Thunder City closes

Ok, thats enough now – as we cant stay on topic, its time to close; all that could be said about TC has been.

Bruce

flawles or luck it only takes one event to tumble a house of cards

Forgive me for saying, but in all fairness, have thunder city not operated buccs and lightnings (excusing the recent tragedy) with a flawless record?

Im sure its got to be better than the record for the raf over a similar period of time!

The loss of TCity is imho a great loss to the world – Where else could these aircraft be seen to fly?

Tornado Just a thought, what GCSE’s Are you sitting this year? Now would be a great time to start planning for a future in the aviation business. That way you could (possibly) gain some experience to backup the wild statements you seem to love making 🙂

Just a thought

the main one being wether jets of that complexity should be in private operators hands !!

We’ve covered this already. Read further up the page will you? There’s no point in doing it again.

your a tit short of an udder sir!

as for your claims to working in Aero Enginineering…..lets just say you shouldnt give that up to become a spell checker.

to call an operation like TC a “backyard garage” operation smacks of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and a total lack of knowledge in what is involved in maintaining an aircraft.

By your own reasoning, a commercial jetliner is “far too high performance” a machine to be operated in private hands!!

Personally, i think that when you can boast the first hand expierience of maintaining an aircraft such as the Lightning for a decade with an almost flawless safety record you should refrain from embarrassing yourself further.

Sir, you have put a smile on my face, never has a paragaph on this forum been so apt!

The easiest thing to do is to read the interim report and draw judgement from that .

interesting reading with a catalogue of serious questions to answer !!

the main one being wether jets of that complexity should be in private operators hands !!

The easiest thing to do is to read the interim report and draw judgement from that .

they are too complex and too high a performance machine to be in private hands

1 when in raf service they were supported by large teams of raf technicians and the factory plus government funding wich in the cold war era was a bottomless pocket !!

not by a small group of idividuals giving cabbies !! ( no matter how skilled you cannot in all seriousness believe a backyard garage can give the same exacting and day to day knoledge standards of a specialist opperating base that used them from new !!

2 it was not without reason our own caa grounded them to stop accidents as they were considdered too hot a machine in private hands and there were concerns about maintainance !!

3 and tragic as it was do we realy need another ramstien to realise they are not suitable aircraft for private hands ( as mentioned it was considdered leathal by regular lightning pilots !! )

fantastic aircraft and no doubt operated to the best of the companys abilitys maybe nursed and maybe looked superb inside and out

but there are so many intricate factory tollerances , stress fatigues , correct metal hardnesses ( for every part !! )

that in all reality you cannot say that all the orriginal knowledge is there for a half cetury old high tech aircraft

i have worked in aerospace engineering specificaly in metal heat treatment

so it could ( not saying it is !! ) but could even be one component slightly off spec

the only way of knowing what has happened without pointing fingers is wait to see what the proffesionals report says when it is finnished !!

your a tit short of an udder sir!

as for your claims to working in Aero Enginineering…..lets just say you shouldnt give that up to become a spell checker.

to call an operation like TC a “backyard garage” operation smacks of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and a total lack of knowledge in what is involved in maintaining an aircraft.

By your own reasoning, a commercial jetliner is “far too high performance” a machine to be operated in private hands!!

Personally, i think that when you can boast the first hand expierience of maintaining an aircraft such as the Lightning for a decade with an almost flawless safety record you should refrain from embarrassing yourself further.

Now can we get back onto the original topic?

Actually, they dont – they set the rules by which aircraft can be allowed to fly, and as we have seen, sometimes that will make operation of a particular aircraft prohibitively expensive.

Welcome back by the way.

Bruce

Fair enough Bruce I see what you are saying. Maybe I worded my post wrong then.

Expense can be overcome if you are able and willing enough but sadly this does limit the amount of people able to do this. Lets face it if I was operating an aircraft and it could either be one expensive jet or have a couple of vintage classics I know what I would do. Or even maybe even have a jet but because its more cost effective I can still operate my Tiger Moth etc.

And thanks its nice to be back albeit in a smaller capacity.

All aircraft are complexed and I for one applaud the CAA for taking the informed decision of which aircraft can be allowed to fly. In saying that I dont need to agree with the choices or decisions they make but I dont envy them their job in making these choices.

Actually, they dont – they set the rules by which aircraft can be allowed to fly, and as we have seen, sometimes that will make operation of a particular aircraft prohibitively expensive.

Welcome back by the way.

Bruce

I find it rather sad and pathetic to see that this thread has gone from an informational thread about the demise of a prestigious and brave company to one that slates their maintainence record and become a thread that merely bitches and moans about which aircraft should be flying and which should not.

The fact of the matter is that they are closed and we will all know in due time what is going to happen to the aircraft. Who even says they will be sold. The commercial operation is closed but there is nothing saying the aircraft wont be kept privately or in a local museum so put that one in your pipe and smoke it.

As for spits and hurris being slow and not complexed. You ever seen the mess one makes when it ploughs into the ground?

All aircraft are complexed and I for one applaud the CAA for taking the informed decision of which aircraft can be allowed to fly. In saying that I dont need to agree with the choices or decisions they make but I dont envy them their job in making these choices.

Its always going to be the wrong decision for someone.

Lets just enjoy whatever someone manages to get flying or keep flying.

As for accidents they are going to happen come whatever may. Some are preventable some are not lets just learn as much as we can from them.

This thread reminds me of quite a few of the reasons I hardly ever post here anymore.

Put simply, if you want to see one Uk registered and flying, you will need about 15 million to
see it through, and Marshalls on board. That was the gen 2 years ago. Now, I dont know.

Only 15 million…… pah, no sweat, I’ll go and have a root around down the back of the sofa now and let you know 😀 😉

Even, if an organisation could afford the rate for DA cover, I’m guessing, it still wouldn’t be an easy task, with the ongoing spares situation, especially lifed donks/JP’s which, if doing a ‘Vulcan’ likewise RR would need to be involved, give the green light etc.

Whilst we have gone way off topic now, we are reaching something of a concensus.

Pagen – can I submit that the Nimrod was a continuation of the original Comet design? There was a marked change in (eg) skin thicknesses between Comets 1-4, and this is just another modification of the original design. I believe there are quite a few parts that begin ‘6-‘ in the ‘rod! The RAF also use the same stores designator; 26DL is Comet AND Nimrod, not that it means anything!

Milt confirms my suspicions regarding flying a Lightning. Whilst, with deep enough pockets flying a Lightning could have been possible in the UK, moving the project to SA made it feasible.

James highlights an issue that gives the CAA a bad name – where questionable judgement is given by a local officer or field agent, the blame is always laid on the CAA as a whole. I’ve seen a number of Spitfires flying with the ‘wrong’ fabric; it is a question of who one asks!

Bruce

All credit to Thunder City for doing what they managed for a decade. It is a benchmark.

sure it is a well known aircraft amongst enthusiasts but go outside that circle and people wouldn’t know it if they saw it !! and to run aircraft of this type you need as many funders as possible from every walk not just lightning fans

Generally, for high cost high-performance jets, despite lots of noise about donations and membership, you actually need a few very rich people – and in that I’m including the Vulcan.

remember branson wanting concorde and proving he could make it work ???

he is a billionaire airline owner and couldn’t get what he wanted yet small groups think they can

Branson never had any intent of operating Concorde. I’d be interested in seeing any paperwork relating to actual, serious technical licence type discussions – because they don’t exist. Branson saw a quick, free, easy PR win and got it. Mentions like this show what a free ride that is.

Nimrod may well be a different aircraft, but I suggest that it isnt that different – bear in mind that the first two were converted from Comets on the line.

For the first generation Nimrod (only now retired), there was a heck of a lot in common with the Comet. For the new ones, rather less!

Given (according to the owner) the CAA wouldn’t allow a Spitfire to fly because the rudder fabric was the ‘wrong’ (i.e. modern replacement equivalent) type…

Just couple of thoughts,

It is something I have studied abit, there isn’t much in common apart from the shape and a few items (inc some seats in the back!). The two prototypes wree of course converted Comets but even they were different to production aircraft.
Even skin and structure guages were different.
I think Firebird is correct as Canopus was a modded RAE aircraft and this caused paperwork issues, happy to be corrected though.
However we digress and the subject of what can or can’t fly in this country is worthy of a thread on its own.

Nimrod may well be a different aircraft, but I suggest that it isnt that different – bear in mind that the first two were converted from Comets on the line.

For the first generation Nimrod (only now retired), there was a heck of a lot in common with the Comet. For the new ones, rather less!

Bruce

Good, we’re all learning!
From what you say then, it is a BAe issue, rather than CAA

Sort of, but you touch on it quite well yourself here,

I would surmise that the South African CAA made it easier to fly them out there, and that certain labour costs would be much cheaper. South Africa also has much more empty land in case of problems.

ie the S.African circumstances are very different to the UK ones, especially the issues of labour and open space and population issue, not to mention that the UK and SA governing bodies have different guidelines.
Just because something can fly in SA it dosen’t mean it can or will in the UK.

I don’t buy the Nimrod is just basically a Comet bit either. It is far more than that, they really are different airframes built to very different criterias, I don’t believe that has any bearing on a CAA permit for the Comet, afterall they operated as airliners well after the Nimrod was introduced.
I seem to remember hearing the same as what Firebird has written, but I don’t know for sure.

MJR, sorry if I appear to be posting right up after you, it is just a coincidence with timing!

some facts! Our group got fed up with hearing missguided
rumours from punters, and all and sundry about this. So 2 years ago we approached the CAA certification head honcho in Gatwick for some facts.

1)CAA are open to (although this may well have changed since last November)a Lightning flying in the UK.

2) To fly one. So long as the permit convenants are met and the whole venture is underwritten by a suitable DA authority
(Marshalls were specifically mentioned, Bae have not changed their stance, infact they are worse than ever. I can vouch for that personally, having spoken to them at the same time. try getting even Lightning tech drawings from them now! An indemnity form has to be filled out and signed!

Bae did not want to come oboard for the previous application, and The Lightning Flying Club were ultimately not deemed to be a suitable DA, for various reasons, which he was not at liberty to divulge.

when asked about the SCAA application, (CAA were involved in that too). We were simply told that the TC application was a whole different animal.

Put simply, if you want to see one Uk registered and flying, you will need about 15 million to
see it through, and Marshalls on board. That was the gen 2 years ago. Now, I dont know.

between firebirds post and this one, you now have the FACTS…

I didnt say you were approaching any of the rules in the CofC, but one doesnt have to in order to get personal!

This is one of those subjects (like the Vulcan, and the (non) restoration of the RAFM Halifax) that gets people riled every time, and for which there is no adequate answer. Virtual shouting at one another – especially when, it would seem, neither have the answers will get nowhere.

There is nothing published that says that the Lightning cannot fly in the UK. Actually, I would go so far as to say that there is no reason that the aircraft cannot fly in the UK, except for cubic money.

There is a supposition amongst many enthusiasts, that one can grab an ex military aircraft, fresh out of service, and simply go fly. That attitude seems to prevail whether it be a Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, or Vulcan. Ah yes – the Vulcan.

The Vulcan is the one that proves it can be done, and shows the way – BUT as I said earlier, it requires cubic money in order to do it.

SO – my suggestion, if you want to see a Lightning fly in the UK is to do what they did – set up an operating company, get a design authority to take on the work (at commercial rates), and employ suitably qualified technicians to undertake the work. Me, I’ll have half a dozen Spitfires instead ta!

The key to operating any ex military aircraft is in being able to prove you can do so, and that you have enough paperwork and knowledge from qualified people to do so safely. That goes for anything, but the demands get greater, the more complicated the aircraft gets.

Bruce

exactly i hear plenty of talk but few who get together and actualy do a job with the needed resources

that’s why the british talk and the south africans did it !!

the vulcan struggled and that is a falklands associated aircraft that everyone in the country knows !!

the lightning would never achieve the required running costs

sure it is a well known aircraft amongst enthusiasts but go outside that circle and people wouldn’t know it if they saw it !! and to run aircraft of this type you need as many funders as possible from every walk not just lightning fans

the fact as mentioned of trying to get permission to fly over a ten year period and failing speaks more than any printed word !!

remember branson wanting concorde and proving he could make it work ???

he is a billionaire airline owner and couldn’t get what he wanted yet small groups think they can

for me it is a reality check and common sense that says the lightning will never fly in the uk again !!