Thunder City Jets to return to the air?

[NFR]

As of December 2021 the ex Thunder City fleet has been purchased by a company called Hangar 51, with the intention of restoring the fleet to airworthy status.

 

Some progress was made on 13 Jan 2022 as the Rolls Royce Spey engines of Buccaneer ZU-BCR (ex Royal Aircraft Establishment XW987) were brought back to life for an engine run.

 

The aircraft last flew in 2014.

 

The fleet currently consists of the following:

- 3 English Electric Lightnings (a T5 and two F6es)

- 3 Blackburn Buccaneers 

- 7 Hawker Hunters

- 1 Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma

 

We can only hope for the best, as it would be great to see them in the air again. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by NFR
wrong numbers

[exdraken]

Would be great!

I hope there is some money behind Hangar 51!

 

 

But after 5 years I the open I have my doubts....

 

and, would those old classics really lend them to being good adversary jets??

 

 

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/hangar-51-company-buys-thunder-city-collection-of-ex-military-jets-and-aims-to-use-it-for-adversary-air-services/

[bentwaters81tfw]

Isn't Hangar 51 the group behind the P-51s in USA that take passengers?

[spruecutter96]

I would really love to see the Thunder City jets flying again, but I've read some very critical accounts of how poorly they were maintained during their time in SA. This will make keeping them going all the more of a challenge. 

 

Chris.  

[NFR]

9 hours ago, exdraken said:

Would be great!

I hope there is some money behind Hangar 51!

 

 

But after 5 years I the open I have my doubts....

 

and, would those old classics really lend them to being good adversary jets??

 

 

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/hangar-51-company-buys-thunder-city-collection-of-ex-military-jets-and-aims-to-use-it-for-adversary-air-services/

 

There seems to be. The owner is an ex oil entrepreneur that sold his company (funny enough, same profession as Mike Beachy Head, the ex Thunder City owner)

 

At least steps are being taken in the right direction with the engine runs.

 

I'm guessing tracking a Lightning would be quite the task haha

 

7 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Isn't Hangar 51 the group behind the P-51s in USA that take passengers?

 

I'm not sure if it's the same company or not

 

 

4 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

I would really love to see the Thunder City jets flying again, but I've read some very critical accounts of how poorly they were maintained during their time in SA. This will make keeping them going all the more of a challenge. 

 

Chris.  

 

I have read accounts from both sides. One side saying the jets were poorly maintained and another saying they were wanting to close Thunder City because of noise, The Lightnings went supersonic over the City once or twice, and low level flying.

 

When the crash happened it was the perfect storm. I read that around 26 Lightnings were lost due to engine fires during operational service. So it was a well known issue

 

They flew again in 2014. The test flight was conducted by Mike Beachy Head himself, I don't think he would have jumped back in the seat if he wasn't satisfied with the condition of the aircraft.

 

Anyway, I'll be flying to Cape Town on monday and will be sure to pop in and grab some photos and info. 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Well time to start saving my money, It’ll take years for them to get clearance. About as much time as it will take me to save up for a ride in the T.5, that or the Buccaneer or Hunter.

[exdraken]

5 hours ago, NFR said:

have read accounts from both sides. One side saying the jets were poorly maintained and another saying they were wanting to close Thunder City because of noise, The Lightnings went supersonic over the City once or twice, and low level flying.

If I remember corrctly at least part of it was maintenance... the engine issues seemed to dhow the day before already but we're not investigated properly, the ejection seat did not work...

Bad combination

 

All the best to Hanfar 51!

[bentwaters81tfw]

Brainfart: It's Stallion 51 that runs the Mustangs. Probably nothing to do with Hangar 51

[upnorth]

The fact that they're even floating the idea of of using them as adversary jets tells me they are rich but clueless dreamers who don't know what they have on their hands and don't know that they've missed the bus on the civilian run adversary market.

 

With outfits like Draken International and others operating Mirage F.1s, Alpha Jets, Aero L-159s and other more modern and capable machines than anything in the  former Thunder City inventory, there's no chance for a newcomer to that market.

 

There's also serviceability and availability issues to consider. The Lightning was known as a complex maintenance pig in its service days, it will be even more so now. Then there's the matter of where do you find people, both air and ground crew, who are still current on it? Those fellows are fewer and farther between and not getting any younger.

 

If you're going to offer an expensive service that needs to be arranged well in advance, like adversary aircraft, you'd better be a reliable provider with reliable aircraft that are ready to go when you said they'd be.

[John B (Sc)]

To some extent I'd agree with 'upnorth'.

 

The Lightnings would be far too maintenance hungry and limited in function for any serious adversary work.

 

However the Hunters could have some value in various roles. There are some being sued currently. The Buccaneers should have potential, especially given some were used for various development work - I could envisage them being refitted to act as counter measures training a/c,. or simply for trials work.  Possibly useful to check on on air defence system's low level coverage capability - nothing like a Bucc for low arrival... 

 

I do hope they get some at least back in action, but it is likely to be a long and expensive process. 

Edited March 31, 2022 by John B (Sc)

[Giorgio N]

Even if the Buccaneers could have some usefulness, they would still be types out of service for a long time, produced in relative small numbers for which spare parts would be hard to find and maintenance difficult, so their value as aggressors would be limited.

Notice how companies like Draken purchase full fleets of aircraft, including plenty of spare parts and support equipment. This allow them to operate their aircraft reliably. What could Thunder City offer in this respect ? They have 3 Buccaneers, how many spares do they have for them ? These aspects are much more important than the potential capabilities of whatever type they may have. More so as even for specialised missions there are other solutions, piloted and not.

[exdraken]

On 3/31/2022 at 5:25 PM, upnorth said:

The fact that they're even floating the idea of of using them as adversary jets tells me they are rich but clueless dreamers who don't know what they have on their hands and don't know that they've missed the bus on the civilian run adversary market.

 

Maybe, on the other hand, who could be their potential customers?

South Afrikan military I suppose as long as they wanna stay in SA!

And then I guess there is first only little demand, and second little competition!

And I guess it makes it way more easier to get approval for such a business then for a poor joyride one....

[upnorth]

11 hours ago, exdraken said:

Maybe, on the other hand, who could be their potential customers?

South Afrikan military I suppose as long as they wanna stay in SA!

And then I guess there is first only little demand, and second little competition!

And I guess it makes it way more easier to get approval for such a business then for a poor joyride one....

 

South African military Doesn't need the old Thunder City machines.

 

There's already a civil outfit in SA offering aggressor and other training services with more modern gear and much more experience:

https://www.paramountgroup.com/capabilities/air/mirage-f1/

[exdraken]

3 hours ago, upnorth said:

 

South African military Doesn't need the old Thunder City machines.

 

There's already a civil outfit in SA offering aggressor and other training services with more modern gear and much more experience:

https://www.paramountgroup.com/capabilities/air/mirage-f1/

Interesting! Did not know that!

Are those Mirages operational?

https://www.paramountgroup.com/media/2074/mirage-banner-1-2022.jpg

 

The KFIRs were sold to Ecuador and to the US, no? (Draken?, ATAC?)

 

[upnorth]

2 hours ago, exdraken said:

Interesting! Did not know that!

Are those Mirages operational?

https://www.paramountgroup.com/media/2074/mirage-banner-1-2022.jpg

 

The KFIRs were sold to Ecuador and to the US, no? (Draken?, ATAC?)

 

 

I'm not sure if the specific Mirages in that picture are fliers or spares, but going by these articles, Paramount definitely has flying examples and partnerships to help Draken International and ATAC keep their F.1 fleets up and running via their U.S. subsidiary:

 

https://www.paramountgroup.com/media/news/paramount-group-expands-its-top-gun-role-in-supporting-the-combat-readiness-of-the-usa-air-force/

 

https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/defence/paramount-group-supports-drakens-mirage-f1-upgrades

 

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/maintenance-providers/mro/press-release/21156854/paramount-group-paramount-aerospace-to-expand-its-support-for-atac-under-newlyawarded-contract-for-us-adversary-air-training

 

It would seem that Paramount are the only ones with the expertise to do overhauls on the F.1. 

[Adam Poultney]

On 01/04/2022 at 14:46, Giorgio N said:

Even if the Buccaneers could have some usefulness, they would still be types out of service for a long time, produced in relative small numbers for which spare parts would be hard to find and maintenance difficult, so their value as aggressors would be limited.

Notice how companies like Draken purchase full fleets of aircraft, including plenty of spare parts and support equipment. This allow them to operate their aircraft reliably. What could Thunder City offer in this respect ? They have 3 Buccaneers, how many spares do they have for them ? These aspects are much more important than the potential capabilities of whatever type they may have. More so as even for specialised missions there are other solutions, piloted and not.

it's almost surprising that we don't have jaguars flying as aggressors in the UK given how many are still around at Cosford, with their engines running until a few years ago and sitting in a hangar pretty much the whole time

[JagRigger]

On 4/3/2022 at 10:44 PM, Adam Poultney said:

it's almost surprising that we don't have jaguars flying as aggressors in the UK given how many are still around at Cosford, with their engines running until a few years ago and sitting in a hangar pretty much the whole time

Too complex for Civilian operation signoff, too expensive for military - oh, and too tired...........

[exdraken]

On 4/3/2022 at 11:44 PM, Adam Poultney said:

it's almost surprising that we don't have jaguars flying as aggressors in the UK given how many are still around at Cosford, with their engines running until a few years ago and sitting in a hangar pretty much the whole time

Because ther are Hawk T1s around doing the same job within the military... at least until now 😉

[bentwaters81tfw]

And the Jaguar is renowned for it's agility.

[JagRigger]

22 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

And the Jaguar is renowned for it's agility.

Clean you’d be surprised. On a training day with the Americans, clean with only sidewinders we really gave them a rude shock 

[exdraken]

11 hours ago, JagRigger said:

Clean you’d be surprised. On a training day with the Americans, clean with only sidewinders we really gave them a rude shock 

Which kind of Americans?

Alconbury F-16 Aggressors or LN  F-111s/ Phantoms

sorry......

 

[JagRigger]

23 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Which kind of Americans?

Alconbury F-16 Aggressors or LN  F-111s/ Phantoms

sorry......

 

On operational deployment - we acted as aggressors for their part of the package 

[kiseca]

On 4/3/2022 at 2:20 PM, exdraken said:

Interesting! Did not know that!

Are those Mirages operational?

https://www.paramountgroup.com/media/2074/mirage-banner-1-2022.jpg

 

The KFIRs were sold to Ecuador and to the US, no? (Draken?, ATAC?)

 

Sorry for resurrecting an old post, but recently came across some detail which may be interesting, if by Kfirs you were referring to South African Cheetahs, not actual Israeli Kfirs, anyway, since I believe SAAF Cheetahs were sold to Equador, but I am not aware that any Kfirs were.

 

Anyway, in case you were referring to Cheetahs, while they do closely resemble Kfirs, and while South Africa did have a strong relationship with Israel throughout at least the 1980s, there are a number of significant differences between the two aircraft and someone familiar with them should be able to tell which one they are looking at quite quickly. (I confess, I am not that person.. if you parked the two side by side, without markings, I'd struggle to tell you which is which!)

 

Anyway, finding detail on the internet has been surprisingly difficult but the differences I am aware of are:

The two aircraft have different avionics packs, both at least partially home grown and true whether considering air defence or ground attack versions of both.

They have different engines. Kfir has the very popular J79, Cheetah has a Mirage F1 engine (Atar 9K50?). Apart from performance, which I am sure would favour the Israeli jet, this has also led to some fuselage reshaping on the Kfir as the J79 is shorter, wider, and needs more air and cooling than the 3's original Atar engine.

Both have non moving canards, similarly shaped and located, but they are different sizes. I believe the Cheetahs' are the smaller ones but I could have that the wrong way around.

Kfir has a redesigned wing. I believe the leading edge has been reprofiled. Cheetah retained the standard Mirage 3 wing as far as I am aware.

Cheetahs - at least most of them - have a new, pillarless single piece windshield similar in shape to that of, say, an F-15. Kfirs retain the standard 3 piece Mirage 3 windshield with two pillars framing a flat pane of glass.

Kfir was designed as an upgrade to a Mirage 5, the Cheetahs from Mirage 3s, though of course the 5 is itself a development of the 3.

 

Anyway I hope that's of some interest. I learnt pretty much all of that recently watching a youtube interview with an ex SAAF pilot who flew the Cheetah, so thought I would share it.

 

 

 

[exdraken]

3 hours ago, kiseca said:

Sorry for resurrecting an old post, but recently came across some detail which may be interesting, if by Kfirs you were referring to South African Cheetahs, not actual Israeli Kfirs, anyway, since I believe SAAF Cheetahs were sold to Equador, but I am not aware that any Kfirs were.

Hi, 

 

thanks!  Actually can't remember why I wrote KFIR....not too much logic in here  

South Africa definitely did not operate any.... but some KFIR technology certainly made its way into the Cheetahs

 

Ecuador operated though both KFIR and Cheetah, KFIR C2 for a rather long time form the late 80ies. the upgraded CEs,

 

after SA retired their Cheetahs, some made there way to Ecuador and some to the US for contractor work.

 

KFIRs can be distingued rather easily from any KFIR model, when you know what to look for: that is: boxy intake extension in front of the  vertical fin (in order to cool the hotter American J79 engine) and the engine nozzle themselves, which is protruding with short petals on all Mirages (and Cheetas that is) and hidden within the shorter fairing on the KFIR.

 

The Cheetah C is also quite a bit longer in the front, nose to intake!

 

 

performance whise, the KFIR has the stronger engine but slightly worse aerodynamics, somwhat negating the power advantage compared to the Mirage, especially the ones powered by 9K50s of the F1....

 

 

I hope no slipups this time

 

cheers, 

Werner

 

 

[kiseca]

Cheetah never was a pretty aircraft, that's for sure😂

 

The book I am reading while building that Bye Bye Mirage F1 is quite revealing about the state of the SAAF around that time, and while it focuses on the F1 it does have a fair bit of into about why the Cheetah was built. The F1s were doing fine for air to air combat on the Border war in the early 1980s, scoring a couple of Mig 21 kills, but while the aircraft itself was lovely to fly, the radar was unreliable and the missiles that the SAAF had access to at the time were ineffective. I think both MiG kills were from cannon fire... and by the same pilot. They had no BVR capability, and no head on missile capability, so they flew old fashioned combat tactics, trying to get on their opponent's tail.

 

Then in the late 1980s the MiG 23 arrived in the arena and surprised the F1s by firing missiles at them head on. They damaged one F1 enough that it crashed on landing and was written off.  They could also outrun the F1s so could disengage easily if a Mirage did get behind them. The SAAF had no answer to their frontal aspect firing capability. In addition, they did not have effective countermeasures or radar warning capabability. Combine these with better ground radar coverage and the Angolans / Cubans gained air superiority.

 

The SAAF needed better armament and avionics to get back up to date. Sanctions meant they couldn't buy newer aircraft or equipment from anywhere, the F1s were the last military jets they bought until the fall of the National Party in 1994, so they had to do it all in house and upgrade airframes they already had. The F1s would be the first choice but it would ground their front line air defence fleet, leaving them with only the far outdated Mirage IIIs. So they upgraded the IIIs instead, and while they were at it, they tried to improve the III's handling characteristics as well. They were apparently a relatively tricky aircraft to land with a high stall speed and high AofA. Plus, I think they added some fuel capacity. Thus was born the Cheetah, alongside locally developed missiles giving BVR and frontal aspect capability along with stronger electronic defences.