Yup I know, thats why I couldn’t understand the pin being in.. the only pin the early one had held the can in, well most of the time, had seen the complete can deploy and drop onto the runway before, indeed the trailing edge of the port stabilator has a hole in it for stowing the pin while you pop the can in.

🙂

You know what’s it missing though, an Aircraft Armed plate on the steps…. She does look good though, even for a ****ty six machine 😀

The chute inside is a post mod 1148 chute (yes the one for the sprung loaded door). The pin flag is for the wire that is holdling closed the sprung drogue used to extract the chute (pre mod chutes used the cone AKA noddy cap to do that). The post mod fairing was also pinned on the ground as it moved with head splitting speed and force, when the chute handle was pulled.

The hook and chute teleflexs haven’t been connected yet.. One of my next jobs..:D

You sure the 106 won’t fit?

106 powered aircraft went to St Athan for modification, that included changes to the air conditioning system and of course the engine control system (well the protection fuel control subsystems, the 106 wasn’t a FADEC powerplant.) I always thought modifications were made to the airframe mounts for the 106 too (however I never saw all what Saints did). BCWM hope if possible to get her as a ground runner.. Aircraft is a GR1A so only 102s and 104s will do in the end.

From an African based website…..

Last week the SA CAA released a report on the crash of Thunder City Lightning ZU-BEX 14 November 2009.
Thunder City Rejects SACAA report.
Thunder City was not aware that the SACAA aircraft accident report had been issued, thus we have not had the time to study it in detail; nor were we afforded the opportunity to comment prior to its release, nor were any senior members of Thunder City staff interviewed or statements taken. Our initial findings, after a cursory read, leave us in no doubt that this report is seriously flawed and smacks of a witch hunt.
Even at a superficial level, while the report appears to be thorough, we have found blatant falsehoods, errors, illogical conclusions as well as glaring omissions. Therefore, once we have studied this report in depth, we will pursue all options open to us to ensure that a true and balanced conclusion is reached.
As it stands, is a scandalous and libellous work that at the outset seeks to apportion blame while claiming not to.
It is our intention to embark on a further independent investigation with suitably qualified experts and to present such findings when complete. In the interim Thunder City will seek a court injunction to have this report withdrawn.

Thunder City Management

Years old and Thunder City stopped operating last year..

Manufacturer support for the operation of complex ex military aircraft is essential if they are going to fly.. If you haven’t got that for a start, don’t even contemplate asking the CAA. The Lightning hasn’t had BAE support since it left Saudi service. Afterburning Avons are the same as far as RR are concerned. The Vulcan only is allowed to fly because they have manufacturer support by BAE sub contracted out to Marshalls who act as the OEM for VTTS. VTTS also try their hardest to keep a robust airworthiness and quality structure going. It costs money to do that and we all know VTTS struggle with that and have had incidents were their proceedures have failed leading to flight safety events occuring. The CAA are not anti ex military jets, but they expect the aircraft to have the same airworthiness safeguards put in place as if it was in military service and can put some comprimises in place if that is not practicable but safe in their eyes to do so (They did for the vulcan). Don’t do them mind and your PtF will be pulled!

Even fast taxy aircraft at Bunty have seen incidents occuring, because people involved have not had the experience to do what was correct (Flying Victors for example). None of those aircraft can be classed as slighty airworthy as it is impossible to maintain them as such with the budgets the organisations have to do so, and none are supported by manufacturers. I don’t disargee with groups like LPG doing what they do, however I have seen various groups trying to rebuilt aircraft with nobody that knows the type and without maintenance documentation. Do they expect that aircraft to be able to reach fast taxi speeds in a safe manner?? :eek::eek:

20 couldnt go down, it sucked as a Jag Sqn, I was one of the last on the Sqn, indeed it had disbanded whilst I was on Q.. but we were not stood down for another week or so… 14 was a cracking Sqn pre Tonkas, I luckily avoided and went Vc10 after the Jag. There was a load of Jags that were purchased (10 i think) to go out the States as they were going to be erm operated out there, I got some emails at the time telling me they were after engineers.. Do not know what happened to it..

Propably 106 modded frames.. Not any good if you can’t get the engines.. A lot of the Jag frames from Colt were bang out of fatigue life anyway.. Only the RAFG frames you worked on would have any life left and they was all need a complete major service to even be considered to fly by the yanks..

Jaguar panel screws, Airbus Screws, Metric…:confused::confused:

All the threaded fasteners in the Jag were AN, now NAS or MS standard UNC or UNF threads. It was the one design arguement the British got concessions from the French in the inital Jaguar Management commitee meetings in 1966 that threaded fasteners would be imperial. Your 10/32″, 1/4″ and 5/16″ screws would possibly be covered by NSA5030 or NAS1080 specs of Offset cross screws. Hex head would be NAS6603 or 1303 depending on size. Airbus don’t use metric threaded bolts on any of their birds cos the aircraft maintenance industry is A/F, UNF/C tooled…:D

The panels on the front of the spine are camloc studs, possible replacements maybe the 2700 series of countersunk stud, loads of them on Fokker 70s too!

Jaguar hydraulic pipe unions however are metric!:diablo:

First 3 British production S models were used in prototype trials, to speed up programme due to loss of frames and PTR engine development. S1 (XX108) is at Duxford, S2 (XX109) is now at CNAM Norwich. S3 was the only one of the three to actually fly operationally with the RAF and was made a GIA in 1985 at Cosford.

First GR in RAF service was XX111, lost as an Indian international frame in the 80s.

First T-bird in service? XX136, crashed a year after delivery.

Looks like that could have been the cause of the tragic end, but not for the incident occuring in the first place.. That is something else..