Why can't English Electric Lightnings fly in UK airspace
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perfect
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
dook,
You obviously lived a charmed life. I imagine you had Bingo fuel problems though!
You obviously lived a charmed life. I imagine you had Bingo fuel problems though!
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,620
Received 294 Likes
on
162 Posts
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?
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?
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?}
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Watford
Age: 70
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.