lotharNot 1974 but some more photos of Lightnings of 226 OCU when they were 145 (R) Squadron. These photos are from 1969.
lotharRe Another Funky Avpin Start
I should add to my post above that I think it may have involved 23 Sqn
lotharAnother funky Avpin start
Can anyone substantiate the story of the 4? Lightnings staging through Diyarbakir in the late 60’s who had to resort to some very lateral thinking. As I recall they were on their way to Singapore and the stop at Diyarbakir was without groundcrew or any spare Avpin. When they came to start the next morning all the aircraft suffered wee-phutts which caused considerable misgivings. For you non-Lightning members a wee-phutt was a very common occurrence and was when the Avpin failed to light after the purging sequence; the ‘wee’ referring to the sound of the purging pump and the ‘phutt’ the sound of the Avpin failing to ignite. The Lightning Avpin tank held enough for 6 starts and now they had used 3, 2 at base and the one that they had just used, and they needed 2 more to get started. Rather than all try again and risk wasting more Avpin they tried another start with 2 of the aircraft but they failed again. Although these start failures were not unusual, 6 on the trot on 4 different aircraft was unprecedented so they decided to phone home to try and establish the common factor. The engineers at Leuchars couldn’t help but suggested that they should contact BAE at Warton. The expert at Warton quickly established that their problem was their location – Diyarbakir is 2200′ AMSL – and that the problem was therefore that there was insufficient head of atmospheric pressure for the Avpin plenum chamber to charge properly and that, somehow, they would have to overcome this problem. It was at this stage that the lateral thinking came in. The pilots came up with the suggestion of using a balloon to provide the required pressure but, of course, no balloons but what, unsurprisingly, they did have was the ubiquitous packets of three. So, the condoms were franged and put over the necks of the Avpin header tanks, the blue touchpaper was duly metaphorically lit and spectacular success. The unexpected bonus of this episode was that WIWOLs, thereafter, had the perfect excuse for their partners/wives as to why they were taking condoms on detachment!
It’s a lovely story and I have heard it several times but is it true or even nearly so? I would love to think so. I also cherish the image of a row of Lightnings with erect condoms attached to their header tanks in the spine behind the cockpit. The Turkish groundcrew must have watched with incredulity.
lothar[QUOTE=bloodnok;1265153] 2 RAF F4J’s using the buddy system to start up /QUOTE]
From what I recall, the buddy start between F4Js involved connecting an air pipe from the compressor section of the donor aircraft that fed into the Palouste coupling on the receiver. It did not involve using the jet exhaust directed at the receivers intake especially with the F4 where the intakes were significantly higher than the jetpipe exhausts and these exhausts were angled down quite significantly. And you are quite right the normal F4J Palouste was indeed the size of a small caravan!
lotharBuddy starts
That same “thrust” might have a somewhat detrimental effect on the surface finish etc of the aircraft behind….:diablo:
I have heard of prop aircraft being started using that kind of method, but that’s it……. :confused:
I have never heard of buddy starts being used by pure jet aircraft – too many difficulties:-
a. it would be almost impossible to direct the exhaust from the donor aircraft sufficiently accurately into the intake of the receiver.
b. to achieve a. the donor aircraft would need to be so close to the receiver that damage would inevitably ensue.
c. the receiver aircraft’s pilot would also have a few problems of his own.
d. I hesitate to think what TGT/JPT would result in the receiver aircraft.
Buddy starts are however used by turboprop aircraft and the C130 certainly had it as an SOP. It was comparatively easy to line up the wake from an
outboard engine to that of the receiver and there was little risk of damage due to hot exhausts. Does anybody know of any other aircraft where this was a recognised and approved option?
PS. I should add xf382 that XF382 appears in my logbook on more than one occasion.
lotharTrolleyAccs et al
One of the main reasons for using a ground power unit (GPU) for starting has not yet been mentioned. Most aircraft can start using internal power (batteries) but starting systems often use a fair whack of current thus depleting the internal batteries. If you then have a generator/alternator failure early in your sortie and are relying on that battery to get you back to terra firma you certainly want one that is fully charged. Another reason for using a GPU is so that you can run up various bits of kit like radios, INAS, gyro-based instruments etc prior to start, again without caning the battery.
So, its not so much a case of being unable to start without some form of external system but more a means of protecting that valuable battery. By way of example, from memory, a fully charged battery on the Hunter would give you about 20′ flight time assuming all non-essential loads had been shed and radio transmissions were kept to a minimum.
lotharAs regards number 5. You could but at the speeds she was capable of I’m not sure you would want to, definitely give a bad hair day if nothing else.:D
As I recall it was very pleasant up to c.300kts as long as you only had it open about half way. There was probably a limiting speed but fading memory prevents it surfacing.
lotharWow! Nobody has offered the Gnat – the closest thing to being at one with a machine. It goes firmly at the top of my list:
1. Gnat – simply stunning
2. Lightning F1A as operated by the TFFs – surely the hottest variant.
3. MB5 – just to see if it really was as good as its reputation
4. P47D – speed, range and comfort.
5. And last but not least – the Hunter F6 complete with its chaotic switchery (and also because you can fly it with the canopy open!)
lotharEvanton/Tain/Fearn
If you haven’t already done so, try Action Stations Vol 7 by David J Smith and published by PSL.
lotharI can also confirm that this was Sqn Ldr Guy Pearse (with an ‘s’ not a ‘c’) when he was OC Flying at RAF St Athan up till mid ’87. However this was not a one off; it had been the custom at St Athan for some years to do a flypast for the groundcrew at the beginning of the delivery flight of an aircraft back to its unit but it was only Guy Pearse who flew between the hangars. Whilst apparently spectacular it was extremely dangerous and irresponsible; any misjudgement would have resulted in catastrophe and carnage in the associated hangars. His successor continued with the low flypast tradition but chose to do his Phantom/Tornado/Hawk flypasts over the line hut out on the airfield where the flypasts could be seen and appreciated by those for whom it was intended and where the risk to people and property was negligible.
lotharAnd some more…
As used by RAF crews:
C130: (Fat) Albert
F4s: (Grey) Geese
Argosy: Whistling Wheelbarrow
Hercules W2: Snoopy
GR Tornado: The Norfolk Landshark
Lightning: Aloominum Death Tube
Jet Provost: Constant Velocity Variable Noise Machine
Gnat: The Airborne Go-Kart
Harriers : (Jumping) Beans
Vulcan: (Tin) Triangle
Meteor: Meatbox
lotharMy question about running as a business (for profit), was not regarding the airshows themselves, bur rather the individual aircraft operator.:D
My apologies – I will read the question next time! We are dealing with two separate entities here, display operators and commercial businesses. Most civilian displays are made by enthusuiasts, either individual or group, who provide their aircraft for pleasure and seek to cover their appearance expenses. Organisations like Air Atlantique providing joy rides do so on a commercial basis and have to cover their costs which will include a percentage to the display host (another source of revenue for the display organisers) which is why your trip round the bay cost more than your Copenhagen leg. The fact that a Dragon Rapide can only carry a fraction of what a 737/Airbus can is also a factor.
Blue Max – you are not doing anything wrong. I found that running a large military display for 30000 plus generated the need for someone who not only provided the commentary but also oversaw the emergency planning and execution. As display director for such a size display I needed this level of experience. My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek and remains so.
lotharAirshow management/costs
This is large subject but I will try and be brief! Firstly, there is no way that an airshow can make a profit, never mind break even, through the flying and static aircraft displays alone. Other attractions, sponsorship, hospitality deals, catering concessions, joyride concessions and whatever else you can come up with are needed to boost the income from admission fees. In answer to some of the questions raised:
Display fees: the fees for civilian displays vary hugely. You are quite right, rarity/spectacle command higher fees. However as an organiser I would expect to provide a minimum of free fuel and accommodation to all participants. Thereafter it is a question of how far your display budget stretches and who/what is the best value for money. The majority of civilian displays are extremely professional and provided by enthusiasts. However in 5 years of running military displays I experienced some idiots too.
Military participation is in my experience always free apart from any accommodation needs that might arise. This participation comes out of the military PR budget.
Military procurement. This used to, and still may, be done via the MOD Participation Committee who were responsible for the allocation of all military aircraft including Red Arrows, Falcons, BBMF. Applications were treated on an order of priority: National events (which would include RIAT), military At Home Days, Duxford, ongoing events such as Duxford, Southend & Lowestoft events, other military open days and lastly the one offs where anticipated attendance and location would be the main considerations. One way of improving chances is to piggyback on to another display i.e. be on the same day and relatively near so that you can be included en-route. There is a small village close to me that gets a visit from the BBMF Lancaster for their fete every year this way.
Venue I don’t think I know of any organiser that does not own/control the venue. The hiring of a venue would be astronomical.
Costs Apart from display costs (fees/fuel/accommodation) there are substantial costs involved with safety/security. You need a rehearsed disaster plan which involves police & medical teams as well as security people. Loos, lost children facilities, medical/St Johns Ambulance and information places need to be provided and funded. Don’t forget the display commentator and director.
I hope this is of help but organising/running an airshow is not for the faint hearted – I got my first grey hairs after running my first!
lotharI would have loved to see:
A multi-role Tornado with bigger engines (higher bypass ratio, and more thrust), to make it a proper air to air fighter.
Neither variant of Tornado could become a decent air superiority fighter. Both are too big and have lousy visibility from both cockpits, the GR being worse with its intake ramps being so far forward.
As for me, I go whole heartedly with Planeman2000’s MB5. It was significantly better than anything else around both in terms of performance, ease of servicing and, significantly, the cockpit was designed for maximum visibility and ease of use – both major factors in the efficacy of an air superiority fighter.
lotharGo British
The instigator of this thread did not specify whether this ownership is with the intention of flying or just owning but, for me, my brief list would be to fly:
Lightning F1A – still unbeatable for sheer straight line/up performance
Gnat – the ultimate airborne go kart!
Hunter 6/9 – a true thoroughbred.
Having flown all 3 I cannot put them in any order – I want all three!
Sign In
