He….may….annoy….you….but….it is better than having no historical aviation on terrestrial TV.

Is it? I’d rather have none than factually inaccurate stuff.
And if he refers to aircraft being made of steel again I think I’ll scream!

The second one looks like an APU of some sort.

With all those engines you’ve got you’ll be able to make one of these once you’ve finished the Avian! 😀

Yes. But the point I was trying to make was that if you clamp down too much on regs and safety you just end up with a, well a bog standard airshow. Reno IS all about the racing. I’m not saying we should have lots of accidents, just that it is `Reno` that people go and see.

Hands up all those enthisiasts that went to Reno to see the modified Furies, Rare Bare and the P51’s?
Hands up all those enthusiasts who went for the occasional F18 or Harvard display?

Or You could say…..

Hands up who wants to go and see unlimited air racing with the kids and come home with the same number you went with
Or hands up who wants to go and see unlimited air racing and don’t mind coming home with a few kids less due to being crashed on by an unsafe aircraft…….;)

This thread covers an event that was tragic on many dimensions. I think, personally, it has run its course and is getting pointless.

The facts are there; we lost a great pilot, his family are living with that tragic fact every day, we lost an exciting operation (face it, how many of us said if we won the lottery we would get down there and fly in a Lightning?),TC is no more and the aviation world will (should) learn from the comprehensive report.

20:20 hindsight is pointless. Keep calm…move on.

Thankfully others have a different opinion and are still discussing relevant points.
As for him being a ‘great’ pilot, well that accident report would indicate otherwise.

Maybe those certifying inspectors should have marked the aircraft as unsafe rather than resign and turn a blind eye. This accident sounds like not enough people saying “it shouldn’t fly” and turning a blind eye to those that said it “should”.

These figures are pretty meaningless without a timescale. When the company was set up they had 12 inspectors. We don’t know over what period the 8 resigned or under what circumstances. We also don’t know if there was a minimum number required by law.

Exmpa – the pilot clearly tried to save the aircraft -the military operating procedures clearly show that the machine was to be abandoned in the circumstances he found himself in .
Therefore something influenced the pilot to try and land the machine -maybe the historic value of it. Therefore looking at the losses of RAF Lightnings Vs this machine different influences came to bear .

I think the pilots initial efforts to save the aircraft might have been influenced by his personality. There were many procedures leading up to the crash that he hadn’t followed, and I think it was a simple as he thought he knew better than the FRC’s compounded by the fact he may not have known about the fire at the rear of the aircraft.
By the time he realised it was beyond saving, sadly he was to.
Look at the Mustang crash last year, that pilot made a snap decision, controls not responding, get out, if the Lightning pilot had made the same decision there is a slim chance he might have survived.

Yep, and notice the gun is removed on that side for weight purposes. The GR1B may have had the gun removed and the flash guard kept in place. The guns leave huge burn marks that are very pronounced on the left side. I don’t expressly see the burn marks on the probe side of GR1B. I do not know why they used this probe location, but it may have to do with the different nose between variants.

That refuelling probe is removable and is not a permanent fit. From memory it’s about 8 bolts, one electrical plug for the light on the probe, the fuel pipe and a couple of hydraulic pipes.
Very quick and simple to remove and refit.