One of the most impressive photos of Lightnings I have ever seen is that of
four of them flying up river from Tower Bridge with the dockside crane jibs
lowered as Sir Winston Churchill's coffin was taken by boat up the River
Thames. [photo on pp 222 & 223, National Geographic, Aug 1965].
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walters, Martin" <Martin.Walters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Since we're talking about planes (actually on-topic)
John:
Lightnings came with a belly tank and over-wing drop tanks (yes!).
I also remember reading that Lightnings were not to be put into spins, due
to stresses put on the tail. I don't think it fell off, but that part of the
airframe needed to be rebuilt.
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: JOHN DUGGAN [mailto:john.duggan10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 6:36 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Since we're talking about planes (actually on-topic)
Chris, As you say a tremendous plane for its time. Limited by its fuel
consumption - A lightning with drop tanks would have been interesting...
;-O> Am I right in believing it was the first aeroplane with the ability to
accelerate vertically?
Regards
John Duggan,
Wales, UK
--- On Mon, 17/10/11, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Since we're talking about planes (actually on-topic)
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 17 October, 2011, 5:49
Martin
I think everyone liked it; it was a tremendous machine, for its time, but
very difficult to support once longer range aircraft like the F-4 arrived.
The pilots had to be good as it was limited in its navaids, had a raw, pulse
radar, had only IR head missiles (and tail aspect ones, at that) and had a
short range (so the pilots had to be ready to work out the quickest way
home).
The Vulcan remained in service long after it was obsolete; one of my main
gripes about it was the attitude of HQ 1Group. It was a very conservative HQ
with too many navigators with positions of responsibility ;-).
I don't know if it is the complexity of the Lightning that is an obstacle to
certification, but there is too much that can go wrong, jeopardising safety.
I know one of the people who have been trying to get one flying, and he
started back in the early 90s.
Chris
On 17 Oct 2011, at 00:58, Martin Walters wrote:
> What were your views on the Lightning? It has some well known
> limitations. Recently, you weren't very complimentary about one of the
> other Cold War planes (the Vulcan).
>
> As probably know, the UK aviation authorities will not let Lightnings
> fly in private hands (something about being too complex). There are, I
> believe, three flying (or flyable) in South Africa. It's also
> intriguing that the flying Hunters are all private. Not so
> sophisticated or quick, I imagine.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|