Interesting Lightning Story

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
Post Reply
User avatar
Ian G
UKAR Staff
Posts: 2243
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 6:21 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK
Contact:

Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Ian G »

Hi folks - first time posting on here since the board moved, I was eejy_100 on the old board but back as Ian G now!

Anyway, I was talking to a computer engineer at work today who came in to fix yet another broken computer for me and he was telling me that he used to be in the RAF working as an avionics technician on the Lightning and Wessex until he left in 1973 I think he said. Anyway he told me an interesting tale of when he was working with 56 Squadron at Wattisham in the mid-60's and how a lightning was not allowed to climb 90 degrees vertical after takeoff and were limited to only 89 degrees.
Apparently one day he was watching a formation on 10 lightnings take off, each one increasing climb angle after take off from the previous one and the last one climbed at 90 degrees straight up. The reheat then cut out and as the power drained, the lighting started to drop backwards through the sky, the pilot desperatly pressing the AC reset button unable to correct or push the nose forwards because he was vertical. Eventually the reheat was reset by the pilot and he went from going backwards to straight up through the cloud, punching what he called a 'lightning-shaped hole' in the cloud before doing a circuit, landing the aircraft, jumping out, changing coveralls and going back out in a new flight suit because he'd cacked himself! If he had been climbing at 89 degrees he would have been able to push the nose forwards and then land on non-reheat power.

It was an interesting story and something I'd never heard of before, wondered if there was a ring of truth around it or if anyone else had heard about this??!

Like the board by the way!

Ian
Garf's website and Flickr Photostream

"Which road can I close for you today?"

#tapestries

Fastwalker
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 8:04 am

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Fastwalker »

I for one can't believe this.Does this mean in a dog fight with an enemy aircraft it couldnt go 90 degrees vertical . 1 degree may have been critical for a kill, if only the Russians knew! It might have been a prob on initial take off,but ive never heard of this.

User avatar
Synthetic
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed 03 Sep 2008, 9:05 pm

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Synthetic »

I'd say it's nonsense.

With the stab and fin being at the back of the aircraft, if it started to fall backward, it would weathercock. Even with full control, a tiny deviation from vertical would be divergent and it would be almost impossible to keep it going backward.

User avatar
225Mriya
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:07 pm

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by 225Mriya »

Sounds like he's a Walter Mitty to me. I'd love to see what they make of this on pprune :grin:

There may be an element of truth hidden in there somewhere, if there is, it seems to have grown into somewhat of an anglers story!
If only the F-35B could loose as much weight.....

garethbrum

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by garethbrum »

Story sent to former Lightning pilot - I await his response!

Abingdonman
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:35 pm

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Abingdonman »

The one Lightning take off and 'straight up'(from take off) I remember with real clarity was my much vaunted XS928 at Brize 1983......but then again 89 degrees isnt that far off 90 degrees is it! :grin:

I was right at point of rotation and I,d say the angle to levelling off was a few degrees less than 90 to be honest,and I think this pilot had a real go,he had a decent crowd just to see his take off!

User avatar
capercaillie
Posts: 9336
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
Location: Leominster

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by capercaillie »

Did a formation of pigs flypast as well, or were they all bullocks? :blinky:
"The surrogate voice of st24"

My flickr photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/146673712@N06/

User avatar
TS010
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 6:21 pm

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by TS010 »

There was something about a restriction put in place on Lightning rotation takeoffs in one of Stewart Scotts books, but I think it involved an F6 crashing at Tengah and nowt to do with this story. I'll see if I can find it.
WIWOL

User avatar
jaguarfarewellday
Posts: 1297
Joined: Fri 20 Mar 2009, 12:29 pm
Location: RAF Rochford Essex !
Contact:

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by jaguarfarewellday »

Ian G wrote:Hi folks - first time posting on here since the board moved, I was eejy_100 on the old board but back as Ian G now!

Anyway, I was talking to a computer engineer at work today who came in to fix yet another broken computer for me and he was telling me that he used to be in the RAF working as an avionics technician on the Lightning and Wessex until he left in 1973 I think he said. Anyway he told me an interesting tale of when he was working with 56 Squadron at Wattisham in the mid-60's and how a lightning was not allowed to climb 90 degrees vertical after takeoff and were limited to only 89 degrees.
Apparently one day he was watching a formation on 10 lightnings take off, each one increasing climb angle after take off from the previous one and the last one climbed at 90 degrees straight up. The reheat then cut out and as the power drained, the lighting started to drop backwards through the sky, the pilot desperatly pressing the AC reset button unable to correct or push the nose forwards because he was vertical. Eventually the reheat was reset by the pilot and he went from going backwards to straight up through the cloud, punching what he called a 'lightning-shaped hole' in the cloud before doing a circuit, landing the aircraft, jumping out, changing coveralls and going back out in a new flight suit because he'd cacked himself! If he had been climbing at 89 degrees he would have been able to push the nose forwards and then land on non-reheat power.

It was an interesting story and something I'd never heard of before, wondered if there was a ring of truth around it or if anyone else had heard about this??!

Like the board by the way!

Ian

TS010 wrote:There was something about a restriction put in place on Lightning rotation takeoffs in one of Stewart Scotts books, but I think it involved an F6 crashing at Tengah and nowt to do with this story. I'll see if I can find it.


On 27 July 1970 a 74F Sqn BAC Lightning F mk6 XS930 being flown by Flt Lt Frank Whitehouse was killed at RAF Tengah whilst performing a vertical take-off along with a chinese farmer Cheong Say Wai in his field. There were also 100 building destroyed in a near by Malay Village with two villagers suffering injuries as well.

After getting airbourne safely from Tengah and , some 300ft short of the runway barrier , he rotated. The Lightning snap into the vertical without climbing and mush along before staggering to 400ft. The aircraft then autorotated , coming down like a leaf , then after what looked like a recovery it disappeared behind a screen of trees, a pall of smoke confirmed the worst !.

Frank did eject but was to close to the ground , just separating from the seat !. It was found a shift in fuel from the wings towards the rear , had unbalanced the aircraft , something Frank never knew of at the time. The RAF and manufacturer looked into the centre of gravity issue of the jet afterwards.

From book ~ The story of 74 squadron RAF

Regards

Paul

74F Sqn assoc member
Last edited by jaguarfarewellday on Thu 26 Mar 2009, 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
what we have here is a complete lack of respect for the law !

User avatar
jaguarfarewellday
Posts: 1297
Joined: Fri 20 Mar 2009, 12:29 pm
Location: RAF Rochford Essex !
Contact:

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by jaguarfarewellday »

Ian G wrote:Hi folks - first time posting on here since the board moved, I was eejy_100 on the old board but back as Ian G now!

Anyway, I was talking to a computer engineer at work today who came in to fix yet another broken computer for me and he was telling me that he used to be in the RAF working as an avionics technician on the Lightning and Wessex until he left in 1973 I think he said. Anyway he told me an interesting tale of when he was working with 56 Squadron at Wattisham in the mid-60's and how a lightning was not allowed to climb 90 degrees vertical after takeoff and were limited to only 89 degrees.
Apparently one day he was watching a formation on 10 lightnings take off, each one increasing climb angle after take off from the previous one and the last one climbed at 90 degrees straight up. The reheat then cut out and as the power drained, the lighting started to drop backwards through the sky, the pilot desperatly pressing the AC reset button unable to correct or push the nose forwards because he was vertical. Eventually the reheat was reset by the pilot and he went from going backwards to straight up through the cloud, punching what he called a 'lightning-shaped hole' in the cloud before doing a circuit, landing the aircraft, jumping out, changing coveralls and going back out in a new flight suit because he'd cacked himself! If he had been climbing at 89 degrees he would have been able to push the nose forwards and then land on non-reheat power.

It was an interesting story and something I'd never heard of before, wondered if there was a ring of truth around it or if anyone else had heard about this??!

Like the board by the way!

Ian


F3 Lightning
In 1963 during a display work up by 74F Sqn they found the stick-jamming at in conditions of high g loading. On investigation , it was found that balance weights attached to the lower end of the control column could foul the structure beneath the cockpit flooring when the aircraft was pulling in excess of 2g. After this discovery the aircraft were restircted to 2g as a max.

Cheers

Paul
what we have here is a complete lack of respect for the law !

User avatar
TS010
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 6:21 pm

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by TS010 »

On 27 July 1970 a 74F Sqn BAC Lightning F mk6 XS930 being flown by Flt Lt Frank Whitehouse was killed at RAF Tengah whilst performing a vertical take-off along with a chinese farmer Cheong Say Wai in his field. There were also 100 building destroyed in a near by Malay Village with two villagers suffering injuries as well.

After getting airbourne safely from Tengah and , some 300ft short of the runway barrier , he rotated. The Lightning snap into the vertical without climbing and mush along before staggering to 400ft. The aircraft then autorotated , coming down like a leaf , then after what looked like a recovery it disappeared behind a screen of trees, a pall of smoke confirmed the worst !.

Frank did eject but was to close to the ground , just separating from the seat !. It was found a shift in fuel from the wings towards the rear , had unbalanced the aircraft , something Frank never knew of at the time. The RAF and manufacturer looked into the centre of gravity issue of the jet afterwards.

From book ~ The story of 74 squadron RAF


That's the one.
WIWOL

User avatar
Neilf92
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Neilf92 »

jaguarfarewellday wrote:
Ian G wrote:Hi folks - first time posting on here since the board moved, I was eejy_100 on the old board but back as Ian G now!

It was an interesting story and something I'd never heard of before, wondered if there was a ring of truth around it or if anyone else had heard about this??!

Ian


F3 Lightning
In 1963 during a display work up by 74F Sqn they found the stick-jamming at in conditions of high g loading. On investigation , it was found that balance weights attached to the lower end of the control column could foul the structure beneath the cockpit flooring when the aircraft was pulling in excess of 2g. After this discovery the aircraft were restircted to 2g as a max.

Cheers



Paul


Do you mean 2G on rotation only ? F3's certainly exceedeed 2G in normal display flying .

As for the dropping backwards tale - I heard a similar story which I have no reason to doubt . I was on 92 Sqdn groundcrew RAFG in the late 60's and a colleague told us about an event which occurred in the UK involving one of our pilots - not sure which Squadron he (the pilot) was on at the time it occurred .
The story went that he was in a rotation take off and lost reheat , did a backward falling leaf till reheat was re- engaged and miraculously began ascending just as he was about to disappear behind the trees .
I have no great reason to disbelieve the essence of this story - like all it maybe got a bit jazzed up but that's human nature .

Edited to remove "vertically" - not sure that that was what I was told ( 40 years ago) - on reflection maybe he just recovered the situation and got away with it.
It would be nice to hear from someone who witnessed the event ( if indeed it happened )
Last edited by Neilf92 on Sun 12 Apr 2009, 9:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
320psi
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 9:22 pm
Location: Notts
Contact:

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by 320psi »

Ian G wrote:Hi folks - first time posting on here since the board moved, I was eejy_100 on the old board but back as Ian G now!

Anyway, I was talking to a computer engineer at work today who came in to fix yet another broken computer for me and he was telling me that he used to be in the RAF working as an avionics technician on the Lightning and Wessex until he left in 1973 I think he said. Anyway he told me an interesting tale of when he was working with 56 Squadron at Wattisham in the mid-60's and how a lightning was not allowed to climb 90 degrees vertical after takeoff and were limited to only 89 degrees.
Apparently one day he was watching a formation on 10 lightnings take off, each one increasing climb angle after take off from the previous one and the last one climbed at 90 degrees straight up. The reheat then cut out and as the power drained, the lighting started to drop backwards through the sky, the pilot desperatly pressing the AC reset button unable to correct or push the nose forwards because he was vertical. Eventually the reheat was reset by the pilot and he went from going backwards to straight up through the cloud, punching what he called a 'lightning-shaped hole' in the cloud before doing a circuit, landing the aircraft, jumping out, changing coveralls and going back out in a new flight suit because he'd cacked himself! If he had been climbing at 89 degrees he would have been able to push the nose forwards and then land on non-reheat power.

It was an interesting story and something I'd never heard of before, wondered if there was a ring of truth around it or if anyone else had heard about this??!

Like the board by the way!

Ian


Hi, Ive been knocking this one around, not knowing what to think, it sounded so far fetched to me, anyway I got onto one of our pilots, Dennis Brooks who has considerable Lightning and Tornado expereince;

Here's his reply:

Andy

What a load of bollxxxx. Firstly the difference between 89 and 90 degrees is minute and not even the smartest Lightning pilot would be able to tell the difference. The aircraft controls would work in exactly the same way at 90 deg as they would at 89 deg, as indeed they do at any aircraft attitude. The thrust of the Lightning is less than its all up weight so it could not sustain a vertical climb. To suggest that restoration of reheat would transform a tailslide into a vertical climb is complete rubbish. I suggest that this guy sticks to mending computers rather than talking rubbish.

Dennis

Abingdonman
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:35 pm

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Abingdonman »

I wouldnt know the exact climb angles,and I wasnt usually level enough to tell,but I certainly saw one or two decent Lightning climbs to what was generally described by the commentators as 25,000ft,since thats best part of 5 miles and the aircraft usually seemed within the airfield perimeters,if the climb wasnt precisely vertical It was still pretty sharp!.....admitted most zooms were after the usual fast run and had the Inertia to carry it,but I did witness the one climb(of any real height)from a standing start(as said a few posts back )for once I was level with the rotation and got it as good as I ever did...I wouldnt argue the angle would have been a bit under the 90 degree mark,and It didnt go quite as high as in a normal zoom climb,but then Its purpose was to level out and come back around to give us all another go,and dont forget this was an F6! :biggrin:

Hurn
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:28 am

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Hurn »

320psi wrote:Hi, Ive been knocking this one around, not knowing what to think, it sounded so far fetched to me, anyway I got onto one of our pilots, Dennis Brooks who has considerable Lightning and Tornado expereince;

Here's his reply:

Andy

What a load of bollxxxx. Firstly the difference between 89 and 90 degrees is minute and not even the smartest Lightning pilot would be able to tell the difference. The aircraft controls would work in exactly the same way at 90 deg as they would at 89 deg, as indeed they do at any aircraft attitude. The thrust of the Lightning is less than its all up weight so it could not sustain a vertical climb. To suggest that restoration of reheat would transform a tailslide into a vertical climb is complete rubbish. I suggest that this guy sticks to mending computers rather than talking rubbish.

Dennis

Well that answers that. But I'd be interested to hear what someone like John Spencer or Ian Wilde would have to say on the subject. :whistle: :grin:

Abingdonman
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:35 pm

Re: Interesting Lightning Story

Post by Abingdonman »

I,m sure the aircraft that can go literally straight up or almost,would only find it useful for airshows anyway wouldnt they! :grin:
I,m no anorak on these things,but surely if a 'bandit' is picked up over the North Sea etc,an aircraft that goes up at 45 degrees from the mainland is likely to be there slightly before an 89er? :wink:

Post Reply