Skip to content

Wrong Wrong Wrong

edited September 2023 in Bar and Lounge

Recently I was sent a link to this video on youtube on Lightnings, with the comment "That's amazing that the Lightning had a HUD!"

I thought oh flip, here we go again.... bad research, sweeping generalisations, and assumptions, had produced total nonsense. And of course, look at the comments, so many people bigging up the video for being "great".

The detail that the creator has gone into in describing how the HUD works is very convincing for a viewer... But is totally misplaced as the Lightning was NEVER built with a HUD!

The early Lightnings were fitted with a PAS - Pilot Attach Sight, and later the LFS - Light Fighter Sight. These simply contained a light bulb, and a mirror mounted on a gyro gimbal.

How many school kids will be telling their mates about the Lightning being the first aircraft to be fitted with a HUD? Not many, but some who have seen this will be believing a lie.

The Truth:

The total fabricated nonsense:

Here is an actual real video I took of an actual real LFS in action, in my mates actual real F6 Lightning cockpit, again the Truth:

I thought I'd share this as I recently made some comments on misinformation being misleading when you are researching. I always simply return to the APs as the source of truth (primary information), never youtube or fan websites, and also rarely books authored on the topic (secondary information).

The big worry is the number of people making comments on this video saying how amazing it is, when it's full of fairy-tale nonsense.

Even museums often get things wrong, a wrong instrument will be fitted to a panel to "fill a hole", USAF flying clothing will be used on a mannequin in an RAF aircraft, etc... Research has a simple rule, go to primary sources of information only.

Cheers, Scott


  • edited September 2023

    ... and what is an "Electric Jet"?

    And feared by who exactly? Short range, difficult AI, average armament.. It was nicknamed the Frightning by the pilots who flew it, not the enemy!

  • edited September 2023

    The video also claims that the Javelin's armament was launched from the rear so it can't intercept enemy aircraft in front of it... it makes the Javelin sound a bit pointless.

    The Javelin carried Firestreaks, which from the last time I handled one, I'm pretty sure it was obvious that they go forward, pointy bit at the front, rocket motor at the back and all...


    Am I missing something?

  • edited September 2023

    A1-23 radar... Nope again, it's the letters AI for Airborne Intercept. (And also it did not feed data to a "Heads" Up Display, as covered in post 1, this did not exist.

    And it's Head Up Display, not Heads. Arghh!!! Even the text on screen reads Head, while the voice says Heads.


  • edited September 2023

    De Havilland Firestreak "Double AM's" - ie: AAM's or Air to Air Missiles.

    Note also:

    The 2" rockets are described as air to air missiles, and the Red Top missile illustrated is pointed out to be the 48 little 2" rockets..

    It states that Lightnings carried cannons in the nose "by default" - nope, only some, even the diagram shown couteracts this point while its being claimed, not having the nose cannons drawn.


  • edited September 2023

    The video states that the over wing tanks are not jettisonable..


    Again, the truth, image taken in T5, XS458:

    I will have a look through the docs, as they may have been not jettisonable on another Mk. Will update.

  • edited September 2023

    No, the F53 was not exported to Germany.... it was exported to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait!

    The RAF in Germany used the F2A mainly.


  • This is certainly not Lightning ZU-BEX (XS451)...


  • edited September 2023

    So, the message is: Youtube channel Vapored Skies is a dubious source for accurate information. I wish they would fact-check the content before publishing as it gives other people the wrong messages.

    Nice looking videos, so fine for eye-candy and entertainment purposes, but the creator should provide a warning about the innacuracy of what appears to be AI generated content.

    Trouble is the snazzy presentation makes them appear as an 'authotitive source', but really its just some guy on youtube putting videos together for clicks and hits in order to make some £££. This is a problem for anyone wanting to actually learn something, they will go away learning false information.

  • COOL.... Scott!

    So many content is wrong. I think Scott, you can open a new YouTube channel and you can put these wrong content in the right direction. But it's a lot of work.

  • I was once asked to write a book about the complex field of aircrew clothing / survival equipment to help others to "get it right"... but as you say: time...

    My points on that video are raised here, feel free to add a comment to the video with link here, I would do it but I closed my Google account.

Sign In or Register to comment.