June 10, 2006 at 10:00 am
Would I be right in assuming that the reason a Lightning can’t fly over here is because it is a complex type it requires manufacturer support (BAe) but the main hurdle is it’s poor safety record? (Was it as much as a third of all airframes built lost in accidents?) 😮
By: jb154 - 5th December 2006 at 00:40
Lightnings are terrible to service and unreliable. NOT
It is a little known fact that one of the the stipulations of the BAC Saudi Support contrct was that they maintained a 60% OR [operational readiness] state.
given say 19 [counting of my old list of tail numbers] operational aircraft less 2 on Q one spare 3 on deep and given that on average half of the remainder did a 45 min per day that call it 10 hrs air time. Given that Lightning requires 100 hours servicing per hour flight time that equals 1000 man hours from finish of flying at say 1400 to OR cut off at say 0600 lass one hour for shift hand over equals 15 hours ish. Thats 66 bods flat out for 16 hours. No I didnt remember it was like that. You could just about muster two 16 hour shifts back to back then you were ******** for a couple of days at least.
so we must conclude, in Saudi at least, the 100 hour figure is a little over the top.
Moral
Given a quality team operating a lightning is entirely possible, but it has to be a quality team. I have to take my hat of to Beachyhead, Pover and the gang. well done chaps.
By: bocar - 30th November 2006 at 21:33
regards to uk lightnings flying there is only one candidate that is 458 firstly she has very low fi and no corrosion i would know as i have prepare and rubbed down this aircraft four times in readiness for spraying in the various colour schemes over the last five years since owning her maybe i should invite some of you down to see for yourselves latest colour scheme addition is portside 92sqn cobra.rmc
By: 320psi - 13th June 2006 at 23:22
320psi
“Ive always had the dubious honour of being the smallest across the chest to get by the radar bullet for FOD checks, starter leak checks etc as well ”same here try a hunter intake or jet pipe even less room
Yes I know all about the Hunter intake we look after the ex swiss one at Brunty and its always me that ends up head first down there with my crust againt the starter dome and my boots above the level of my head, its a strange feeling. 😮
By: 320psi - 13th June 2006 at 23:18
Yep still here and still trying to get a window so that I can come and visit all the Brunters posse!
Although if the rumours at work come true I might have more time on my hands than I know what to do with! 🙁 (for the second time this year!)
Funny stories ,don’t feel that you can’t share them! 😉
Cheers, Alan
Your welcome any time, we plan to give 904 a little stir this sat if your free ?
Sorry to hear of your possible job loss I know what it like if that helps any. Keep smiling 😉
I wouldnt want to share most of the stories over the Web, I think a book is the best way 😉 😉
Cheers
By: alanl - 13th June 2006 at 22:57
Cheers Alan, nice to know your still out there.
Ive got so many stories, mostly funny ones 🙂
Yep still here and still trying to get a window so that I can come and visit all the Brunters posse!
Although if the rumours at work come true I might have more time on my hands than I know what to do with! 🙁 (for the second time this year!)
Funny stories ,don’t feel that you can’t share them! 😉
Cheers, Alan
By: markp451a - 13th June 2006 at 22:52
320psi
“Ive always had the dubious honour of being the smallest across the chest to get by the radar bullet for FOD checks, starter leak checks etc as well “
same here try a hunter intake or jet pipe even less room
By: 320psi - 13th June 2006 at 22:46
320psi
First one Baz and me lol
Second one Baz,Me and Johnso it was you and in the intake then
Yes I shared it with you if you remember, very intermate darling 😉 😉
By: markp451a - 13th June 2006 at 22:45
320psi
First one Baz and me lol
Second one Baz,Me and John
so it was you and in the intake then
Baz a great man sadly missed
By: 320psi - 13th June 2006 at 22:41
Andy,
Dont worry about boring us with your insights, that will never happen!
I know ,from my small involvement with classic aircraft, how hard it can be to find the time to do things, let alone find time to write about what you do as well!
If you ever get round to writing a book I am sure it would be well received, it isn’t easy to write about a subject and make it easy for people to understand at the same time without waffling, a bit like I am now!Keep it up!
Cheers, Alan.
Cheers Alan, nice to know your still out there.
Ive got so many stories, mostly funny ones 🙂
By: alanl - 13th June 2006 at 22:39
Andy,
Dont worry about boring us with your insights, that will never happen!
I know ,from my small involvement with classic aircraft, how hard it can be to find the time to do things, let alone find time to write about what you do as well!
If you ever get round to writing a book I am sure it would be well received, it isn’t easy to write about a subject and make it easy for people to understand at the same time without waffling, a bit like I am now!
Keep it up!
Cheers, Alan.
By: 320psi - 13th June 2006 at 22:28
markp451a were you one of the chaps that came over to Brunt in 1991 with Barry when we had 728’s no.2 out for the first time ?
I did the starter, as i was the only one that could fit past the bullet.. one thing i would say it was no fun fail safe/leak check on both starters… lol
These few shots might bring back memories:
One Avon 302 on its way down

The chap in blue is the one and only late Baz Livesly, what he didnt know about Lightnings……..

And yours truly being born again from the top starter hatch once the new engine was back in
Ive always had the dubious honour of being the smallest across the chest to get by the radar bullet for FOD checks, starter leak checks etc as well 😀
Cheers
Andy
By: markp451a - 13th June 2006 at 21:52
markp451a were you one of the chaps that came over to Brunt in 1991 with Barry when we had 728’s no.2 out for the first time ?
I did the starter, as i was the only one that could fit past the bullet.. one thing i would say it was no fun fail safe/leak check on both starters… lol
By: 320psi - 13th June 2006 at 20:53
Somebody once told me, that the tyres had a very short life, and so when practicing touch and goes they didn’t let the wheels contact the runway…
I don’t know if thats true, but if it is it seems pretty incredible.
Steve
Yes tyre wear was and is big problem, they never did touch and goes, one landing could well total a set of tyres with a cross wind like ‘megalith’ says above.
Very thin and 21bar/320psi does them no favours when 14 tons lands at 200mph
We might get two/three runs out of our tyres.
markp451a were you one of the chaps that came over to Brunt in 1993 with Barry when we had 728’s no.2 out for the first time ?
I have some piccies somewhere if it is you
Just for the record that one’s been out three times since then 😉
Cheers
By: markp451a - 13th June 2006 at 19:41
320psi
That about sums it up, the cost in maintance alone was 100 hrs servicing to 1 hrs flight back in 1988.
Seens a bit high we were looking at about £3000 per hour for 451 but was back in the 90’s at todays cost it would be £10,000+
Wessex Boy “Back when I was Cadet camp at Binbrook in Aug ’87” I was there in 86 spent all week on 5sqd ground crew, turn arounds great fun hence I move to Plymouth and had 3 years on 451 and 3 years on 693/773 at Exeter and i’ve now lost count of the number of years spent on Hunter’s !!!!!!!!!!!!!
🙂 🙂 🙂
By: FMK.6JOHN - 13th June 2006 at 15:04
Somebody once told me, that the tyres had a very short life, and so when practicing touch and goes they didn’t let the wheels contact the runway…
I don’t know if thats true, but if it is it seems pretty incredible.
Steve
Reading through Ian Blacks Last of the Lightnings he states that at no time was the Lightning permited to do ‘touch and goes’, this he goes on to say was due to the high wear encountered on the Lightnings thin high pressure tyres.
It was entirely possible to completely ruin a brand new set of tyres on just one sortie (high runway crosswinds) and ‘linnies’ became formula one like in being able to change tyres ready for the next flight.
Regards
John.
By: BIGVERN1966 - 13th June 2006 at 14:02
They were running out of fatigue life and were incredibly costly to maintain. The threat from the Soviet block was also deminishing so the purpose of having a short endurance point defender had evaporated.
The aircraft was a flying Fuel/OM-15 leak as well by the 1980’s 😮 I was at Binbrook on a Camp in 1982 and spent a morning in the 5 sqn Hanger sealing the heatshilding on the Aden packs with a two part sealing compound to stop Avtur and OM-15 from leaking into cannon bays (which would explode if there was fuel vapour in there when the guns were fired).
By: megalith - 13th June 2006 at 13:58
Thanks Mike, it sounds like it might contain some truth then…..
By: mike currill - 13th June 2006 at 13:47
So it was you!….you lucky Ba****rd 😉
😀 😀 As regards tyre life I’m pretty sure we were told that it was ten landings
By: wessex boy - 13th June 2006 at 13:42
The tears I could cry over this situation would fill a 10000 gallon tanker. I have a very big soft spot for the Lightning as I was one very lucky cadet that got a flight in a T-Bird.
So it was you!….you lucky Ba****rd 😉
By: wessex boy - 13th June 2006 at 13:40
That about sums it up, the cost in maintance alone was 100 hrs servicing to 1 hrs flight back in 1988.
Back when I was Cadet camp at Binbrook in Aug ’87, both 5 and 11 sqns struggled to put 2 or 3 aircraft on the Flight line, let alone fly them, the place had a hollow feel.
A Stark difference to my first Cadet Camp There in 1983 where the flightlines were full, the air noisy & acrid, and the Fire engines burning as much fuel as the aircraft dealing with potential Brake fires from failed ‘chutes…..bliss 😎