EE Lightning XS422 Engine running

DP

Sounds like the Lightning accident you mentioned was F/O George Davie of 92 Sqn which crashed at Hutton Cranswick near Leconfield on 27/4/64, a sad day indeed.

I have a copy of the accident report and it records that the aircraft hit the ground at an angle of 35-45 degrees. The pilot may have been attempting a forced landing when control was lost.

Correct. I was driving from RAF Driffield where I lived for the start of night shift (19 Sqdn) when the plane passed me at about 200 feet. I didn’t see it crash but heard that he ran out of fuel. I don’t know if he was trying to land, but I doubt it.

I think I know the asnwer already but wouldnt it be great if the air force pitched in and shared t as a highspeed test aircraft for radar etc?

I hope they manage to get the aircraft where it belongs…… Up in the air.

DP

Sounds like the Lightning accident you mentioned was F/O George Davie of 92 Sqn which crashed at Hutton Cranswick near Leconfield on 27/4/64, a sad day indeed.

I have a copy of the accident report and it records that the aircraft hit the ground at an angle of 35-45 degrees. The pilot may have been attempting a forced landing when control was lost.

Just considering this issue of cartwheeling. If the Lightning stayed on the hard runway it might be ok, it might just slide along. The problem then would come if it was on grass. The sweepback of the wing is not the issue. Rather the fact that the wing is located halfway up the fuselage. The mode would then be that one wingtip could settle on the ground and swing the aircraft round so that that wingtip was trailing whereupon the aircraft would tip sideways in the forward direction and the other wingtip would dig in at a steepish angle causing a somersault if there was still sufficient speed. So I guess both sides of the argument are correct, depending on the circumstances. I am sure a TV production team could have a fine time reconstructing possible scenarios in VR.

Just reporting what I heard guys. The only time I was near a wheels up landing, resulted in the pilot being decapitated. By what I don’t know but I believe the aircraft had rolled on the ground. A colleague of mine was the armorer that was sent to make the seat safe and hadn’t been told. He puked his guts up, poor sod.
I saw a Javelin land with one main stuck up but, despite the wing tip being very much to the rear, it stayed upright by sitting on the missile of that wing and the tip didn’t touch to ground. A 2nd aircraft had the same misfortune later that day. Turns out that worn out ‘D’ door hinges and or latches were the cause. All Jav’s were grounded until fixed.

i think the main issues related to the complexity of the systems
as to if the Lightning can fly or not.Dont forget its two very high powered blow lamps
sitting one on top of the other.

from memory I was told many more years ago than I care to mention that it took
something like 200 hours of maintenance for every 1 flying hour in a Lightning .
It may have been an exaggeration but I can see it being not far off the mark having
had a close up view of the one at Tangmere and the one at Gatwick both teams are doing an excellent job
of getting their birds up and running albeit on the ground but even so the effort involved
and maintenance is not a million miles different to flight needs.
I know with our lady (T22 XG743) we basicaly have to get all her systems up and
running correctly as if she is flying even though the basic plan is to ground run and
fast taxi.

Mike E

www.aircraftrestorationgroup.org
XG743 restoration team

I seem to recall that Pilot’s Notes for the Lightning stated that the pilot should eject if the undercarriage remained UP.

However there were at least two aircraft that were landed wheels up by accident and neither cartwheeled. Also there were four cases of failed take offs where the aircraft sank back onto the runway after the gear had been retracted and ended up off the end of the runway. All four remained upright.

. Your wing tip are so far back that once the aircraft roll to one side(on the ground) the tip will dig in and the aircraft will cartwheel.

DP,

I am a little surprised by this statement. Surely any increase in wingsweep reduces the moment arm likely to cause a cartwheel. Do you have any evidence of this ever having occurred? There have been instances of Lightnings landing without a main undercarriage leg and none, as far as I am aware, resulted in a cartwheel. I do recall from my WIWOL days, however, that Pilots Notes and FRCs both prohibited any attempt at landing with only one main gear down. Those cases to which I refer were the result of a main gear collapse on touchdown, not premeditated.

During my time servicing Lightnings in the UK, many accidents were found to be the result of incorrect servicing. Unfortunately, the lost of the African pilot was also due to poor servicing, or to be more exact, the lack of it. He would be alive today IF the seat and canopy ejectors had been serviced on their due date. Rules are rules and must be adhered to. I hope you guys know NEVER to attempt a wheels up landing, with or without a ventral tank. Your wing tip are so far back that once the aircraft roll to one side(on the ground) the tip will dig in and the aircraft will cartwheel. Better to be sure YOUR seat and canopy work when or if they’re needed.

I do wish you the very best to get this, the best interceptor ever, back into the air where she belongs.

Agreed David… Anyone not knowing why.. look into the safety record of the Lightning and the loss of the SA example…

Whether the Lightning flies is very much up to the FAA. They will no doubt look deeply at the safety record of the type and the recent incident in South Africa before they make an informed judgement.

It’s nothing to do with the speed – it’s the sheer complexity and as cool as it might be, the Lightning is actually dangerous. I’m nothing more than an enthusiast yet even I know that it’s a good idea not to fly these jets unless you are 1) An airforce or 2) The manufacturer.

ANY machinery can be “Dangerous” but it’s all about managing those risk’s, Like the Vulcun if it can be shown that they have the correct schemes in place why should’nt she fly?

It’s nothing to do with the speed – it’s the sheer complexity and as cool as it might be, the Lightning is actually dangerous. I’m nothing more than an enthusiast yet even I know that it’s a good idea not to fly these jets unless you are 1) An airforce or 2) The manufacturer.

Hi All,
I just wish somebody in this country would realise that these aircraft have no more danger in them than the other jet warbirds that are flying, I mean since the Vixen was restored to flight status I expected the follow on in the form of Buccaneer and Lightning etc. to return to flight, unless its the fear because they are capable of supersonic speed being the hold up I can’t really see the safety issues and concerns ? If an aircraft develops problems at sub-sonic or super-sonic the end result is the same as far as a crash goes possible loss of aircraft and possible loss of life or is it the technical aspects that are holding the decision or not enough airspace for them to achieve super-sonic as I would imagine obvious restrictions over land but not out over the water ?
Couldn’t restrictions be placed so these lovely aircraft can fly at subsonic speed only ?

Geoff

Brilliant news! I only just missed a flight in this ‘bird’ when I joined A&AEE!

Excellent, thanks for sharing the film clip.

There are not many sharp noisy pointy things I’m interested in, but the EE Lightning has always been a type to turn my head !

Short video of number one engine start.

http://vimeo.com/m/79609864

Well done them,didn’t realise it was going to be a flyer.

Long time coming! Congrats to all involved and good luck with the next phase!