Lightning 422 - future? AALO exits USA

[Pete54]

I think comments regarding standards of maintenance are rather inappropriate. The RAF have demonstrated they were incapable of maintaining simple motor gliders. Their standard practice of robbing spares from operational aircraft means that at least they do encounter the problem of spares not necessarily exceeding their life!

For the petrol heads here Andrew Brodie was the UK's version of a Citroen SM guru. He developed many of the after market 'fixes' which allow my car to run reliably. I met him a few times (usually over lunch - he was also a restaurateur!). He was well aware of the issues and challenges of getting a Lightning airborne. I would suspect his remaining partners were also of the same capability.

The Lightning is as stated elsewhere a fuel tank and two ignition sources, it is also a very complex aircraft, where mechanical gadgets do the things that a simple ECU could achieve without breaking sweat. And that is the quest - the engineers made it work, it is mechanical so actually pretty reliable once you do get it working.

In many ways it represents what complex gadgets can achieve and on that basis is worth preserving. But having seen a Lightning depart and head skywards - the noise, the excellence, of something which is so comparatively simple (in terms of lines of codes etc) is something to be repeated Yes an F-16 can almost do this - after decades of progress!

[Tony1963]

Pete54 said:

I think comments regarding standards of maintenance are rather inappropriate. The RAF have demonstrated they were incapable of maintaining simple motor gliders. Their standard practice of robbing spares from operational aircraft means that at least they do encounter the problem of spares not necessarily exceeding their life!

For the petrol heads here Andrew Brodie was the UK's version of a Citroen SM guru. He developed many of the after market 'fixes' which allow my car to run reliably. I met him a few times (usually over lunch - he was also a restaurateur!). He was well aware of the issues and challenges of getting a Lightning airborne. I would suspect his remaining partners were also of the same capability.

The Lightning is as stated elsewhere a fuel tank and two ignition sources, it is also a very complex aircraft, where mechanical gadgets do the things that a simple ECU could achieve without breaking sweat. And that is the quest - the engineers made it work, it is mechanical so actually pretty reliable once you do get it working.
!

I’m talking about the standards of maintenance applied to the Lightning during the Cold War, and that’s the RAF I served in. Huge manpower resources, spares availability, and a NATO commitment to meet every single night. If that commitment to numbers of serviceable aircraft wasn’t met, some very awkward, potentially career-ending questions were asked.
What the RAF has turned into since… well, it has been shocking, but it doesn’t have any relevance to the comment I made that you found inappropriate.

The Lightning was maintenance intensive. That will bite them.

[aeropilot]

Tony1963 said:

aeropilot said:

After the Fire Integrity Programme mods were carried out on the fleet in the late '60's or maybe early 70's(?) they didn't loose that many to in-flight fires, only 6 were lost to in-flight fires during the last 15 years of RAF ops.

The big difference being, of course, that it is extremely unlikely that a privately run Lightning will be maintained to anything like the standard that the RAF maintained them to. The intentions may well be good, but once the true cost of keeping a Lightning hits them, financial restrainsts will kick in.

This is indeed true.
I am assuming that (and assumption is not always a good idea) that maybe one of the reasons of heading to the middle east, and I assume Saudi, is maybe, there might some some loaded ex-RSAF Lightning pilots out there that might be forthcoming with some extra wonga that does make it not a financial black hole.....?

I remain skeptical until I see '452 back in the air, but I'll keep fingers crossed that they can achieve it.

With Phil Wallis involved there is 40+ years of Lightning knowledge there.

[Tony1963]

aeropilot said:

This is indeed true.
I am assuming that (and assumption is not always a good idea) that maybe one of the reasons of heading to the middle east, and I assume Saudi, is maybe, there might some some loaded ex-RSAF Lightning pilots out there that might be forthcoming with some extra wonga that does make it not a financial black hole.....?

I remain skeptical until I see '452 back in the air, but I'll keep fingers crossed that they can achieve it.

With Phil Wallis involved there is 40+ years of Lightning knowledge there.

Some people smell pots of money from a few thousand miles away.

[swampy442]

aeropilot said:

swampy442 said:

Thats not an issue, plenty of companies support legacy ejection seats, make cartridges etc, operators like us and others round the world have all that tied up.

You are operating under a military contract though.....?

MB said they would no longer support civ reg'd ex-mil jets?

Isn't this why the Norwegian F-104 has bang seat supply issue's in recent years, even though they are connected with the RNoAF museum etc..?

The contract is the person who employs the asset, the aircraft are still privately owned and operated under the MAA umbrella.
There’s a huge company in the UK that supplies parachutes, furnishings etc world wide, Lortie in Canada can manufacture seat cartridges for early mark MB seats, with several successful ejections, it’s all doable you just have to appease the regulators

[swampy442]

aeropilot said:

Tony1963 said:

aeropilot said:

After the Fire Integrity Programme mods were carried out on the fleet in the late '60's or maybe early 70's(?) they didn't loose that many to in-flight fires, only 6 were lost to in-flight fires during the last 15 years of RAF ops.

The big difference being, of course, that it is extremely unlikely that a privately run Lightning will be maintained to anything like the standard that the RAF maintained them to. The intentions may well be good, but once the true cost of keeping a Lightning hits them, financial restrainsts will kick in.

This is indeed true.
I am assuming that (and assumption is not always a good idea) that maybe one of the reasons of heading to the middle east, and I assume Saudi, is maybe, there might some some loaded ex-RSAF Lightning pilots out there that might be forthcoming with some extra wonga that does make it not a financial black hole.....?

I remain skeptical until I see '452 back in the air, but I'll keep fingers crossed that they can achieve it.

With Phil Wallis involved there is 40+ years of Lightning knowledge there.

I have to ask, why would you assume a privately owned Lightning would not be maintained to the standard the RAF jets were? I’ll counter that and say it’s the exact opposite, they will be maintained to a higher standard

[Tony1963]

swampy442 said:

I have to ask, why would you assume a privately owned Lightning would not be maintained to the standard the RAF jets were? I’ll counter that and say it’s the exact opposite, they will be maintained to a higher standard

Experience.

A Hunter/Spitfire/Jet Provost/ is easy. Those are simple aircraft, with a large community providing an industry for support.
The Lightning is a very complex aircraft, the skills base that kept them flying has gone.

There are no Lightnings flying.
The manufacturer hasn't supported the Lightning for a long time.
Nobody has done a manufacturer or operator approved course for decades.
Spares for these aircraft were easily available in almost unlimited numbers, in date and traceable. They're not now.
The youngest ex-Lightning techs are in their very late 50s now, probably drawing a pension, and won't be interested.
I wouldn't use ex-Thunder City techs, and I'd expect any respectable aviation regulatory authority to be reluctant to ok them.

Outside of the UK and USA, who on earth would be interested in having a flyable Lightning? It really is just us dewy-eyed British aircraft fans that would be willing to support it at airshows. I know I would! But when I worked with the RSAF, none of our Saudi trainees had any liking for anything old. They wanted the latest, and that was all. They had a Lightning on a plinth near the entrance to our base, and it was a dusty, sorry looking relic that nobody took any notice of. The trainees and pilots never mentioned it.

I'm not against a Lightning flying again, I'm just a realist. It could have happened in the USA with big money available, but as each year goes by, the chances of it happening diminish.

I doubt very much whether it would ever be allowed to display anywhere in Europe, even if it does get airborne in the Middle East/US.

[aeropilot]

Tony1963 said:

The youngest ex-Lightning techs are in their very late 50s now, probably drawing a pension, and won't be interested.

AALO has several, including the already mentioned Phil Wallis who was a senior tech at Binbrook through the eighties until they went out of service, and then was involved with the Lightning Association and heading the team that returned XR724 back to airworthy at Shawbury for its final flight back to Binbrook in '91 (or was it '92?) and also has been in involved with '422 for its entire project duration, as well as IIRC providing help and guidance to the LPG at Brunty in its early days.

[Tony1963]

aeropilot said:

AALO has several, including the already mentioned Phil Wallis who was a senior tech at Binbrook through the eighties until they went out of service, and then was involved with the Lightning Association and heading the team that returned XR724 back to airworthy at Shawbury for its final flight back to Binbrook in '91 (or was it '92?) and also has been in involved with '422 for its entire project duration, as well as IIRC providing help and guidance to the LPG at Brunty in its early days.

Mid-60s?

Has been on the project for 25 years, from what I understands. That shows how extremely difficult this stuff is.
And the law of nature means you stand a fair chance of losing a member of the team each year or so due to the cruelty of life.

I can’t wait til someone announces they’re going to get a Tornado flying in private hands!

[zsdom]

Tony1963 said:

aeropilot said:

AALO has several, including the already mentioned Phil Wallis who was a senior tech at Binbrook through the eighties until they went out of service, and then was involved with the Lightning Association and heading the team that returned XR724 back to airworthy at Shawbury for its final flight back to Binbrook in '91 (or was it '92?) and also has been in involved with '422 for its entire project duration, as well as IIRC providing help and guidance to the LPG at Brunty in its early days.

Mid-60s?

Has been on the project for 25 years, from what I understands. That shows how extremely difficult this stuff is.
And the law of nature means you stand a fair chance of losing a member of the team each year or so due to the cruelty of life.

I can’t wait til someone announces they’re going to get a Tornado flying in private hands!

Then we can have a mixed formation with Concorde, an SR-71 and XH558

[Tony1963]

zsdom said:

Then we can have a mixed formation with Concorde, an SR-71 and XH558

With a Blue Steel following close behind?

[zsdom]

Tony1963 said:

With a Blue Steel following close behind?

Come on, that's just silly!

[Arnold Cunningham]

zsdom said:

Then we can have a mixed formation with Concorde, an SR-71 and XH558

Instead of XH558, I vote for a full supersonic formation, let's do the XB-70 instead, it hardly had any hours on the airframe.

[Tony1963]

Arnold Cunningham said:

Instead of XH558, I vote for a full supersonic formation, let's do the XB-70 instead, it hardly had any hours on the airframe.

And the Bristol 188 from Cosford, but with more power…

I’d pay big money to see that.

[Simpo Two]

Lightning - this one will do until the real one gets going: https://www.facebook.com/reel/727028799504858

[Arnold Cunningham]

Model airshows are pretty good fun.

[aeropilot]

Tony1963 said:

aeropilot said:

AALO has several, including the already mentioned Phil Wallis who was a senior tech at Binbrook through the eighties until they went out of service, and then was involved with the Lightning Association and heading the team that returned XR724 back to airworthy at Shawbury for its final flight back to Binbrook in '91 (or was it '92?) and also has been in involved with '422 for its entire project duration, as well as IIRC providing help and guidance to the LPG at Brunty in its early days.

Mid-60s?

Has been on the project for 25 years, from what I understands. That shows how extremely difficult this stuff is.
And the law of nature means you stand a fair chance of losing a member of the team each year or so due to the cruelty of life.

I can’t wait til someone announces they’re going to get a Tornado flying in private hands!

Saudi will be likely be the only chance of that as well......

Not going to happen anywhere else on the planet.

The rule makers have effectively put a stop to the two Swiss Hunter's now, with their 2-seater being sold to one the Canadian owned military contractor over there, and I believe HHA have swapped a time ex'd donk for the one out of J-4040 which is now grounded for static display.
Not sure if the Swedish AFHF are still flying their Hunter or not?
If not, with the Dutch F.6 sold a few years back to one of the civilian military contractors in the USA, that will mean there are now no civilian reg Hunters flying Europe.

[swampy442]

Yes Lortie purchased the 2 seater, I cant comment on how HHA will aquire the engine but we have, which is fantastic.

[swampy442]

Tony1963 said:

Outside of the UK and USA, who on earth would be interested in having a flyable Lightning? It really is just us dewy-eyed British aircraft fans that would be willing to support it at airshows. I know I would! But when I worked with the RSAF, none of our Saudi trainees had any liking for anything old. They wanted the latest, and that was all. They had a Lightning on a plinth near the entrance to our base, and it was a dusty, sorry looking relic that nobody took any notice of. The trainees and pilots never mentioned it.

I'm not against a Lightning flying again, I'm just a realist. It could have happened in the USA with big money available, but as each year goes by, the chances of it happening diminish.

I doubt very much whether it would ever be allowed to display anywhere in Europe, even if it does get airborne in the Middle East/US.

The people who buy these things are billionaires and millionaires, a survey was recently carried out on 2 Buccaneers for an american invester. Big boys toys. And the US regulations are completely different to the UK/Europe, they have privately owned and flying F104's and Harriers, which are notoriously tricky to keep in the air, so anything is possible with deep enough pockets.

[aeropilot]

swampy442 said:

Tony1963 said:

Outside of the UK and USA, who on earth would be interested in having a flyable Lightning? It really is just us dewy-eyed British aircraft fans that would be willing to support it at airshows. I know I would! But when I worked with the RSAF, none of our Saudi trainees had any liking for anything old. They wanted the latest, and that was all. They had a Lightning on a plinth near the entrance to our base, and it was a dusty, sorry looking relic that nobody took any notice of. The trainees and pilots never mentioned it.

I'm not against a Lightning flying again, I'm just a realist. It could have happened in the USA with big money available, but as each year goes by, the chances of it happening diminish.

I doubt very much whether it would ever be allowed to display anywhere in Europe, even if it does get airborne in the Middle East/US.

The people who buy these things are billionaires and millionaires, a survey was recently carried out on 2 Buccaneers for an american invester. Big boys toys. And the US regulations are completely different to the UK/Europe, they have privately owned and flying F104's and Harriers, which are notoriously tricky to keep in the air, so anything is possible with deep enough pockets.

It remains to be seen if the FAA change some of the rules over there in the wake of the MiG-23 crash last year, which only by an astonishing stroke of luck didn't take anyone out on the ground, and from a flying handling pov, those things are notoriously not the ideal thing that should be flying at an airshow, and makes a Lightning and a Harrier look the safest thing in the air.

There are likely some further big changes coming over there in the wake of the Dallas P-63/B-17 air to air as well.