Anyone for a Lightning?
 

Hardly used, sold as seen.....

http://www.edisposals.com/is-bin/INT...mpTo=OfferList

Or for an estimated £17,500 you could have this

http://www.witham-sv.com/Lot-picture/lot326.jpg

Does anyone know the reason why the CAA won't approve a Lightning for flight?

Probably because even when they were being looked after, 1 in 3 fell out of the sky!
I saw the stats somewhere, and they make truly 'Frightening' reading, maybe thats how it aquired the nickname?

Complexity and kinetic energy are amongst the reasons they've dragged out in the past. However, if the Seffrikans can do it, I'm sure we could.

And if HHA get their Bucc (XX885) airworthy under complex cat registration then there's a precedent. Anybody any idea what teh current status of that Bucc is?

or £12,500 for a Jaguar on Ebay.... plenty more according to the seller :(

Does anyone know the reason why the CAA won't approve a Lightning for flight?

It's because it is a requirement by the CAA that such ventures require the support of the manufacturer, and BAe are, perhaps understandably, unwilling to offer support. No such inhibition in Sith Ifrikaa.

Having said that, the team at Bruntingthorpe have done a magnificent job of keeping their two in airworthy condition. I was speaking to a friend of mine (Air Commodore ret'd) the other year and he said that during a high speed taxi run, in reheat no less, he was very tempted......

Probably because even when they were being looked after, 1 in 3 fell out of the sky!

Garbage, if you'll forgive me.

JP (and LP)

You're forgiven.

I'm still fairly certain the loss rate was >30% over its life.

Flying Lightnings.
 

Details are a bit hazy, but I recall a modification carried out on the Lightnings in the early 70s to the hydraulics, the AGS1186 bonded seals fitted to the hydraulic components ajacent to the jet pipes were leaking due to the heat, this caused a fine spray of hydraulic oil on to the jet pipe and caused a fire in the aft fuselage, and certainly a few were lost by this problem.( the tailplane gearbox failing if I remember)
The fix was to wire lock tape around the unions so when they leaked it merely dripped instead of spraying, thus reducing the risk of fire.
Thats possibly why they can't fly today. Sadly.
Best regards
om15

I've tried to persuade the missus that it would look great parked on the drive but so far no go!

AR1

and they make truly 'Frightening' reading, maybe thats how it aquired the nickname?

Methinks 'twas because the last aeroplane that most Lightning pilots flew in training en-route to the beast was the Hunter. I well remember being on 226 OCU in '68 at the tender age of 21 and the aeroplane did at the time seem "frightening". It must be one of the few aeroplanes in history where nobody complained about the lack of thrust! Mind you, lack of fuel was a different kettle of fish - short of fuel at the take-off point!

Gareth Herts

I've tried to persuade the missus that it would look great parked on the drive but so far no go!

Jeremy Clarkson managed it for a while....

Wanna see a Lightning low? Go to www.lightningpilots.com and check photos under 5 Sqn. Photographed from the tower - from above!

JP

A few were lost due to undercarriage extension failure in the early days. Were these problems ever solved (by modification)? Was it ever a problem in service?

I got this for stg 500.00 plus a heck of a lot of 'Pints', to lubricate the negotiations, as I recall .... :)

http://i7.tinypic.com/281c8jk.jpg

Was there a guy near Liskeard who put a Lightning (or something very similar) up on a stand, outside the entrance to his home (it was a big home as I recall) …. :confused:

I believe that the prototype aircraft had the u/c selector positioned on the left hand side just forward of the throttles, this could possibly result in an inadvertant "down" selection if the throttle was pushed fully forward, I remember being told that one aircraft had a down selection at mach 2 resulting in an airframe loss, the u/c selector was moved to prevent a reoccurence.
Early prototypes had canopy losses in flight, this was cured by modifying the mechanism cams.
One Mk 53 belly landed at Tabuk and the gun pack and ventral tank absorbed the impact, the aircraft did not sustain any serious damage and was repairable.
The Lightning was designed and built in very austere conditions with very little political commitment, it really was a classic aircraft.
Best regards,
om15

Still there, last time I drove past, outside Castle Motors alongside the A38.

How about the famous story of the poor chap running up a Lightning, sitting on a box with no canopy, who ended up with the flight of a lifetime ?:D

Though he managed to get it down - a great achievement I'd think - the story did not have a happy ending.

On the other hand, just to please some people, I'll mention it's refreshing to see a Warton product openly labelled 'ineffective'...

That was Wg Cdr 'Taffy' Holden - an EngO (who'd flown Chipmunks years ealier). He couldn't get the a/c out of reheat (the test was for a fault which only occurred during rapid acceleration) and took to the skies at Lyneham as a result.

He managed to get it back on the ground OK, but suffered psychological trauma ever after.

That's the one ..... wonder if he was ex RAF .... :confused:

Beagle
 

Thanks Beagle,

sadly that was the way I heard it...I wonder if he'd have got better treatment nowadays - in this case I think he probably would have.

It must have taken a hell of a lot of skill & guts to land it in one piece, the version I heard stated he had several goes - and of course no barrier etc was possible.

There are the other stories which circulate, such as the American loadmaster who took a C-130 headed for East Germany ( & failed to reach it courtesy of a Lightning ) & the groundcrew ( Belgian ? ) chap who pinched an F-16 for a spectacular suicide... Even had a threat to steal a Harrier or Hawk at our place once, which was rather robustly dealt with by a certain Mr. J.F; he was intelligent enough to warn us all, which I doubt others would have done.