Krystal, thanks for the choice language but you obviously didn't grasp what I said. Anyone can tell you that a privately-owned and maintained aircraft is bound to receive more direct attention that an in-service machine. It's kinda obvious. When you have a team of engineers devoted to the operation of one aircraft, then they can obviously afford to spend all their time on it, rather than only the minimum time required in order to meet service standards. It's not like I just plucked this notion out of the air - any jet warbird operator will say the same.

I'm not saying for a second that operating a Lightning wouldn't be extremely difficult and costly, and with the benefit of hindsight I doubt if anyone would have been able to afford it in any case, but to simply rule-out the concept (as the CAA have effectively done) is just ludicrous. Their supposed concerns with safety bear absolutely no relation to the actual risks involved. But then I think we're all familiar with the modern world of over-obession with safety; this is why air show display lines are slowly drifting into adjacent counties!

[Groundloop]

Anyone can tell you that a privately-owned and maintained aircraft is bound to receive more direct attention that an in-service machine. It's kinda obvious. When you have a team of engineers devoted to the operation of one aircraft, then they can obviously afford to spend all their time on it, rather than only the minimum time required in order to meet service standards.

Any just how large a team of engineers would you need to employ to look after a Lightning? How much would it cost? I think HM Flying Club probably had a large team of engineers keeping Lightnings airborne.

[pug]

I'm not saying for a second that operating a Lightning wouldn't be extremely difficult and costly, and with the benefit of hindsight I doubt if anyone would have been able to afford it in any case, but to simply rule-out the concept (as the CAA have effectively done) is just ludicrous. Their supposed concerns with safety bear absolutely no relation to the actual risks involved. But then I think we're all familiar with the modern world of over-obession with safety; this is why air show display lines are slowly drifting into adjacent counties!

I understand your frustration with the nanny state 'health and safety' culture we are sliding into. Elvington's (cancelled) airshow is an example of public liability crippling the smaller airshows in the UK.

Regarding the origional point though.... The UK is densely populated, you can imagine what would happed if the worst was to occur. 'A fast jet in the hands of a civvie'. Its already going that way with the current JP's and Hunters flying about in private hands. Couple this with my understanding of the BAe situation as has been mentioned, the DA falls on them now. Im unsure of the technicalities this entails but i do know that a CAA permit would rely on their compliance, BAe saying not a chance.

Also worth considering the spares required (also maybe a requirement upon BAe?) are no longer produced. Some groups who ground run the lightnings now seem to say they would rather keep them running on the ground for longer than having them fly for a bit then being useless other than a motionless museum piece.

Perhaps someone might like to tell me if im talking bollox?

Edit: Whilst constructing this post 320psi has put it far better than me...

[pug]

Could i also add that HHA at Scampton, after getting permission for their Bucc project, catagoricaly said they would NOT be persuing a lightning project. I assume they have been hassled many times about that prospect? I believe they would be the ones with the biggest chance of success...

Still, such a shame i would have been only 5 the last time they would have regularly flown over the Humber.... I never got to experience the frightning :ugh:

[pug]

They do a great job with what they operate, but where would they get a suitable lightning airframe and the spares ?


I assume thats another reason why they wanted to point out the fact they will not be persuing a lightning to the skies. I do agree re ground running, I hope to get to see that at some point...

[Tim McLelland]

Think 320 expalins pretty comprehensively why a lightning won't fly in UK air space - my point was just in answer to the original question of why a Lightning can't operate in UK air space! Either way you look at the matter, it ain't never gonna happen!

Sadly, and with more than a hint of irony, it seems that Britain is the last place you're ever likely to see some of our greatest design and engineering efforts take to the sky.

[effortless]

As a matter iof interest, did they display avery often. I seem to remember that they were too vulnerable and juicy.

[320psi]

Yeh they displayed alot, my first encounter with a Lightning was Leic airshow in about 1973, a life changing moment, they flew a solos aircraft at alot of the airshows across the service life of the aircraft.

;)

[Tim McLelland]

Indeed, the solo Lightning display was a pretty traditional feature at most air shows. Can't imagine an Air Tattoo (you know, the real Air Tattoos they used to have at Greenham) without one. Hard to imagine a BofB At Home day without one as well!

Think my biggest regret was spending a day outside Waddington during a Priory exercise, when all the Phantoms launched together (Coningsby was having the runway resurfaced at the time). I was impressed by all those Phantoms but when the guys arrived from Binbrook and told me that all the Lightings had scrambled at the same time (and they did mean all of them) I was a bit miffed!

Still, at least I managed to go supersonic in XS458 back in the happy days when she flew rather than taxied! Ahh, nostalgia ain't what it used to be...

[JEM60]

Cape Town is wonderful at this time of the year. 3 years ago, I watched Lightning movements etc. all day at Thunder City. Happy days.

[diddy1234]

3201, thanks for an excellent reply.
you explained it very well.

Does anyone think that this will soon apply to all of the old airshow aircraft (like the spitfire's) in not so many years ?

RD

[320psi]

No worries, Its good to put the record straight ;)

I doubt whether older 'historics' will be affected, different set of rules apply, just different 'animals' altogether.

Insurance will be the biggest killer even for us

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Is there any reason why the South Africa based aircraft could not visit the UK, say for the RIAT?

That way the CAA would not be directly involved and a Lightning would again be seen above the UK.:eek:

[JEM60]

Costs would prohibit this, I guess, unless you are hugely rich. If you REALLY want to see them, then go down there, but don't leave it too long!! It was worth the trip.

[Flying Lawyer]

As a matter of interest, did they display very often.

Yes. Very often.

One of the best Lightning display pilots in my (amateur) opinion was Mike Thompson.
Sadly, he was killed off Scarborough in the summer of 1983. (Not during an authorised display.)



Cape Town, three months ago -


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



One of the Lightnings broke the sound barrier at >15000 feet.

An air show spokesman said they received numerous complaints.
"We just wanted to demonstrate what it sounds like to break the sound barrier.
It has two distinct noises, one after the other."

:ok: :)



(Not my pictures)

[Capot]

Why does the aircraft in FL's second picture appear to be flying with only one engine on reheat?

[JEM60]

It never ran on both whilst I was there during two Airshows three years ago, despite technicians efforts. I have to say it was rather noisy being 20 feet away from it whilst they were trying to get it to work!!! Had to move my car to avoid it getting burnt!! Happy days!!.

[Dr Jekyll]

That first picture has reminded me of a feature of the Lightning that always interested me. The ailerons are on the wingtip rather than the trailing edge. To put it another way, the wings are not conventional swept wings, but deltas with a bit missing.

Do they behave like delta wings or swept wings? And what was the reasoning behind that design?

[320psi]

If they werent allowed to fly out of the uk, they wont be allowed to fly back, same rules apply if they come and visit.

And I would want to organise the trip back, staging though how many countries ?
All the spares needed, tyres, brakes, Avpin, oils, chutes at each landing stage :eek:,
No inflight refueling, ummmmm

The cost would be sky high, best thing to do is get out to Cape Town its the only way

Flying lawyer, lovely pics, 693 was always the 'Looker' ;)

The one reheat thing could be one of many things, the lightnings reheat system is a nightmare, never 100%, its just one of the things, and at 3.5 gallons per second for each engine, no it aint cheap

Cheers

[innuendo]

Why does the aircraft in FL's second picture appear to be flying with only one engine on reheat?

Cost item? :E

(My old airplane ran about 1000Lbs/min on T/O with both burners lit. The supply to the burner looked like a sewer pipe. Glad I wasn't footing the bill)

[GeeRam]

One of the best Lightning display pilots in my (amateur) opinion was Mike Thompson.

Agree with that, well the best I'd seen since Pete Chapman anyway.

Saw Mike do an amazing solo display at the BAe families day at Hatfield a few weeks before he was killed. Wasn't expecting a Lightning display so never took my camera......a decision I still regret to this day :ugh:

However, here's Mike winning the solo aero's trophy at the 1983 RIAT at Greenham Common.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/GeeRam/f3aeros_iat832.jpg

[fotheringay]

Interestingly enough, in 1969, the Coltishall display Lightning, (Bob Lightfoot flying I think) dabbled with blue smoke during its solo display. I think they tried it for about two practice sessions before giving up.
What was a fair, sunny day suddenly reduced to about 2000 metres visibility!

[Tim McLelland]

Care to elaborate on that? Sounds interesting...

[Gen. Jack D Ripper]

I grew up watching Keith 'Hooligan' Hartley in XP693 which was BAe Warton's chase aeroplane.

He used to have some serious fun over the Irish Sea & Ribble Marshes 'chasing' Tornados.

Happy,happy days
:ok:

[FAStoat]

If anyone remembers 74 leaving Tengah in the late 60s?,that was a superb mass display of tarmac lighting!!They man responsible for most of that now runs the Delta Hunters.Otherwise, you may have forgotten the late Russ Pengelley.In my day it was John Clift,who did the displays throughout the late 70s in a F3.The Lightning display always blew off the "Red Indians" or "Slivers" or any other Starfighter performance!!!!!!!

[DILLIGAFF]

The Lightning was always the most impressive aircraft to see fly in the 70s. My best memory was standing on a haystack right under the approach in the field off the end of Binbrooks runway taking pictures with my Zenith E, then getting a b********g from a RAF policeman who came running over saying I had caused a couple of go arounds.Don't know if I had but it made me move.
D

[fotheringay]

Care to elaborate on that? Sounds interesting...

Cannot really add anymore. I can only assume they tied up some sort of system whereby blue diesel was injected into the exhaust, on demand. Whether it was on both engines or not I wouldn`t know. Presumably it was a single seater. Unfortunately, I didn`t have my camera with me at the time but it must have been July 1969 as I was working on a fruit farm at the time picking strawberries!

Both practice displays took place at lunchtime (presumably a circuit embargo was in place for other aircraft)
.It was the usual seven minute display and the airfield and surrounding villages were covered in this blue haze! Strawbs stayed red though!:)

[Leezyjet]

I've just stumbled across this thread after watching the most amazing program on Channel 270 on SKY, the SA Direct Channel of all places. It was called simply "Aviation" on the planner but seemed to be called "Thunder and Lightning" when titles came up and was all about Thunder City. Just thought I'd post so you can look out for it as SKY seem to repeat every few days/weeks.

I then ran a quick search and ended up here to find out the answer to a question I'd often wondered about, and one which they again mentioned in the show.

There was some fantastic footage of all TC's a/c, but the best bit was the Lightning's vertical climb, from both outside and inside. The rate that altimeter was going up at :eek:

It is a real shame that one won't ever fly in the UK. How great it would be to have a "Cold War Memorial Flight" with the Vulcan and a Lighning flying side by side. Oh well one can dream. If I'm not working when the twilight run happens in Feb, I may just pop along.

:)

[nettman]

I worked on Lightnings between 1975 to 77 and must admit that although a technically challenging machine to work on, I still regard them as the 'Queen of the Sky'...Great to have heard that one of our T-birds is still intact in South Africa, not sure if it is still flying though. I still remember the guys polishing up the last one to leave RAF Wattisham with tears in their eyes...!!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nettman, this is a 7 year old thread - half the people you are replying to may have died of old age by now!

G

[DaveReidUK]

I doubt the world will ever again see an airborne Lightning.

More's the pity.

[gasax]

You never know .............. index (http://www.lightning422supporters.co.uk/)

[Above The Clouds]

gasax, you beat me to it, hopefully soon :)

[DaveReidUK]

A flying T5 would be great, but it's a very long road from getting the engines running to having an airworthy aircraft.

I wish them well, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Wageslave]

Why can't English Electric Lightning's fly in UK airspace
I was wondering why can't English Electric Lightning's fly in UK airspace.
I did read that the CAA will not license any lightning's (reference wikipedia). why ?

Is there a proper reason as to why they can't fly in UK airspace or is the FAA ashamed of 'our' past achievements ?
sorry to sound cynical but we (as a nation) should be proud of our past.

RD

I can't be bothered to read through a thread based on such staggering twaddle.

On a point of order and, frankly, basic third year literacy, there is no apostrophe in "Lightnings". Oh dear. :ugh:

Is the OP so scrambled he thinks the FAA oversees UK airspace?

Why can't this place reflect it's name, ie "Professional" pilot's forum, not the dopey spotter's forum?

[Raymond Dome]

There is indeed no apostrophe in "Lightnings" but neither is there one in possessive its. Greenhouses & Stones?

[PAXboy]

Any question about the Lightning - or a similar machine - will now be handled through the filter of two words: Hunter + Shoreham.

[DaveReidUK]

A flying T5 would be great, but it's a very long road from getting the engines running to having an airworthy aircraft.

I wish them well, but I'm not holding my breath.

Though you can't say they aren't approaching the restoration in a professional manner - lovely spread of WIP photos here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123533772@N08/

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

A friend of mine used to work at Warton. He remembers and early (might have been maiden?) Tornado flight accompanied by a Lightning chase plane.

The 'new' product came back towards the airfield flat out with the Lighning flying barrel rolls around it! (Allegedly!).

[Stevedrews]

Hi Fotheringay
currently researching this Lightning used by Bob during 68/69. Were you based at Colt when he was displaying ? Trying to find pictures to check.
All the best
steve


Interestingly enough, in 1969, the Coltishall display Lightning, (Bob Lightfoot flying I think) dabbled with blue smoke during its solo display. I think they tried it for about two practice sessions before giving up.
What was a fair, sunny day suddenly reduced to about 2000 metres visibility!

[Quemerford]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, which was unknown to me: I loved the failed attempt at admonishing grammatical incorrectness by Wageslave above and Raymond Dome's subsequent correction-correction. I know the thread is/was about Lightnings (and also "Lightings" or "Lightning's" at various points) but it did make me smile on a rather slow Monday morning at work.

[Stevedrews]

Yep, hadn't seen those last few replies from 2015. Luckily someone asked a similar to mine from last night. Fortunately there are a few pilots around from the Colt OCU days.
Thanks for helping on this.


Thanks for resurrecting this thread, which was unknown to me: I loved the failed attempt at admonishing grammatical incorrectness by Wageslave above and Raymond Dome's subsequent correction-correction. I know the thread is/was about Lightnings (and also "Lightings" or "Lightning's" at various points) but it did make me smile on a rather slow Monday morning at work.

[nipva]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/dsc06017_50fb5ef904fa05993bae083fab427543612d6ba5.jpg
Steve, As requested Bob Lightfoot Coltishall 1969.in either XM189 or XM215. Both had the Union Jack on the fin.

[Stevedrews]

Excellent stuff, not one I've seen 👍🏻 Was this at Colt ? And just checking I have it as XM214 not XM215 ? Seems that was his preferred one.
Thanks for this, and who said old threads are redundant 🤔 Good on ya.
Steve



Steve, As requested Bob Lightfoot Coltishall 1969.in either XM189 or XM215. Both had the Union Jack on the fin.

[PDR1]

Having just seen the thread for the first time I'm slightly surprised that no one actually answered the OP's question. The reason why there won't be another Lightning flight in the UK is simply that it has ALWAYS been CAA policy not to allow civil registration of former military jets that are capable of supersonic straight & level flight. I think there may have been a very few exceptions for one-of ferrying flights out of the UK, but these were subject to extraordinary scrutiny and were heavily NOTAM'd.

Ads for the other comments - I really do love the idea that any civilian MU would do more intensive maintenance that front line squadrons. Some people cleary haven't the first clue on what is involved in keeping a 2nd generation jet like a lightning in the air. Best data I can find in the files here would be a first-line maintenance man-hours per flying hour number (preventive and corrective) of 112hrs, but that's based on a fleet of several squadrons and a flying rate of 210hrs/yr per aircraft (against a target of 305hrs/yr/AC). And that's only the 1st line mainteance man-hours - it excludes all the supporting bays and what we would now call "depth" mainteance. Of course you could strike out the maintenance associated with the radar, guns, missile systems and refuelling probes because these would never be used in a disply aircraft. But I'm under the impression that most of the mainteance burden of the Lightning was flight systems (flight controls, engine, undercarriage and instruments) plus the on-going aircraft husbandry (zonals and fatigue-driven SIs) so that's probably not as big a saving as it sounds.

But a display aircraft would do, what, 50-100hrs/yr? Much of that 1st line stuff would still occur at the same rate, so the maintenance manhrs per flying hour number would be 2-4 times higher. Lets make some generous assumptions - lets assume 100hrs/yr of display and practice/test flying. Let's assume that the maintenance requirement remains only 112hrs/flying hr, and that the additional maintenance hours of depth and bay maintenance (plus the increased rate per hour due to the lower utilisation) are offset by the lack of "military features" maintenance (that's unlikely, but what the heck). That would result in a an annual maintenance manpower requirement of 11,000 hours (six people, full time). That works out to over a million quid a year in maintenance man-hours alone, never mind parts, fuel, consumables, admin etc. Could the aeroplane even hope to earn that back in display fees?

I think not...

PDR

[Quemerford]

Whilst it's true that the uninitiated sometimes lack the experience to understand the maintenance support required for any aircraft type, it's worth pointing out that the RAF was well-known for its high level of over-servicing. It's probably not a great comparison to make, but the piddle-poor despatch reliability of the C-130K in RAF service (80% or less if I recall?) would probably have bankrupted your average airline. Conversely most "civilian MU[s]" (MROs we call then nowadays) or airlines themselves are able to routinely achieve 99.5% despatch reliability - and more - on aircraft which are of far higher complexity than a number of the aircraft being discussed here.

[Fareastdriver]

Thunder City used to manage and they did not have a supply of ex-Lighting ground crew.

[Kemble Pitts]

But then Thuder City did lose a Lighting in a fatal accident.

Even in RAF service when new (ish), flown by well trained and current aircrew, and maintained by well trained and supported ground crews with a ready supply of new and overhauled spares they used to catch fire for a past-time. I think the main problems are design related rather than maintenance so even good aintenance can't fix that.

[GeeRam]

Thunder City used to manage and they did not have a supply of ex-Lighting ground crew.

But they did in the beginning though, with Barry Pover living there initially, and as well as the late Baz Livesey (ex-BAe Warton) spending a lot of time there teaching the TC crew when they were re-assembling them out there after shipping from the UK, and finishing the rebuild of '451.

[dook]

...they used to catch fire for a past-time...

Some of us were lucky though.

Five years flying it and never had a fire or a hydraulic problem.

[India Four Two]

dook,

You obviously lived a charmed life. I imagine you had Bingo fuel problems though! :E

[DaveReidUK]

The prospect of a Lightning flying around UK skies nowadays, whether piloted by an ex-WIWOL or not, would be simultaneously thrilling and terrifying ... :O

[dook]

Ex-WIWOLS are now far too old to fly the bloody thing anymore.

I reckon I might be able to take 2-3 g. :uhoh:

[treadigraph]

Not sure I'd want to see one being aerobatted but I'd sure as hell like to see one do one of those take offs again.

First time I can actually recall seeing one in the air was at the Biggin Hill Battle of Britain Day 1976. I watched this little speck in the distance growing rapidly and arriving more or less ahead of its noise... I assume it was a touring act rather than being based at Biggin for the show - bit short for Lightning ops?

[nipva]

'they used to catch fire for a past-time'
Somewhat harsh methinks. In the 70s fire warnings were admittedly quite commonplace but the majority were indeed warnings not actuals. The trouble was that the outcome of a real fire warning was potentially terminal as one engine had a nasty habit of 'infecting' its neighbour. The fire integrity programme in the mid 70s isolated the two engine bays and things were a lot better thereafter.

[dook]

...but I'd sure as hell like to see one do one of those take offs again.

Ah - the reheat rotation. Happy days.

[ancientaviator62]

Kemble,
whist the aircrew were always trained not so with many of us groundcrew. 'learning on the job' was the RAF way of doing things back then. As for a 'ready supply of spares', this only lasted until the 'hangar queen' had been gutted of anything useful. As is usual with any RAF a/c the spares were anything but plentiful. The a/c was a nightmare to keep serviceable for all the trades and on 92 (F2A) along with jet pipe fires and other problems AC failures were common. Just my opinion of course but I did work on them at MSG and Leconfield.
I understand that EE regarded the RAF groundcrew establishment as inadequate for the task.

[Jhieminga]

Conversely most "civilian MU[s]" (MROs we call then nowadays) or airlines themselves are able to routinely achieve 99.5% despatch reliability - and more - on aircraft which are of far higher complexity than a number of the aircraft being discussed here.
While more complex, a slightly more recently designed airliner is actually designed to be flown and maintained to that level of reliability. In contrast, the Lightning was designed to a specific task, with all other considerations falling by the wayside, and as a result will never be able to reach such levels of reliability. It is not just a matter of using a modern MRO organisation, it is the level of technology within the design that dictates the maintainability requirements, not the complexity.

[Kemble Pitts]

Kemble,
whist the aircrew were always trained not so with many of us groundcrew. 'learning on the job' was the RAF way of doing things back then. As for a 'ready supply of spares', this only lasted until the 'hangar queen' had been gutted of anything useful. As is usual with any RAF a/c the spares were anything but plentiful. The a/c was a nightmare to keep serviceable for all the trades and on 92 (F2A) along with jet pipe fires and other problems AC failures were common. Just my opinion of course but I did work on them at MSG and Leconfield.
I understand that EE regarded the RAF groundcrew establishment as inadequate for the task.
I stand corrected.

Much as I'd love to see one/some fly in the UK again, in this modern world the 'safety case' could just never be made to stack up.

{For the ignorant (me), MSG? mono sodium glutomate?}

[ancientaviator62]

Kemble,
apologies MSG is/was Middleton St George. My Lightning experience was after working on Javelins (33 Sqn) and Hunters (92 before the Lightning). By far the easiest was the technically simple Hunter.

[WOTME?]

There used to be a link to the SA CAA report on the Thunder City crash on the Airmech website but it's no longer working.
It made pretty horrific reading.There was a fire in the lower aft fuselage which disabled the hydraulics & after finding himself unable to lower the gear when the pilot eventually tried to eject he couldn't.There were a number of findings,including the pilot using reheat momentarily after landing,I guess to impress the spectators and the canopy & seats being removed/refitted without the required checks afterwards.

[dook]

A reheat fire on number one engine could easily lead to burning hydraulic lines and control runs.

It was arguably the most feared problem amongst Lightning pilots, including me.

[safetypee]

dook, until the control run material was changed.
Without at least one fire per tour, you were judged ‘below average’. My box was ticked on the first night solo !

[dook]

Yes, I know.

I flew it in the late sixties/early seventies.

[newt]

Well I have over a thousand hours on Lightnings! Never had a fire or even a chute failure! The worst was a blown tyre!

[Fareastdriver]

Well I have over a thousand hours on Lightnings!

Some airline pilots couldn't manage that number of sorties on one type in a lifetime!

[PDR1]

Some airline pilots couldn't manage that number of sorties on one type in a lifetime!

True, but then most airline flights are longer in duration because the airliners can carry sufficient fuel to actuallt venture beyond the airfield permeter...
:\

PDR

[BEagle]

doBack in the mid-'80s, VC10K / Lightning tanker trails from Akrotiri to UK were quite common and usually went pretty well. They took about 6 hrs for the Lightning mates, who were usually pretty happy to have plenty of fuel. If there was a T5 in the formation, there was a no-diversion 'critical area' somewhere near Crete which required the Tub to be in contact before reaching it, then remaining in contact until we'd flown through it - which concentrated the mind of the Lightning pilot, no doubt.

But on one occasion as we were about to reach the last bracket somewhere south of Paris, the Lightning leader called up to say that "We don't need the last bracket". A Lightning refusing a tanker several hundred miles from base was a new one on me - and I could just imagine the "Flt Lt, why did you short change the receivers when you had plenty of fuel?" Axminster shuffle I'd be having if we'd let him have his way and the formation had ended up diverting here, there and everywhere. So I politely informed said leader that I was obliged to follow the briefed plan, so would they please do so too.

They did so, but after they'd finished the leader came up on the R/T telling his colleagues that he needed them all to fly 'x' amount of hours before landing, which seemed odd to us - but I guessed that there was some silly fuel vs. time chart on their boss's wall which was the driver...:rolleyes: A few days later Jim U, my Boss, asked why I'd made them use the final bracket, so I told him that amendments to the plan had to be based on rather more than some fighter mate's WAG. Boss told me that the Lightning leader was OC 5 Sqn - and that if he'd been in my place and had known that who the leader was, he'd have binned the last bracket as requested. To which I replied "Boss, if I'd known that it would have given me even MORE reason to insist that they must stick to the plan!".

[dook]

Your mention of the T5 indicates that you were refuelling Mk6 jets.

We did it in the F3 without the big ventral. Our biggest problem was if any of us needed to use the p-bag.

It took about six hours because of the speed limit of the drogues. If I remember it was 250 kts IAS. In my day the tankers would not accelerate between brackets quoting that it made the navigation easier.

[Fareastdriver]

December 1965: XD 815, a Valiant BK1 tanker is flying the race track on a flight refuelling training sortie for two Lightnings from Leconfield. One of them is quietly plugged in then allofasudden from the Nav Radar comes a cry that the hose is rocketing in, the fuel flow has gone off the clock, until the 15 ft. valve shuts it off.

One Lightning, complete with drogue and hose valve assembly from aforementioned refuelling hose stuck on his wing has just had on engine drowned in fuel and the other is not feeling very well.

He managed to get both stabilised a few thousand feet lower down and returned to Leconfield. There it had a problem because it has a fair bit of yaw as a result of the semi-aerodynamic drogue but he did get it down satisfactorily.

The Valiant, with yours truly sitting up front returned to Marham as Honington's runway was being resurfaced. XD815 never did return to Honington because that was the last Valiant tanker flight as the decision the scrap the fleet had been made whilst we were airborne.

There then followed forty two glorious years on helicopters.

[dook]

Getting it wrong could be embarrassing.

http://i66.tinypic.com/34yspoo.jpg

[Fareastdriver]

That's one of those poofy fabric jobbos. Our ones were bigger and made of metal.

They had the same Sturmey Archer bicycle light generators to provide 6 volts for the drogue lights.

[dook]

Aye lad - nowt drogue lights in my day.

[cyflyer]

You may not see a flying Lightning at a UK airshow, but just wanted to remind those not in the know, that you can still enjoy the next best thing, live Lightnings running and doing fast runs down the runway, at the Bruntingthorpe Cold War jets day on Sunday 24 th May, along with VC10, Victor, Bucceneers, Comet etc. Its an amazing day, well worth checking out. I've been to many and I would not miss it for anything.

[dook]

And I've spent a few nights in that very Q shed I can tell you.

[Bro]

Some of us have tanked in a T5 without a ventral fitted. Plug in at top of climb or immediate RTB.

[GeeRam]

First time I can actually recall seeing one in the air was at the Biggin Hill Battle of Britain Day 1976. I watched this little speck in the distance growing rapidly and arriving more or less ahead of its noise... I assume it was a touring act rather than being based at Biggin for the show - bit short for Lightning ops?

Yep, Biggin Hill BofB Day in 1974 was my first experience of a Lightning aero's...........and what a first one to see, being one of Pete Chapmans legendary rivet popping solo's in the white tailed OCU F.3, and also likely one of his very last ones, which was probably why it was a corker and still sticks in my mind.

I'm pretty sure it took off from Biggin though, but then again, it was over 40 years ago and I wasn't on crowd line. Biggin's runway is about the same length as North Weald's, and I can definately remember a pair of Lightnings being in the static park at the North Weald Fighter Meet airshow in 1986. They weren't in the flying display, but 10 mins after the last display item, just after the show ended on the Sunday and people were leaving (the World Cup final was that afternoon evening IIRC) I heard the distinctive whee-whoosh of Avpin and the rumble of starting Avons......The take-off and subsequent airfield beat-up was mighty impressive :D

The last rotation take-off I saw was the F.6 and T.5 departure from the static just after the last display item on Sunday at Mildenhall '88, similar to North Weald above. I think IB was flying the F.6?

[Fareastdriver]

Aye lad - nowt drogue lights in my day.

You can definitely see the vanes on the bicycle tire generator in the drogue in your picture.

[treadigraph]

Geeram, I did the 86 North Weald show on the Saturday so didn't see the Lightnings depart. But I do recall the Northwest 747 and its fighter escorts. All very low...!

I simply don't recall Lightnings on the ground at Biggin but much addling of the grey calls has occurred; I think F-16s always flew from Manston (and once displayed at Kenley in error much to Ken Fitzroy's fury/amusement), but then again Orbis squeezed their DC-8 and DC-10 in as did an RAF VC-10...

[nipva]

'nowt drogue lights in my day'
Definitely there in my time (early to mid 70s). Unfortunately they were less than reliable and one was often confronted with only one. The subsequent guessing which one it was as you closed often made for an interesting addition to the ensuing jousting contest .

[Oman1]

Colleagues, this thread has emerged from deep cyberspace and, should anyone read it, let me add a few facts.
I did prefer XM 214 to its brother 215 - the aerodynamics were better i.e.215 was a bit twisted. I always flew the aeros routine with finned missiles as they improved the stability in the vertical plane - very handy when getting a bit low on pulling out of a loop or executing the prohibited 'Derry' turn.
The Paris Air Show required large airshow ID on the fin and, I think, it was the team's idea to display the Union Flag ( not called the Jack as that term only applies when it is flown on a jackstay on a ship. Why did we display a F1A at the PAS? Later, when still on the OCU, I borrowed an F6 for shows in Canada and the USA.
The blue smoke modification was wholly unofficial and my agreement with the Chief who installed it was that I would drop it into the North Sea if there was any trouble. The back end of a standard 250 gall. ventral was blanked off, a fuel pump from a SAR helicopter installed and pipe work clipped along the outside of the fuselage to the bottom engine jet pipe. Elec power was taken from the rear nav light. I think it was a 'display only' fit but if the jet was flown at night, any residual smoke oil would be ejected when taxying out to the dismay of the ground crew. The smoke oil was copied from the Reds who had Gnats at the time - DERV with blue biro ink and very messy. The main problem with it was the reheat temperature vaporised the smoke and not much use in my display. On the run-in, as per the photo, it had some use but at 50 ft or so there was risk to anyone on the ground. Did the baby in the pram suffer any ill-effects? ( see photo passing the GCA hut). I have recently spoken with a local farmer who was a bit worried about his strawberry crop! Risk management wasn't on the agenda in 1968 and we were lucky to escape a claim which would have exposed the smoke mod. to scrutiny :rolleyes:
Happy days.

[Firestreak]

I was a lowly stude going’s through the Lightning OCU in late 1968/early 69. To this day I can recall a brochure extolling the F104 lying around the crew room.

The brochure proudly proclaimed that the Starfighter was the only aircraft in the world that could enter a loop immediately after takeoff and the only pilot who could do this was Ed ‘Snake’ Rivers. Added to this was ‘and Bob “Feet” Lightfoot’.

Apologies if the details aren’t 100% after some 50 years but the sentiment is accurate!