Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving the English Electric Lightning

Unconfirmable

Two Lightnings (registrations unknown) abandoned over the desert near Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. Ran out of fuel when unable to land during a sandstorm in late 1976 or early 1977. (Both pilots uninjured). Old Aylesburian (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

[1] ?? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Accident losses of Royal Saudi Air Force F.53s (16 out of 45 built) are listed here. http://web.archive.org/web/20160316050009/http://www.lightning.org.uk/histf53.html It's notable that Wikipedia doesn't have a comparable article on accidents involving UK Phantoms. For some reason people like to believe that the Lightning was unusually dangerous -- probably because it looks dangerous -- but it was not.

I gather from former RAF personnel that its accident rate per 10,000 hours was lower than those of the Hunter and the Javelin, the two types it replaced. It was an awful lot safer than the F-8 Crusader, of which almost every example built was involved in a serious accident at some point. The F-100 Super Sabre, the first US supersonic fighter, and the F-104 Starfighter, the first US Mach 2 fighter, had similar accident rates to the Lightning, but their accidents were far more often fatal, perhaps because they had inherently dangerous flight characteristics even when they were working properly, whereas the Lightning's flight characteristics were good. About a third of USAF F-100 accidents were fatal and fully half of Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine F-104 accidents were fatal. The F-105 Thunderchief was a bit of a nightmare as well, and had to undergo costly and prolonged rectification programmes to address its structural and flight-control problems. The F-106 Delta Dart suffered 35 per cent accidental losses (122 of 342 built) in 28 years, 1958-1986.

In total, some 30 per cent of RAF Lightnings (85 out of 287 built, not counting export models) were lost in accidents over almost 30 years, 1959-1988. Of these accidents, 16 -- that is just under 20 per cent -- were fatal. In regard to the F.6, the longest-serving and hardest-working mark, 23 of 63 built, 36 per cent, were lost in accidents over 20 years, 8 of these accidents, 34 per cent, being fatal. However, at least 6 of the fatal accidents were due to pilot error. The F.6 was prone to engine fires and control loss (fuel seal and valve failure and hydraulic seal failure), but not at an unusual rate for a military jet of that era, and, when these failures occurred, the pilot was usually able to escape.

The South African accident report after the Overberg crash (caused by gross safety violations on the part of pilot, ground crew and SAAF authorities) mistakenly claimed that the UK CAA regarded the Lightning as having a worse in-service safety record than comparable military aircraft. In fact the CAA said it had a worse in-service safety record than comparable ex-military aircraft that had been granted civil Permits To Fly, excluding aircraft which had not been given such permits. And even that is not correct, since the CAA has granted civil permits to Hunters, and the Hunter had a worse in-service safety record than the Lightning.

It will be noted that the CAA absolutely forbids any civil permit for the Phantom. To repeat, 30 per cent of RAF Lightnings were lost in accidents over almost 30 years, and 20 per cent of those accidents were fatal. But 28 per cent of RAF/RN Phantoms -- 53 of 185 built -- were lost in accidents over just 23 years, 1969-1992. And 20 of those accidents -- almost 38 per cent -- were fatal, often involving multiple fatalities, unlike Lightning accidents. And yet no one, ever, will try and tell you that the good old, steady old, trusty old Phantom was in any way dangerous. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of accidents and incidents involving the English Electric Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607165800/http://www.retronaut.com/2013/05/ejecting-from-an-electric-lightning-f1-aircraft/ to http://www.retronaut.com/2013/05/ejecting-from-an-electric-lightning-f1-aircraft/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091117052603/http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/788ceecc95ab44d78cadf03c93aabeec/14-11-2009-02-15/Fighter_jet_crashes_at_air_show to http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/788ceecc95ab44d78cadf03c93aabeec/14-11-2009-02-15/Fighter_jet_crashes_at_air_show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What about a summary ?

How many British, Saudi-Arab and Kuwaiti planes were lost. Why not in introduction, thank you. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)