Was it really fright(e)ning?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha, someone mentioned the disaster committing Lightnings to defend the Fleet at Sea. I was never able to determine which complete idiot of an Air Marshall, presumably at a Purple Cocktail Party, was suckered in by the Dark Blue to make such a totally stupid comittment.
The result, fuel capacity challenged aircraft operating miles out over the oggin, outside of TACAN range usually, totally reliant on AAR support and trying to find a bunch of boats that were nowhere near the position they originally intended. Then, to add to the fun and games, all intercepts were controlled by RN Controllers, usually against Buccs travelling rapidly and low down. Tricky enough by day, with the fuel gauges unwinding rapidly at 500 kts plus, but at night! Fast targets well below the Lightning authorised minimum intercept operating height at night (1500ft) - no Rad Alts in those days - trying to operate the Radar whilst holding a significant push force on the control column at high speed, trim already fully nose down. More than just a few people arrived home with fumes only and a few early grey hairs.
The flying was demanding and one learnt very quickly to protect recovery options during that time. But frustration with Senior Management that denied any problems and castigated anyone who tried to say otherwise was never far away.
The one highlight for me, invited to make an approach to Ark Royal, the angled deck version. Sensibly resisted the urge to fly a bolter, and then was much amused to observe a Victor Tanker also having a go.
lm
The result, fuel capacity challenged aircraft operating miles out over the oggin, outside of TACAN range usually, totally reliant on AAR support and trying to find a bunch of boats that were nowhere near the position they originally intended. Then, to add to the fun and games, all intercepts were controlled by RN Controllers, usually against Buccs travelling rapidly and low down. Tricky enough by day, with the fuel gauges unwinding rapidly at 500 kts plus, but at night! Fast targets well below the Lightning authorised minimum intercept operating height at night (1500ft) - no Rad Alts in those days - trying to operate the Radar whilst holding a significant push force on the control column at high speed, trim already fully nose down. More than just a few people arrived home with fumes only and a few early grey hairs.
The flying was demanding and one learnt very quickly to protect recovery options during that time. But frustration with Senior Management that denied any problems and castigated anyone who tried to say otherwise was never far away.
The one highlight for me, invited to make an approach to Ark Royal, the angled deck version. Sensibly resisted the urge to fly a bolter, and then was much amused to observe a Victor Tanker also having a go.
lm
Oh, more Coltishall ATC. There was the day (AOC review) when 28 aircraft were launched in marginal weather (many longer stories in that), where the first aircraft to return (OC Ops), landed downwind, lost the chute and took the barrier. The subsequent three aircraft were “cleared to land, barrier up and engaged.”
A few more aircraft made it back to Colt, but the remainder were scattered around E Anglia, all short of fuel.
The following year (BoB) we flew 16 – with a new OC Ops.
A few more aircraft made it back to Colt, but the remainder were scattered around E Anglia, all short of fuel.
The following year (BoB) we flew 16 – with a new OC Ops.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember that day, just, was the famed OC Ops known affectionately as 'Apple'?
Several divertees arrived at Wattisham and proceeded to recount to us the whole, almost unbelievable, saga. If I recall correctly, Apple, sitting in the Barrier with career fading by the second, was desperately trying to take over ATC by instructing people to land over the top of his aircraft stuck in the Barrier. At least that direction was into wind, but nobody obliged.
And then there was Arthur, a hangar and no brakes
.
lm
Several divertees arrived at Wattisham and proceeded to recount to us the whole, almost unbelievable, saga. If I recall correctly, Apple, sitting in the Barrier with career fading by the second, was desperately trying to take over ATC by instructing people to land over the top of his aircraft stuck in the Barrier. At least that direction was into wind, but nobody obliged.
And then there was Arthur, a hangar and no brakes
.lm
Last edited by lightningmate; 31st Jul 2012 at 19:59.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overwing tanks had not been fitted for some years by the early 1980s, their limitations (subsonic only, 20 kt crosswind limit on dry rather than 25kt, etc.) being deemed to be more of a nuisance than their fuel was worth. So they were stored at North Coates in a shed and covered in bird poo when we suddenly become interested in them again in 1981.
This interest was sparked by a little technical trouble on a Taceval part 1, after which we forensically inspected our tasking paperwork and re-discovered the requirement to be able to role into overburgers. This had died from neglect, two-year posting cycles being a wonderful killer of corporate memory...
The least poo-ed on pair of OWTs were retrieved and made serviceable, then another etc. until we had four pairs through the tank bay. All the seals had perished but the Suppliers had a stock. However, making the OWTs behave correctly on an aircraft took several days. Eventually we succeeded (and pilots queued up to fly with with them but, I noticed, only once...) and we carefully noted which tanks successfully matched with which station on which airframe. Come Taceval part 2 we were given the task to role one aircraft in OWTs, so we selected the airframe and the tanks apparently 'at random' but in reality via some fast footwork the airframe/tank match we wanted. So from a supposedly cold start, producing a serviceable OWT-fitted aircraft took us only about 3 hours. The aircraft was then scrambled IIRC on an endurance CAP with no tanker support to prove to the evaluators that the tanks worked. Big tick in box.
Come Op Corporate we roled and flew 2 F6s in OWTs (and were prepping two more), prompting the editor of the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, who had the habit of looking out of his window, to call up to ask when we were "going to the South Atlantic". We weren't, we were just trying to get ahead of the game if anything popped up, but he didn't believe us.
The big jettison cartridges for the tanks themselves ceased to exist in the 1970s, IIRC, when they became time-expired and weren't replaced because of the damage they were known to cause. Pilot's Notes (mine are to AL15 in 1980) never caught up. The only cartridges fitted were for fuel jettison from the tanks themselves, in their rear boat-tail fairings.
And ORAC, I am afraid no T5 could be fitted with OWTs because they had F3 wings; the T55s with F6 wings undoubtedly could, but we had none of those. LTF's target, IIRC was an F6 with an additional forward fuel pack in place of the guns. I don't recall fitting OWTs to it in my time but I bet such a vehicle with a Fresnel lens was a very useful radar target.
This interest was sparked by a little technical trouble on a Taceval part 1, after which we forensically inspected our tasking paperwork and re-discovered the requirement to be able to role into overburgers. This had died from neglect, two-year posting cycles being a wonderful killer of corporate memory...
The least poo-ed on pair of OWTs were retrieved and made serviceable, then another etc. until we had four pairs through the tank bay. All the seals had perished but the Suppliers had a stock. However, making the OWTs behave correctly on an aircraft took several days. Eventually we succeeded (and pilots queued up to fly with with them but, I noticed, only once...) and we carefully noted which tanks successfully matched with which station on which airframe. Come Taceval part 2 we were given the task to role one aircraft in OWTs, so we selected the airframe and the tanks apparently 'at random' but in reality via some fast footwork the airframe/tank match we wanted. So from a supposedly cold start, producing a serviceable OWT-fitted aircraft took us only about 3 hours. The aircraft was then scrambled IIRC on an endurance CAP with no tanker support to prove to the evaluators that the tanks worked. Big tick in box.
Come Op Corporate we roled and flew 2 F6s in OWTs (and were prepping two more), prompting the editor of the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, who had the habit of looking out of his window, to call up to ask when we were "going to the South Atlantic". We weren't, we were just trying to get ahead of the game if anything popped up, but he didn't believe us.
The big jettison cartridges for the tanks themselves ceased to exist in the 1970s, IIRC, when they became time-expired and weren't replaced because of the damage they were known to cause. Pilot's Notes (mine are to AL15 in 1980) never caught up. The only cartridges fitted were for fuel jettison from the tanks themselves, in their rear boat-tail fairings.
And ORAC, I am afraid no T5 could be fitted with OWTs because they had F3 wings; the T55s with F6 wings undoubtedly could, but we had none of those. LTF's target, IIRC was an F6 with an additional forward fuel pack in place of the guns. I don't recall fitting OWTs to it in my time but I bet such a vehicle with a Fresnel lens was a very useful radar target.
Last edited by D120A; 31st Jul 2012 at 21:31. Reason: My English; apologies.
100% lightningmate.
I arrived at Wattisham IMC with a ‘radio failure’ glued firmly to a formation member’s jet pipe. This resulted in a line astern GCA, transitioning to a pairs landing as the wheels came down.
“… then there was Arthur, a hangar and no brakes”.
A hilarious episode, except I was just leaving the hangar door next to the window which Arthur hit !
The ‘bang’ was totally disorienting, as was the brick dust fog.
A Firestreak appeared through the haze; in the flower bed – the shear bolt had gone.
Then a silhouette of the Lightning nose, stuck into an office window like an animal eating fodder. And it ate, with a roar and loud pops and ‘farts’ as the office contents (and bricks) were sucked into the intake and dispatched, duly mangled by two RR Avons, in further clouds of dust.
As senses returned, a hasty retreat was made along the front of the hangar, to be joined formation like, by Arthur hotfooting it from the cockpit, but one story up on the roof of the hangar office.
Interested parties arrived to view the spectacle; one brave engineer with a ladder near the cockpit attempted to shut the engines down by closing the HP cocks, but without success due to jammed throttle linkages. As time progressed, the roaring noise and digestion increased, the crowed slowly retreated, allowing the crash team to view the scene.
Small huddles formed to consider how to stop the engines; elects (fuse pullers), mechs (spanners), airframe (hammer), crash team (flood it). After a considerable period, panels were opened around the engines and the throttle linkage disconnected which finally stopped the engines.
With no more flying allowed, the day ended in the bar.
I arrived at Wattisham IMC with a ‘radio failure’ glued firmly to a formation member’s jet pipe. This resulted in a line astern GCA, transitioning to a pairs landing as the wheels came down.
“… then there was Arthur, a hangar and no brakes”.
A hilarious episode, except I was just leaving the hangar door next to the window which Arthur hit !
The ‘bang’ was totally disorienting, as was the brick dust fog.
A Firestreak appeared through the haze; in the flower bed – the shear bolt had gone.
Then a silhouette of the Lightning nose, stuck into an office window like an animal eating fodder. And it ate, with a roar and loud pops and ‘farts’ as the office contents (and bricks) were sucked into the intake and dispatched, duly mangled by two RR Avons, in further clouds of dust.
As senses returned, a hasty retreat was made along the front of the hangar, to be joined formation like, by Arthur hotfooting it from the cockpit, but one story up on the roof of the hangar office.
Interested parties arrived to view the spectacle; one brave engineer with a ladder near the cockpit attempted to shut the engines down by closing the HP cocks, but without success due to jammed throttle linkages. As time progressed, the roaring noise and digestion increased, the crowed slowly retreated, allowing the crash team to view the scene.
Small huddles formed to consider how to stop the engines; elects (fuse pullers), mechs (spanners), airframe (hammer), crash team (flood it). After a considerable period, panels were opened around the engines and the throttle linkage disconnected which finally stopped the engines.
With no more flying allowed, the day ended in the bar.
On balance, Safetypee, I'd say that that was "frigh(t)ening" enough for most of us, albeit perhaps not quite what the OP had in mind.
Jack
Jack
Last edited by Union Jack; 31st Jul 2012 at 23:22.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you look at that cutaway, you can see why it was so short-legged. So, a question to those who flew it: would a fuselage plug have solved the problem or would that have ruined the handling?
Or... what would have solved the range problem?
Or... what would have solved the range problem?
Last edited by ColdCollation; 1st Aug 2012 at 07:34.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned way back - you have to remember what the aircraft was built for - rapid reaction, rapid time to height, fire off 2 missiles at the baddies and dash home to do it all again asap. As time went on, its role changed to reach tanked regular 6-7 hour sorties intercepting the 'baddies' in my time.
I've got a dim recollection from late 67/early 68 of being in the control room at Patrington and seeing a backlit chinagraph board which had a large graph on it. It had time on the x axis and fuel on the y axis and a legend which referred, I think, to the Mk1 Lightning. When I commented on it to a controller he told me the Lightning was the only aircraft, at that time, which had its fuel monitored from the ground. Can anyone confirm that my memory is correct?
Last edited by EngAl; 1st Aug 2012 at 09:34.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lightning was 'developed' from the P1 series of research aircraft. Design considerations for research aircraft do not include long term operational use, nor the need for much fuel!! 
The P1 happened to be around when somebody decided we needed a supersonic interceptor and this was seen as a ready means of generating something to meet the requirement. Unfortunately, the system failed to grasp the need to re-design fully the aircraft engineering aspects to meet the needs of an operational platform. The Lightning was a nightmare for Sqn Engineers. Rectifying anything in the fuselage invariably required at least the Jet-Pipes to come out and often one or both engines. Fuel leaks plagued the aircraft throughout its service life and several were lost due to fuel fires in flight. I can recall a time when 56 Sqn in Cyprus had all its airframes grounded with Cat 3 Fuel Leaks. We loaned one of ours to 56's aeros pilot to keep him current, after landing that was also Cat 3 Fuel Leaks - our Boss was not amused!
It was generally accepted a Lightning required 50 hours of engineering support to generate a single flying hour.
lm
The P1 happened to be around when somebody decided we needed a supersonic interceptor and this was seen as a ready means of generating something to meet the requirement. Unfortunately, the system failed to grasp the need to re-design fully the aircraft engineering aspects to meet the needs of an operational platform. The Lightning was a nightmare for Sqn Engineers. Rectifying anything in the fuselage invariably required at least the Jet-Pipes to come out and often one or both engines. Fuel leaks plagued the aircraft throughout its service life and several were lost due to fuel fires in flight. I can recall a time when 56 Sqn in Cyprus had all its airframes grounded with Cat 3 Fuel Leaks. We loaned one of ours to 56's aeros pilot to keep him current, after landing that was also Cat 3 Fuel Leaks - our Boss was not amused!
It was generally accepted a Lightning required 50 hours of engineering support to generate a single flying hour.
lm
Last edited by lightningmate; 1st Aug 2012 at 09:53.
BOAC, I was told a story in the dim, distant past that the original concept for Lightning operation proposed by English Electric was along the lines of "operational use and currency flying only" with Hunters being used for day-to-day work. Hence the original design life of only 1,000 flying hours (this of course was subsequently extended many times over the aircraft's career). Thankfully the RAF did not sign up to this method of operation!
lightningmate, you are right about the engineering effort required to keep the beasts flying. After every jet pipe/inter pipe/engine removal full reheat runs were required. Despite the high workload the Lightning generated great affection amongst the groundcrews (and obviously amongst the pilots). After all, it was British and there wasn't a navigator in sight! And before anyone asks the question, the best variant by far was the FMk2A.
lightningmate, you are right about the engineering effort required to keep the beasts flying. After every jet pipe/inter pipe/engine removal full reheat runs were required. Despite the high workload the Lightning generated great affection amongst the groundcrews (and obviously amongst the pilots). After all, it was British and there wasn't a navigator in sight! And before anyone asks the question, the best variant by far was the FMk2A.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LM, I was probably in Cyprus around that time. Probably 1972 but every month 56 dropped on in Limassol Bay. Then one month they were in UK for an MPC and the visiting sqn on APC dropped one instead.
A friend of mine, later AVM, wrote his sqn article for the stn mag and commented that is was nice to see the visitors keeping the stats up. Someone had a quiet word in his shell-like and said they were lucky so far as no one had lost their life as well.
I remember one event, I think the pilot was Martin C***s. He was in the bar, wrapped in a blanket, large puddle of water gathering at his feet and talking 18 to the dozen. (Slower talking as he was also sinking pint upon pint of beer. Outside was the blood waggon waiting to whisk him off to PMH to see if he was OK.
A friend of mine, later AVM, wrote his sqn article for the stn mag and commented that is was nice to see the visitors keeping the stats up. Someone had a quiet word in his shell-like and said they were lucky so far as no one had lost their life as well.
I remember one event, I think the pilot was Martin C***s. He was in the bar, wrapped in a blanket, large puddle of water gathering at his feet and talking 18 to the dozen. (Slower talking as he was also sinking pint upon pint of beer. Outside was the blood waggon waiting to whisk him off to PMH to see if he was OK.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, I do appreciate that. Just interested in an answer to the question, though: what would have solved the range issue?
There are/were lots of proposed Ligntning development and it's fair to say that the vast majority were victims of politics. The VG version is pictured here but there were many others.
My question's a little off the original thread track, I know, but just curious.
There are/were lots of proposed Ligntning development and it's fair to say that the vast majority were victims of politics. The VG version is pictured here but there were many others.
My question's a little off the original thread track, I know, but just curious.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC - I think it would have been such a major redesign as to render it uneconomic. As someone else said, a new fuselage with redesigned area-rule giving a fuselage tank would have been useful.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cc
The range problem was solved by funding a fleet of Air Tankers - not exactly a cheap option and its benefit was fairly limited in a War situation. Operational issues were never resolved
Firstly, the Lightning had a very limited time-on-task without Tanker Support. However, once you were engaged and burning fuel, popping back to a Tanker was not a readily available option and probably not required; see below.
Secondly, the aircraft carried an inadequate number of weapons, 2 x AAM are quickly fired out. Of course, some variants had Guns but not really the weapon of choice for the Lightning's war role in the UK ADR. Having scrambled into the North Sea Lanes and engaged, after 30 mins or so, you would probably end up fired out some 100 plus miles from base, short of fuel and essentially useless as an AD asset unless you wished to opt for the ramming tactic. Meanwhile, quite a lot of baddies are still streaming towards the UK whilst most of the UK AD assets need to scuttle back home to replenish weapons and fuel, which takes a lot of time.
Could these Lightning operational deficiencies have been resolved?
Lots more internal fuel - not really, no viable space, fuselage plugs would not have helped and could have caused aerodynamic/stability issues. External tanks - we had some but performance limiting and draggy. Rather than upgrade the entire Mk 3 force to Mk 6 standard; thus a bit more fuel. Someone opted to purchase the visual fits for the Lightning Simulators and we all know how useful that option was!
More AAMs - Firestreak and Redtop were big items with wings fitted, no alternate mounting points are obvious, always remembering you need to safely launch the beasts not just carry them around. Re-fit with Sidewinders would have required an extensive mod programme but probably would have increased the number of AAMs carried. There were attempts to 'up-gun' the Lightning, the Taildog programme got us a bit excited for a while.
In summary, we had what we had, which was far from ideal. However, UK military aircraft programmes are employment providers, if you look back over many years there are not many UK military platforms that could be classed as fully operationally effective. Hell, the Meteor, until a ventral tank was fitted, had even less operational endurance than the Lightning.
lm
The range problem was solved by funding a fleet of Air Tankers - not exactly a cheap option and its benefit was fairly limited in a War situation. Operational issues were never resolved
Firstly, the Lightning had a very limited time-on-task without Tanker Support. However, once you were engaged and burning fuel, popping back to a Tanker was not a readily available option and probably not required; see below.
Secondly, the aircraft carried an inadequate number of weapons, 2 x AAM are quickly fired out. Of course, some variants had Guns but not really the weapon of choice for the Lightning's war role in the UK ADR. Having scrambled into the North Sea Lanes and engaged, after 30 mins or so, you would probably end up fired out some 100 plus miles from base, short of fuel and essentially useless as an AD asset unless you wished to opt for the ramming tactic. Meanwhile, quite a lot of baddies are still streaming towards the UK whilst most of the UK AD assets need to scuttle back home to replenish weapons and fuel, which takes a lot of time.
Could these Lightning operational deficiencies have been resolved?
Lots more internal fuel - not really, no viable space, fuselage plugs would not have helped and could have caused aerodynamic/stability issues. External tanks - we had some but performance limiting and draggy. Rather than upgrade the entire Mk 3 force to Mk 6 standard; thus a bit more fuel. Someone opted to purchase the visual fits for the Lightning Simulators and we all know how useful that option was!
More AAMs - Firestreak and Redtop were big items with wings fitted, no alternate mounting points are obvious, always remembering you need to safely launch the beasts not just carry them around. Re-fit with Sidewinders would have required an extensive mod programme but probably would have increased the number of AAMs carried. There were attempts to 'up-gun' the Lightning, the Taildog programme got us a bit excited for a while.
In summary, we had what we had, which was far from ideal. However, UK military aircraft programmes are employment providers, if you look back over many years there are not many UK military platforms that could be classed as fully operationally effective. Hell, the Meteor, until a ventral tank was fitted, had even less operational endurance than the Lightning.
lm
Last edited by lightningmate; 1st Aug 2012 at 16:37.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was great performance but not much fuel in the early Lightnings .... post#137
Firstly, the Lightning had a very limited time-on-task without Tanker Support. However, once you were engaged and burning fuel, popping back to a Tanker was not a readily available option and probably not required...
Secondly, the aircraft carried an inadequate number of weapons, 2 x AAM are quickly fired out. Of course, some variants had Guns but not really the weapon of choice for the Lightning's war role in the UK ADR. Having scrambled into the North Sea Lanes and engaged, after 30 mins or so, you would probably end up fired out some 100 plus miles from base, short of fuel and essentially useless as an AD asset unless you wished to opt for the ramming tactic. Meanwhile, quite a lot of baddies are still streaming towards the UK whilst most of the UK AD assets need to scuttle back home to replenish weapons and fuel, which takes a lot of time.
Secondly, the aircraft carried an inadequate number of weapons, 2 x AAM are quickly fired out. Of course, some variants had Guns but not really the weapon of choice for the Lightning's war role in the UK ADR. Having scrambled into the North Sea Lanes and engaged, after 30 mins or so, you would probably end up fired out some 100 plus miles from base, short of fuel and essentially useless as an AD asset unless you wished to opt for the ramming tactic. Meanwhile, quite a lot of baddies are still streaming towards the UK whilst most of the UK AD assets need to scuttle back home to replenish weapons and fuel, which takes a lot of time.
All Lightnings had fuel in their flaps from day 1.
Fuel quantity & performance are always opposing variables.
We were lucky enough to have enjoyed flying the several hotrod Marks of Lightning over many years.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a dim recollection from late 67/early 68 of being in the control room at Patrington and seeing a backlit chinagraph board which had a large graph on it. It had time on the x axis and fuel on the y axis and a legend which referred, I think, to the Mk1 Lightning. When I commented on it to a controller he told me the Lightning was the only aircraft, at that time, which had its fuel monitored from the ground. Can anyone confirm that my memory is correct?
1 the "Tote Board" in the Ops room and
2 the Wx display board in the Diversion Cell.
We DID have a Log Book, which recorded every T/O and Landing from ALL Lightning Units..... Like the day 85 Sqn [Canberras] and 5 Sqn [Lightning] launched from Binbrook, which promptly went Red. Flash phone call to Leeming sorted the Lightnings. The Canberras took care of themselves.