Ask a Lightning Pilot

[HereBeMonsters]

Talking to my Grandfather at a family do the other day, and this place came up. I mentioned that whenever a Lightning comes up for discussion, there are always enthusiastic comments, and I don't know a lot about his flying history really, so we decided to document it in a kind of interview format.
I'm going to record it (maybe with video, maybe without?) and transcribe the interesting bits. I just thought that perhaps it would interest a wider audience than just my immediate family?
If anyone has any questions they would like to ask, or anything you think I should ask - as I my knowledge of these things extends to the Airfix kit I built when I was a kid.
I know there are certain things he still cannot divulge, but I know he has fired at least one missile in anger (he has the other half of the bolt in his garage) and has been fired upon, but could not say when or where.

I currently know this: He trained on a piston engined trainer in the late 40s, I think a Harvard? Then went for jets instead of joining a Mosquito squadron (as I had previously thought). He flew Meteors, Javelins and a few different marks of Lightning before retiring to fly for BEA on short haul routes in the mid-late 60s. I think he also had a short stint on Buccaneers, and has been on a Vulcan in an operational situation, though didn't fly it. He would love to see pictures of any of the above planes, and loved the couple of a 1960s Heathrow I showed him. If you have any more, please post them up so I can show them to him. Perhaps he may have flown something you have a picture of?
He was based in Iraq early on, then a few places in Scotland, then East Anglia, with a short stint in West Germany at some point.

So, what would you like to ask him, and what do you think I should ask him?

[Simpo Two]

Here's a nice present for him:



www.military-art.com/mall/more.php?ProdID=17734

(One of the signees Bob Lightfoot went to my old school, met him at a reunion dinner)

[Eric Mc]

Ask him what basic trainers he flew. I reckon from what you are saying, he wmight have flown Chipmunks, Piston Provosts or perhaps Prentices.

[speedtwelve]

What was the maximum height he achieved in it, was it level or at the top of a zoom climb, and if the latter did the engines keep playing throughout!

[HereBeMonsters]

Eric Mc said:

Ask him what basic trainers he flew. I reckon from what you are saying, he wmight have flown Chipmunks, Piston Provosts or perhaps Prentices.

Prentice does ring a bell.

speedtwelve said:

What was the maximum height he achieved in it, was it level or at the top of a zoom climb, and if the latter did the engines keep playing throughout!

Good question. I do recall something about unbelievable climb rates. Something like runway to 30,000 feet in 30 seconds.

[aeropilot]

HereBeMonsters said:

He flew Meteors, Javelins and a few different marks of Lightning before retiring to fly for BEA on short haul routes in the mid-late 60s. I think he also had a short stint on Buccaneers

Very unlikely about the Buccaneers if he retired from the RAF in mid-late 1960's as the Bucc didn't enter RAF squadron service until Oct 1969. He may have flown RN ones as part of the decsion making process for ordering the Bucc as the replacement for the F-111 order for the RAF, or on an exchange tour with the RN?

This would have been unusual though for a fighter pilot to go to bombers.

What Lightning squadron did he serve with?

[Simpo Two]

HereBeMonsters said:

Good question. I do recall something about unbelievable climb rates. Something like runway to 30,000 feet in 30 seconds.

Deck to 60,000 feet in two minutes seems to ring a bell. As a cadet on Field Day at RAF Wattisham in the 70's I vividly remember seeing a Lightning take off and go (almost) vertical - truly ground shaking!

IIRC it took until the F-16 to match that performance.

[SlipStream77]

Simpo Two said:

HereBeMonsters said:

Good question. I do recall something about unbelievable climb rates. Something like runway to 30,000 feet in 30 seconds.

Deck to 60,000 feet in two minutes seems to ring a bell. As a cadet on Field Day at RAF Wattisham in the 70's I vividly remember seeing a Lightning take off and go (almost) vertical - truly ground shaking!

IIRC it took until the F-16 to match that performance.

It was probably an F15 that matched it, although I did read somewhere that a stripped down Lightning did out-climb even an F15.

Interesting reading here...

http://www.lightning.org.uk/archive/0307.php

[thatone1967]

I only ever saw a lightning once (in the air) think it was IAT at Greenham Common... was astounded by the noice...

this is one plane I would love to see back in the air, although I realise that is very unlikely...

[Simpo Two]

I like the concept. Two fking great engines with a chair on top!

[thatone1967]

Simpo Two said:

I like the concept. Two fking great engines with a chair on top!

I remember saying to a friend who knew a bit more about planes than me that I was surprised that it was so "un aerodynamic" (is that a word?) he is answer.. .when you have as much poke as a lightning, who needs aerodynamics!

[Eric Mc]

Is it "unaerodynmic"? It was pretty much state of the art stuff considering when the design team started work on the project (1948).

When the RAE disputed some of the design features, English Electric stuck to their guns - even though the Air Ministry (on the insistence of the RAE) forced Short Brothers to build a configuration test aircraft to try and prove that EE had got it wrong.

The test aircraft was the Short SB5 which had adjustable wing sweep-back (fixed in advance on the ground) and the ability to locate the tailplane at various positions on the rear fuselage and tailfin. Despite all the faffing about with the SB5, the Lightning ended up being pretty much the 'plane English Electric had intended to build.

[Simpo Two]

thatone1967 said:

I remember saying to a friend who knew a bit more about planes than me that I was surprised that it was so "un aerodynamic" (is that a word?) he is answer.. .when you have as much poke as a lightning, who needs aerodynamics!

I recall reading somewhere that with that much power, you could make a JCB fly!

[spitfire-ian]

thatone1967 said:

I only ever saw a lightning once (in the air) think it was IAT at Greenham Common... was astounded by the noice...

this is one plane I would love to see back in the air, although I realise that is very unlikely...

If you want to see one running on the ground, the Lightning Preservation Group are having a Twilight run this Saturday http://www.lightnings.org.uk/

[B Oeuf]

nothing rotates like a Frightning, it almost seems like an optical illusion

[dr_gn]

Eric Mc said:

Is it "unaerodynmic"? It was pretty much state of the art stuff considering when the design team started work on the project (1948).

When the RAE disputed some of the design features, English Electric stuck to their guns - even though the Air Ministry (on the insistence of the RAE) forced Short Brothers to build a configuration test aircraft to try and prove that EE had got it wrong.

The test aircraft was the Short SB5 which had adjustable wing sweep-back (fixed in advance on the ground) and the ability to locate the tailplane at various positions on the rear fuselage and tailfin. Despite all the faffing about with the SB5, the Lightning ended up being pretty much the 'plane English Electric had intended to build.

I thought the design was commonly accepted as massive compromise (even by the chief designer)?

[Ledaig]

spitfire-ian said:

If you want to see one running on the ground, the Lightning Preservation Group are having a Twilight run this Saturday http://www.lightnings.org.uk/

Information on the web site is a little scant so I'll ask a couple of questions here in case anyone knows the answers:

How many runs will be made?

What time the run(s) is/are?

Anything else going for a taxi (Buc)?

If anyone has answers for the above it would be appreciated.

Thanks

[spitfire-ian]

Ledaig said:

Information on the web site is a little scant so I'll ask a couple of questions here in case anyone knows the answers:

How many runs will be made?

What time the run(s) is/are?

Anything else going for a taxi (Buc)?

If anyone has answers for the above it would be appreciated.

Thanks

Man with Lightnings said:

Just for the record, its only gonna be one fast run with 728.

Timings:

Gates open at 14.00hrs

Come in the hanger, have a wander round, watch us preping 728, have little look at 904's No2 engine bay internals and the replacement engine thats now ready for fitting

As per the last 2 twlight runs all visitors will be briefed on the do's and dont's etc

728 will be towed out and down the bottom of the runway around 15.00 - 15.30hrs

Engines start and then the run around 15.45 hrs (ish) weather and light conditions depending

Back to the hanger for a flood lit photo shoot out on the pan with 728 only, as 904 is all jacked up and not movable (weather depending) 16.15 - 16.30 hrs

Mooch around, buy some 'stuff' from the stall and ask us as many questions as you want, untill you get bored of us, or we head off down the pub

And hopefully by the end of the day, we might just have enough in the pot to pay for the back doors and back cladding work

Well thats the plan any way

You are all welcome to wander off around the rest of the collection on site, if you fancy

[Eric Mc]

dr_gn said:

Eric Mc said:

Is it "unaerodynmic"? It was pretty much state of the art stuff considering when the design team started work on the project (1948).

When the RAE disputed some of the design features, English Electric stuck to their guns - even though the Air Ministry (on the insistence of the RAE) forced Short Brothers to build a configuration test aircraft to try and prove that EE had got it wrong.

The test aircraft was the Short SB5 which had adjustable wing sweep-back (fixed in advance on the ground) and the ability to locate the tailplane at various positions on the rear fuselage and tailfin. Despite all the faffing about with the SB5, the Lightning ended up being pretty much the 'plane English Electric had intended to build.

I thought the design was commonly accepted as massive compromise (even by the chief designer)?

Aren't all aircraft somewhat of a compromise?

I don't think one aspect of the RAE's reservattions about the design of the Lightning ended up forcing EE to change anything. Their main beef was the position of the tailplane, which they thought should be mounted high on the fin rather low down on the fuselage. EE disagreed absolutely and the Lightning ended up with the tailplane where EE had always wanted it.

[Ledaig]

spitfire-ian said:

stuff

Thanks




ETA: Ticket now ordered

Edited by Ledaig on Wednesday 25th November 14:29