Jump to content

bentwaters81tfw

Gold Member
  • Posts

    7,574
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by bentwaters81tfw

  1. That's a nice bird. Only seen B-24s in that role. Do you have an ISBN number for that book please? Not listed on Amazon. TIA Frank
  2. The reason the Lightning lost out to the F-104 was due to the government of the day, in the light of the Sandys White Paper, telling everyone that the manned interceptor was dead, and that it would be cancelled. Europe then ordered the inferior F-104. The Germans wanted the Lightning, but by the time production was assured, the ink was already dry on the American's order books. Yet another political blunder and lost orders. As has been mentioned, the Navy wanted their CVN-01, and we supposedly could not afford both. Not surprising Mountbatten, as a Navy man, fought for his corner. Inter service rivalry still robs us of cost effective systems that all branches of the services would benefit from. Of course, we didn't get CVN-01 either, and only half the Phantom fleet. HMS Eagle, which trialled the F-4K, was never made up to operate them, even though she was in better shape than Ark Royal. Another classic example of Military/Government/Civil Service incompetence.
  3. BAC were threatend by the government, that if they did not destroy the jigs and drawings, however many have been secretly kept, they would get no contracts for other designs they were working on. IIRC specifically airliner work. I recall a tv programme many years ago where Healey and BAC staff spoke of this. Labour were worried that work on the aircraft would continue behind the scenes as a private venture, to be offerd at a later date, to the RAF or Foreign governments. At the same time the P1154 was scrapped and the v/stol freighter we were developing. Essentially, we were pretty bankrupt, but Labour promised the Unions, who ran the country back then, that the cash was needed for Health and Schools'. Always the same old song. Don't forget who backed the Unions............Russia. Whatever the 'myth' fact and history shows it was a political sacrifical lamb because no-one wanted us to have the best, just like today.
  4. It was meant to fly among he weeds......however, Starfighter comes to mind. Probably have been as good at air defence as a Tornado. Range, speed and firepower if not manoueverability.
  5. The engine problem had been cured, it was mainshaft resonance, and by simply shrinking a sleeve onto the shaft, all problems were solved. The real point was, it HAD all the systems, whether analogue or digital, and NOTHING ELSE did for at least a decade later. Squadron service? who knows? 3 were completed, at least 30 more were in very advanced construction when they were unceremoniously cut up. Don't forget, the left leaning mouthpieces of the day kept telling the Ministers of all the 'problems', like 'the wing failed again'. Of course it did, it was a destruction test to determine the stress limits. At the time, we had a left wing government sucking up to the Russians. Can't make a plane to threaten the Russians, let's scrap it, and not buy anything to defend the country with! Rant over!
  6. Well, Muzz,, you know the following that the Lightning has on this forum. Just imagine and all singing, all dancing strike and reconnisance platform the would leave a Lightning for dead, at all altitudes, powered by those lovely engines that pushed the Vulcan and the Concorde along, and frightened the out of the Russians, by their own admission, cos they had NO solution to it. What's more it was designed to operate from a ploughed field in thick fog (I kid you not). All designed in 1957, and flying 43 years ago; it would go further, faster, and deliver more bang for your buck than anything on the drawing board. Do you really need to ask why we love it so much, and why it was treasonous to scrap it? It would have sold abroad in numbers, and kept the British aero industry at the forefront, with job security, instead of just component makers. Oh, and don't forget, the design came from those same nice people that produced the Lightning.
  7. Nics pics. Weather looks crap for tomorrow though.
  8. I looked at the Heritage offering. The fuselage looks too deep to me.....any thoughts?
  9. Looking at the advert, it shows the pilot's canopy with one piece glazing, instead of 2 windows. I hope the final item is correct.
  10. Don't forget, the Lightning was never designed as a fighter, it was a Proof of Concept aircraft, that was so bloody good, the MOD wanted it because it outperformed EVERYTHING else in the air or on the drawing board. Not much chance of wasting huge sums of taxpayers cash for a 2-off concept aircraft. The SB-5 was a total waste of money. The MoS should have had more faith in Teddy Petters design. Everything else he came up with was a resounding success. The P1121 and the SR 177 never got off the ground becuase there was no engine for the former, and you can't air to air refuel a rocket motor very easily. The Lightning was SO powerful, that it was possible to use up the entire fatigue index in one flight if you really pushed it. Mike Beachy Head may have sunk lots of cash into his fleet, but it repays him with hirings from the US Navy test team coming to play in them. Spares were still plentiful when the beast was retired, with all the stuff that came from Saudi. Tyres were a problem, and Dunlop reopened the production line to keep the flyers supplied. A Lightning would write off a set of tyres in about 4 landings. Incidentally, one Lighting pilot upset the crew of a SR-71 when they were still classified; he came alongside one unannounced over the North Sea...The SR-71 departed rapidly with a nice blue plume from the jetpipes.
  11. Thanks for that Bill, T.Mk5 was XS456, but no idea on a/c letter. Presumably X or Z again....
  12. If I had the cash.....sadly I'm too tall to fit with the canopy closed. Yes many of us are all to aware of just how good the Lightning is. Then you have to remember it was first designed in 1947. It would have flown sooner than 1954 if it wasn't for the Ministry of Supply not believing in the design and ordering the Shorts SB5 to prove the concept. Yes, the Lightning did have a poor safety record; a third of production airframes were lost, usually to fire. The faults were eventually ironed out. As for spares? What about the criminal waste of the airframes returned from Saudi? There is/was NO excuse for not having an airworthy example over here. Don't forget that the flyers in S.A. were originally rebuilt in Exeter to flight standard, but the CAA wouldn't play. Every time a requirement was complied with, they moved the goalposts. That is why they were exported. Funny, Thunder City can manage to operate them without 'type authority' back up from BAE? Same with their Buccaneers. The CAA are just frightened of Mach 2 aircraft in private hands in our "crowded"? airspace. I'm amazed they let the Vixen fly, 'cos the original owner had that bird up to Mach 1.3 over the Channel; I know 'cos I spoke to the pilot at Fairford.
  13. I have maybe a dozen of the beasts, either Airfix or Hasegawa in 1/72, plus some Matchbox T55s and a couple of resin T bird conversion fuselages. Also the Maintrack conversion with the small belly tank and small fin for a P1B. Made a P1 earlier this year from the FROG kit with parts from Airfix and Aeroclub.
  14. Thanks for that, I only have his 'Last of the Lightnings' Come on Trumpy.....and Aeroclub!!!
  15. Lightnings T Mk4s serials XM989 and XM992 were issued to RAF Wattisham. One of these was issued to 56 squadron at the time (1965) they formed the 'Firebirds' aerobatic team in that wonderful red and NMF scheme. Does anyone know if 1. it was painted to match the single seaters, 2. what was the a/c identity letter, and, 3. which a/c was it?? Have exhaused my resources, and the Thunder and Lightniings site, but to no avail! TIA Frank
  16. THATS a proper looking F-4, just needs a 'WR' tailcode!
  17. Very nice, did you scratchbuild the wheelwells?
  18. Thanks folks, I was thinking of using the Blue Steel and Vulcan belly plate, Have ordered that edition of SAMI.
  19. Does/did anyone make a conversion kit to back engineer the Victor from the K.Mk2? Or is there an 'easy' method? TIA Frank
  20. Turned out nicely after all the aggro. There's me muttering about the 48th Lindberg/Nichimo abomination I'm fighting with. That will be a Black Arrow too. Nice to know about the canopy frame. Good work.
  21. That was a tongue in cheek remark!
  22. Xtracolour do the 3 Flanker blues X601, 2 and 3.
  23. Will they be re-releasing the 'Limited Edition' again?
  24. Nah, too small! Got a Bandai 1/24th a little while back for £39.99.
  25. It's a gun turret. Whoever says a Wyvern is ugly should be handed to the Royal Navy and used for catapult trials!
×
×
  • Create New...