Lightning lost in South Africa
Discussion
elster said:
spitfire-ian said:
The hydraulic system on a Lighting is one of the main reasons why the CAA didn't want them flying in civilian hands over here. If the hydraulics fail then that's it, there are no back-up systems. That and most of the important systems don't have a back-up either with important systems running along the side of the jet pipes which have a tendency to get a bit hot!
So a modification is needed, not a clamp down on them.spitfire-ian said:
elster said:
spitfire-ian said:
The hydraulic system on a Lighting is one of the main reasons why the CAA didn't want them flying in civilian hands over here. If the hydraulics fail then that's it, there are no back-up systems. That and most of the important systems don't have a back-up either with important systems running along the side of the jet pipes which have a tendency to get a bit hot!
So a modification is needed, not a clamp down on them.There are limits to what can be done with these very old but sophisticated aircraft. Thety require specialist engineers, specialist tools and specialist facilities in order to keep them airworthy. As time goes on, they need MORE maintenance, not less. But the people and facilities available to keep them going diminish in inverse proprtion to the maintenance workload.
In theory, an individual with massively deep pockets might be willing to spend the tens of millions required to keep them in the air. But there are very few individuals who aere really THAT rich and that enthusiastic. However, if the qualified technicians and aircrew aren't around to work on them, then even bottomless pockets won't be enough.
In theory, an individual with massively deep pockets might be willing to spend the tens of millions required to keep them in the air. But there are very few individuals who aere really THAT rich and that enthusiastic. However, if the qualified technicians and aircrew aren't around to work on them, then even bottomless pockets won't be enough.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th November 12:39
elster said:
spitfire-ian said:
The hydraulic system on a Lighting is one of the main reasons why the CAA didn't want them flying in civilian hands over here. If the hydraulics fail then that's it, there are no back-up systems. That and most of the important systems don't have a back-up either with important systems running along the side of the jet pipes which have a tendency to get a bit hot!
So a modification is needed, not a clamp down on them.
It would be impossible to modify the hyd. systems on a Lightning, if it had been, BAe/RAF would have done it 40 years ago to stop them falling out of the sky back then.
And even if you could, they then would be so different to the original design that no aviation authority would then sanction them being flown.
Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 15th November 14:48
The problem is that many people on PH (being car enthusiasts) think that restoring a warbird is akin to restoring a car - only bigger and more expensive.
In reality, auircraft are far more sophisticated than cars. Once you get past about 1955, the technology in aircraft - especially front line military aircraft or airliners - becomes so advanced that that you start running into massive technical issues. I do admit that, in the UK, the CAA are very conservative in their approach to licensing retired warbirds. Rules are more relaxed in countries such as the USA or South Africa. However, Britain is a relatively "tight little island" compared to the USA or SA so I'm sure they would have nightmares of something big, heavy and fast coming down in a populated area.
In reality, auircraft are far more sophisticated than cars. Once you get past about 1955, the technology in aircraft - especially front line military aircraft or airliners - becomes so advanced that that you start running into massive technical issues. I do admit that, in the UK, the CAA are very conservative in their approach to licensing retired warbirds. Rules are more relaxed in countries such as the USA or South Africa. However, Britain is a relatively "tight little island" compared to the USA or SA so I'm sure they would have nightmares of something big, heavy and fast coming down in a populated area.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th November 15:04
Eric Mc said:
Rules are more relaxed in countries such as the USA or South Africa. However, Britain is a relatively "tight little island" compared to the USA or SA so I'm sure they would have nightmares of something big, heavy and fast coming down in a populated area.
True for the USA to an extend with their Experimental category, but the rules in SA were not more relaxed with respect to the Lightning, it was just as you point out, the geography of the country, combined with the proximity to the sea of Cape Town Int., permitted ThunderCity Lightning ops., and they only appeared at a few airshows per year where dispensation was allowed for the relatively brief overland operations, again at bases that were in relatively sparsely populated areas.So, not a case of being less strict than our CAA, just ThunderCity being able to satisfy the requirements for operation due to geography. And remember TC's operations wasn't solely as an airshow one, airshows were actually only a small by product of it's main use of the aircraft, unlike the original proposals of any UK operation had been.
Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 15th November 16:05
spitfire-ian said:
The hydraulic system on a Lighting is one of the main reasons why the CAA didn't want them flying in civilian hands over here. If the hydraulics fail then that's it, there are no back-up systems. That and most of the important systems don't have a back-up either with important systems running along the side of the jet pipes which have a tendency to get a bit hot!
There are two hyd pumps (one per engine, and one per circuit - flying controls or other services - with the pilot able to switch the pumps over if one fails); even a double engine failure wouldn't totally knock out the hydraulics as accumulators and a windmilling engine would allow enough pressure to maintain some flight control - enough gentle manouevring to land at least.Much more important in terms of Lightning losses was that awful rear fuselage design, with all sorts of highly important bits and pieces crammed in around the reheat pipes with insufficient fire shielding. Early years in RAF service saw lots of losses due to leaks and resulting fires in this area; later they improved fire protection and drains to the area and saw far fewer losses. The Thunder City Lightnings all have the latest RAF mod standard in this area, plus a few additional improvements of their own design.
spitfire-ian said:
It is a well known fact that over half the Lightings produced have been lost, mainly in the North Sea.
78 of 339 written off; of these, 4 were total hydraulic failures, and 24 to in-flight fires.Some photos of ZU-BEX's last moments appear to show a significant fire in the rear fuselage - tailplane actuator jack destroyed I suspect.
Edited by DamienB on Sunday 15th November 19:40
elster said:
spitfire-ian said:
elster said:
spitfire-ian said:
The hydraulic system on a Lighting is one of the main reasons why the CAA didn't want them flying in civilian hands over here. If the hydraulics fail then that's it, there are no back-up systems. That and most of the important systems don't have a back-up either with important systems running along the side of the jet pipes which have a tendency to get a bit hot!
So a modification is needed, not a clamp down on them.Eric Mc said:
The problem is that many people on PH (being car enthusiasts) think that restoring a warbird is akin to restoring a car - only bigger and more expensive.
In reality, aircraft are far more sophisticated than cars. Once you get past about 1955, the technology in aircraft - especially front line military aircraft or airliners - becomes so advanced that that you start running into massive technical issues. I do admit that, in the UK, the CAA are very conservative in their approach to licensing retired warbirds. Rules are more relaxed in countries such as the USA or South Africa. However, Britain is a relatively "tight little island" compared to the USA or SA so I'm sure they would have nightmares of something big, heavy and fast coming down in a populated area.
Bearing in mind a lot of friends and family friends restore aircraft and lots of them, I just have a deep seated hatred of the CAA because of this.In reality, aircraft are far more sophisticated than cars. Once you get past about 1955, the technology in aircraft - especially front line military aircraft or airliners - becomes so advanced that that you start running into massive technical issues. I do admit that, in the UK, the CAA are very conservative in their approach to licensing retired warbirds. Rules are more relaxed in countries such as the USA or South Africa. However, Britain is a relatively "tight little island" compared to the USA or SA so I'm sure they would have nightmares of something big, heavy and fast coming down in a populated area.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th November 15:04
DamienB said:
78 of 339 written off; of these, 4 were total hydraulic failures, and 24 to in-flight fires.
Some photos of ZU-BEX's last moments appear to show a significant fire in the rear fuselage - tailplane actuator jack destroyed I suspect.
Blimey DB, didn't expect to see you on here Some photos of ZU-BEX's last moments appear to show a significant fire in the rear fuselage - tailplane actuator jack destroyed I suspect.
Edited by DamienB on Sunday 15th November 19:40
Sounds like the usual Frightning problem then...better make that 25 then.
Not seen any images of it's last moments so can't comment. From the radio transcripts I've seen though DS only indicated a hyd prob rather than saying he had a fire, as usually the fire alarms went off in the cockpit before control stiffening occured.....
unless that failed along with the canopy/seat systems...??
We'll probably never know I suppose. RIP DS.
Damian is spot on.
The fuel and hydro lines on a Lightning run near the jet pipes which at full power reach a temp of approx 790 degrees c, with the airframe reach temps of around, 260 degrees c. From the various photos i have seen (not all published) there is fuel leaking from two places on the fuselage, these leaks can be seen before brakes off, it wouldn't take long for the escaping fuel to ignite and burn through the hydraulic lines and controls, once these have gone then their is no manual reversal.
The C.A.A. quite rightly forbid Lightnings to fly in the U.K. because of this (among other) reasons, these aircraft are dangerous things and the maintenance required is astronomical, in service they required 100 hours of servicing to every hour of flight, figures Thunder city were getting as well. The R.A.F. did implement a "solution" to the fire problem but they still suffered losses.
Another reason for the lack of flying Lightnings over here is the lack of serviceable engine, spares etc, not to mention getting Rolls Royce and Bae to support the engines and airframe, simply put they wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. The question i have about this accident is where was the see off chap? it was S.O.P. in the R.A.F. to see off Lightnings, had there been one then the leaks would have been spotted, i know that The Lightnings that are run in the U.K wouldn't even taxi with such leaks.
The fuel and hydro lines on a Lightning run near the jet pipes which at full power reach a temp of approx 790 degrees c, with the airframe reach temps of around, 260 degrees c. From the various photos i have seen (not all published) there is fuel leaking from two places on the fuselage, these leaks can be seen before brakes off, it wouldn't take long for the escaping fuel to ignite and burn through the hydraulic lines and controls, once these have gone then their is no manual reversal.
The C.A.A. quite rightly forbid Lightnings to fly in the U.K. because of this (among other) reasons, these aircraft are dangerous things and the maintenance required is astronomical, in service they required 100 hours of servicing to every hour of flight, figures Thunder city were getting as well. The R.A.F. did implement a "solution" to the fire problem but they still suffered losses.
Another reason for the lack of flying Lightnings over here is the lack of serviceable engine, spares etc, not to mention getting Rolls Royce and Bae to support the engines and airframe, simply put they wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. The question i have about this accident is where was the see off chap? it was S.O.P. in the R.A.F. to see off Lightnings, had there been one then the leaks would have been spotted, i know that The Lightnings that are run in the U.K wouldn't even taxi with such leaks.
Winchy said:
The question i have about this accident is where was the see off chap? it was S.O.P. in the R.A.F. to see off Lightnings, had there been one then the leaks would have been spotted
This would be a major SOP flaw if so, and not one I would have expected from TC given the the way they were trained by Barry P (as well as the Lightning legend that was the late Baz Livesey) and certainley all the TC vid's if ever seen show see-off personnel operating in the RAF/BAe manner. And with Keith H and Ian B still occasionally flying TC's Lightings I can't imagine they would do so without such SOP's being in place?However, TC were unusually operating 'away from home' for this show, so maybe this resulted in a SOP lapse with tragic consequenses...??
So sad
Interim report out on the loss of ZU-BEX (XS451) in South Africa.
http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%2...
Doesn't paint a good picture on Thunder Cities operations I'm afraid, I'm quite shocked...... I have a feeling the SA authorites will be having second thoughts about allowing them to continue Lightning ops or even any ops for that matter with such proceedure failures
http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%2...
Doesn't paint a good picture on Thunder Cities operations I'm afraid, I'm quite shocked...... I have a feeling the SA authorites will be having second thoughts about allowing them to continue Lightning ops or even any ops for that matter with such proceedure failures
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff