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/
|