Harrier Jet - Page 1

General » Aviation

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Harrier Jet (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 12/6/2007 7:47:40 AM EDT

Hi guys I have always liked the harrier anybody got some pics they can post? john

Posted: 12/6/2007 12:47:52 PM EDT

[#1]

Posted: 12/6/2007 3:12:01 PM EDT

[#2]

One from VMA-542

and 1 from VMAT-203

Both are squadrons I served in during my time in the USMC

and check out here for the 1st civilian-owned Harrier

Posted: 12/6/2007 5:23:54 PM EDT

[#3]

Some video

Harrier Low Pass

RAF Harrier low flyby Afghanistan 1

RAF Harrier low flyby Afghanistan 2

Posted: 12/6/2007 10:16:09 PM EDT

[#4]

Great pics what is the harriers main role? can it be used for dog fighting or is stricly just for ground support?

Posted: 12/7/2007 3:43:08 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Great pics what is the harriers main role? can it be used for dog fighting or is stricly just for ground support?

Ground attack and close air support, but it has the capability for it's own air-to-air defense.

Although it is highly maneuverable, it is not especially suited for dog-fighting due to it's relatively slow speeds, largely due to it's intake size- as it approaches Mach, the force of the air entering the intake could potentially "blow out the fire".

Posted: 12/7/2007 8:27:45 AM EDT

[#6]

Have a good friend who flew Harriers in the Marine Corp. The guy really liked the plane, but it is very demanding at times and he said he lost more than a handful of friends flying it. This guy is a "God" in the plane (I've flew with him lots of times in his taildragger Maule) and is now a senior Capt. with American. The guy gets into an airplane like most good o' boys down their beers (ie, meaning it's easy for him)..........he is that good.

If he said it was a handful, man, it's a handful.

vmax84
"Lowly Caravan driver"

Posted: 12/7/2007 10:57:25 AM EDT

[#7]

I saw an article a few weeks ago about a retired USMC pilot who has the only privately-owned Harrier in the world.

I can't imagine what that would be like.

Posted: 12/8/2007 5:35:43 AM EDT

[#8]

I have a special place in my heart for the Marine widow maker.

Useless fact, its the only single engine aircraft in the Marine inventory.

Posted: 12/8/2007 7:41:36 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Have a good friend who flew Harriers in the Marine Corp. The guy really liked the plane, but it is very demanding at times and he said he lost more than a handful of friends flying it. This guy is a "God" in the plane (I've flew with him lots of times in his taildragger Maule) and is now a senior Capt. with American. The guy gets into an airplane like most good o' boys down their beers (ie, meaning it's easy for him)..........he is that good.

If he said it was a handful, man, it's a handful.

vmax84
"Lowly Caravan driver"

Did he tell whether it was an AV-8A or AV-8B? There are significant differences in the flight control system.

I worked on AV-8B's for about 2.5 years, during the installation of the -408 engine, the 100% LERX, and and the radar installation, along with manufacturing support in the shops.

Posted: 12/8/2007 6:52:02 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Have a good friend who flew Harriers in the Marine Corp. The guy really liked the plane, but it is very demanding at times and he said he lost more than a handful of friends flying it. This guy is a "God" in the plane (I've flew with him lots of times in his taildragger Maule) and is now a senior Capt. with American. The guy gets into an airplane like most good o' boys down their beers (ie, meaning it's easy for him)..........he is that good.

If he said it was a handful, man, it's a handful.

vmax84
"Lowly Caravan driver"

Did he tell whether it was an AV-8A or AV-8B? There are significant differences in the flight control system.

I worked on AV-8B's for about 2.5 years, during the installation of the -408 engine, the 100% LERX, and and the radar installation, along with manufacturing support in the shops.

I'm not sure. He was flying them in the mid 80's. The guy is one hell of "stick and rudder" guy.............does things with the Maule that are incredible.

People like that, it's comforting to know, there is that much talent up in the front of your airliner. I am not kidding, some people are just that good. He is one of them.

vmax84

Posted: 12/8/2007 9:03:52 PM EDT

[#11]

The Harrier is the single loudest thing I have ever heard in my life. Years of going to Oshkosh wasnt a big deal with my ears and then one time I watched a Harrier on vertical take off and thought my ear drums were going to blow out.

Posted: 12/9/2007 6:08:57 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Have a good friend who flew Harriers in the Marine Corp. The guy really liked the plane, but it is very demanding at times and he said he lost more than a handful of friends flying it. This guy is a "God" in the plane (I've flew with him lots of times in his taildragger Maule) and is now a senior Capt. with American. The guy gets into an airplane like most good o' boys down their beers (ie, meaning it's easy for him)..........he is that good.

If he said it was a handful, man, it's a handful.

vmax84
"Lowly Caravan driver"

Did he tell whether it was an AV-8A or AV-8B? There are significant differences in the flight control system.

I worked on AV-8B's for about 2.5 years, during the installation of the -408 engine, the 100% LERX, and and the radar installation, along with manufacturing support in the shops.

Although there are significant differences in the flight controls, particularly those used in hover (a real auto-pilot in the -B), according to pilots that have flown both versions, either is a handful.

The -408 engine in the -B is a bunch more powerful than the -402 in the -A model, which caused its own set of problems for -A pilots transitioning to the -B model.

An interesting historical note: The -C model was actually in service before the -B. USMC had several -A models modified with the strakes and other fuselage features of the -B and out them into service. None are in US service today though...

Posted: 12/9/2007 8:02:43 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Great pics what is the harriers main role? can it be used for dog fighting or is stricly just for ground support?

The Harrier was originally developed with the idea that a massive Soviet attack on the UK would destroy existing airbases, so an aircraft that didn't need a big runway would be a good idea. There was also the idea that it could be based relatively close to a front line and operate from conveniant nearby roads or even open fields for rapid response close-support for front line ground units.

There were studies on putting them on naval cruisers and large destroyers instead of a helicopter and flying from the helo pad on the ship. There was even testing done on fitting ships with a special crane called a "skyhook" that would lift the Harrier on/off the ship into mid-air and the plane would start up on the crane and detach/attach itself with the crane while in hover mode. home.planet.nl/~alder010/Future/Future.html

The French attempted to develop a VTOL version of a Mirage-III and did have two flying prototypes but they were mechanically much more complicated than the Harrier (the French prototypes used eight small jet engines purely for VTOL mode, as well as the main jet engine for normal flight) and needed specially reinforced ground positions to take off/land on in VTOL mode. That project was abandoned after one crashed during testing. www.aviastar.org/air/france/dassault_mirage-3v.php

Posted: 12/9/2007 8:16:03 PM EDT

[#14]

I did not think that us private citizens could own any plane with hard points?

Later,

Badredfish

Posted: 12/9/2007 10:56:39 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I did not think that us private citizens could own any plane with hard points?

Later,

Badredfish

They can if the aircraft has the hardpoints removed and the aircraft modified so that they can't be refiitted. I've heard of A-3's, A-4's, an F-100, an F-104 and one or possibly two F-4 Phantoms as well as a Saab Draken in private ownership in the US. There are also several older model MiGs in private hands as well.

Posted: 12/10/2007 1:58:14 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The Harrier is the single loudest thing I have ever heard in my life. Years of going to Oshkosh wasnt a big deal with my ears and then one time I watched a Harrier on vertical take off and thought my ear drums were going to blow out.

No shit. I saw a Harrier demo at the Clark County airshow a few years ago, and then an A-10 demo right afterwards. When the A-10 started rolling, I asked my CO, "Is that thing on?"

Posted: 12/10/2007 3:56:03 AM EDT

[#17]

My cousin was one of the first Harrier pilots back in the early 70's...to give an idea, I know him, and flew with another guy that was in his RAG class, and I know half the class that survived the airplane.

My cousin was one of the guys that did the large deck CQ, cold weather eval (they were in Norway where they filmed the Hoth portion of Empire Strikes Back) then he went to east coast demo detachment.

He would tell me stories of the early AV8As.

The workmanship of a MG, the reliability of a Triumph. Half the flights ended in total electrical failure. Lucas wiring. No joke, actually Lucas wiring.

The airplane was designed to fly in Europe, with an average leg length of 20 minutes.

There were no relief tubes. That made flights to Hawai'i or Europe pretty sporty.

He's got the original NATOPS manual. Its basically the Hawker-Siddely AFM. Its about 70 pages.

Posted: 12/10/2007 4:07:38 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Have a good friend who flew Harriers in the Marine Corp. The guy really liked the plane, but it is very demanding at times and he said he lost more than a handful of friends flying it. This guy is a "God" in the plane (I've flew with him lots of times in his taildragger Maule) and is now a senior Capt. with American. The guy gets into an airplane like most good o' boys down their beers (ie, meaning it's easy for him)..........he is that good.

If he said it was a handful, man, it's a handful.

vmax84
"Lowly Caravan driver"

Did he tell whether it was an AV-8A or AV-8B? There are significant differences in the flight control system.

I worked on AV-8B's for about 2.5 years, during the installation of the -408 engine, the 100% LERX, and and the radar installation, along with manufacturing support in the shops.

Although there are significant differences in the flight controls, particularly those used in hover (a real auto-pilot in the -B), according to pilots that have flown both versions, either is a handful.

The -408 engine in the -B is a bunch more powerful than the -402 in the -A model, which caused its own set of problems for -A pilots transitioning to the -B model.

An interesting historical note: The -C model was actually in service before the -B. USMC had several -A models modified with the strakes and other fuselage features of the -B and out them into service. None are in US service today though...

The AV-8C was not a Harrier II airframe configuration. The add-ons such as LIDS strakes are similar in appearance only, they are not interchangeable.

As far as designations go, the GR series airplanes get real hosed up because some GR Mk 5's on our books are GR Mk 7's (and maybe 9's, my memory is fuzzy) once the MoD took delivery.

Also, speaking of engine noise, the first time I heard the -408 engine cranked up, the noise increase was amazing; pushin' more air out the same size holes.

The airframe probably never saw its potential with the -408 because we slathered a bunch of weight in the airplane along with the engine, although almost all of that weight was due to other reasons. In fact, I can't recall anything directly linked strictly to the engine, as the mounts were left unchanged and if there changed to the backup structure, they were small. The plumbing is slightly different, but not so much to cause wholesale changes in weight directly linked to the engine. In any case, the sea level hot day performance was hardly improved with the new engine. The principal motivation for this engine change was improved reliability and increased life, which I don't think ever was achieved.

I recall one incident when I was working either in Advanced F-15 or ASTOVL when a monthly report came around that just said something along the line that the AV-8 was grounded due to something like "engine system failure"; my guts rolled right over, since my signature was on that installation. I got on the phone and found out that the engine was having turbine failures, and nothing was wrong with the airframe or plumbing.

Too much fun.

Posted: 12/10/2007 8:13:50 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Have a good friend who flew Harriers in the Marine Corp. The guy really liked the plane, but it is very demanding at times and he said he lost more than a handful of friends flying it. This guy is a "God" in the plane (I've flew with him lots of times in his taildragger Maule) and is now a senior Capt. with American. The guy gets into an airplane like most good o' boys down their beers (ie, meaning it's easy for him)..........he is that good.

If he said it was a handful, man, it's a handful.

vmax84
"Lowly Caravan driver"

Did he tell whether it was an AV-8A or AV-8B? There are significant differences in the flight control system.

I worked on AV-8B's for about 2.5 years, during the installation of the -408 engine, the 100% LERX, and and the radar installation, along with manufacturing support in the shops.

Although there are significant differences in the flight controls, particularly those used in hover (a real auto-pilot in the -B), according to pilots that have flown both versions, either is a handful.

The -408 engine in the -B is a bunch more powerful than the -402 in the -A model, which caused its own set of problems for -A pilots transitioning to the -B model.

An interesting historical note: The -C model was actually in service before the -B. USMC had several -A models modified with the strakes and other fuselage features of the -B and out them into service. None are in US service today though...

The AV-8C was not a Harrier II airframe configuration. The add-ons such as LIDS strakes are similar in appearance only, they are not interchangeable.

As far as designations go, the GR series airplanes get real hosed up because some GR Mk 5's on our books are GR Mk 7's (and maybe 9's, my memory is fuzzy) once the MoD took delivery.

Also, speaking of engine noise, the first time I heard the -408 engine cranked up, the noise increase was amazing; pushin' more air out the same size holes.

The airframe probably never saw its potential with the -408 because we slathered a bunch of weight in the airplane along with the engine, although almost all of that weight was due to other reasons. In fact, I can't recall anything directly linked strictly to the engine, as the mounts were left unchanged and if there changed to the backup structure, they were small. The plumbing is slightly different, but not so much to cause wholesale changes in weight directly linked to the engine. In any case, the sea level hot day performance was hardly improved with the new engine. The principal motivation for this engine change was improved reliability and increased life, which I don't think ever was achieved.

I recall one incident when I was working either in Advanced F-15 or ASTOVL when a monthly report came around that just said something along the line that the AV-8 was grounded due to something like "engine system failure"; my guts rolled right over, since my signature was on that installation. I got on the phone and found out that the engine was having turbine failures, and nothing was wrong with the airframe or plumbing.

Too much fun.

Gotta agree with you on the GR designations... I could never keep up with which one was which.

I remember one time one of our birds had a landing gear failure. The pilot ended up blowing the gear down and managed to get down safely, but the outriggers collapsed when he tried to taxi off the hover pad. We had just done a D phase inspection on the damn thing and guess who's name was on the landing gear inspection...

Posted: 12/10/2007 5:18:06 PM EDT

[#20]

Blech. I know 4 USMC fighter pilots who watched harriers become smoking holes in the ground taking the pilot with them at different times at different places. They felt bad for the guys flying them.

I know a retired USMC pilot who flew AV8A models, and has over 1000 hours in it, without a mishap. He then went on the fly the F4 and then F18. Last name is Piasecki.

He was one of the only A model pilots to get thru the program without a mishap in the beginning. They didn't call it a widow maker for nothing.

Cool concept tho.

Posted: 12/13/2007 3:18:39 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Blech. I know 4 USMC fighter pilots who watched harriers become smoking holes in the ground taking the pilot with them at different times at different places. They felt bad for the guys flying them.

I know a retired USMC pilot who flew AV8A models, and has over 1000 hours in it, without a mishap. He then went on the fly the F4 and then F18. Last name is Piasecki.

He was one of the only A model pilots to get thru the program without a mishap in the beginning. They didn't call it a widow maker for nothing.

Cool concept tho.

I saw 2 myself and also witnessed an A6E with a buddy store go in, an EA-6B roll inverted and kill 4 at a time and an F4 in Fallon, NV turn into a lawn dart, so a crash of a Harrier ain't unique- only the airplane is.

BTW- Piasecki was not in any special group of A model pilots.
I served in VMAT-203 (the training squadron for the AV-8A)and witnessed more than 50 come through initial training without any mishaps. In fact, my old CO is now a professor at ERAU and he'd say the same thing, I'm sure, since a good number came through on his watch.

Posted: 12/13/2007 3:33:11 AM EDT

[#22]

Damn, I never knew the Harrier was such a death trap.

Huh, always did think it was a cool airplane though.

Posted: 12/13/2007 7:02:15 AM EDT

[#23]

It's not a death trap... it's just a lot more intolerant of sloppy piloting and being ham-fisted with it, and because it ain't your regular suck and blow jet- it does hover, ya know- it's gets more attention when it does crash.

Posted: 12/13/2007 8:42:04 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
It's not a death trap... it's just a lot more intolerant of sloppy piloting and being ham-fisted with it, and because it ain't your regular suck and blow jet- it does hover, ya know- it's gets more attention when it does crash.

We lost 4 in a matter of two months at NKT during the 90's...

Posted: 12/13/2007 11:22:37 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not a death trap... it's just a lot more intolerant of sloppy piloting and being ham-fisted with it, and because it ain't your regular suck and blow jet- it does hover, ya know- it's gets more attention when it does crash.

We lost 4 in a matter of two months at NKT during the 90's...

Wasn't that when the B's came on line and all the A4 guys were transitioning into it? I was out of the Corps by then, but had contacts and buddie still in and heard the transitioning was being pushed at a high rate and the accident rate was getting up there.

Again, it is an intolerant bird that bites if you don't handle it right.

Posted: 12/13/2007 11:50:39 AM EDT

[#26]

The AV-8A controls were mechanical, essentially identical to the British Harrier. There were likely some electronic yaw, pitch, or yaw dampers in the airplane for wing born stability and control, but I don't know. The raw mechanical controls made it like flying on a needle supported by a base that could roll on ball bearings.

The airplane needed a soft touch and low gain pilots. I think when I started working on the AV-8B, there were still about 20 or AV-8A's left in inventory.

There were ducts in the AV-8B supplied by our friends at BAE that were made from drawings for the Kestrel, and there were a few parts in the aft fuselage, too. All of the major airframe changes in the AV-8B happened forward of the rear nozzle, so it's pretty hard to determine which airplane a random aft fuselage came from with just a look.

Posted: 12/13/2007 4:27:04 PM EDT

[#27]

The flight controls on the AV8A are electro-hydraulic-mechanical in that they have electro-hydraulic "power packs" connected to push rods and bell cranks.

There are also "puffer ducts" in the nose, each wing tip and tail cone for pitch, yaw and roll control in the hover. A very rudiemntary "auto-stabilization" system was employed in the A's to help the pilot control the hover, but it was still balancing a ball on a needle.

This is also why early Harrier pilots came from the rotary wing units; Up until the mid to late-80's ALL initial Harrier pilots went to a helo squadron to get the hang of hovering.

Posted: 12/13/2007 4:35:55 PM EDT

[#28]

Harriers were 24-0 in the Falklands

www.amazon.com/Harrier-Falklands-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304355429/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197596116&sr=8-2

Posted: 12/13/2007 4:46:33 PM EDT

[#29]

I believe the Falklands was the first combat use of any Harrier.

Posted: 12/14/2007 10:32:14 AM EDT

[#30]

This is also why early Harrier pilots came from the rotary wing units; Up until the mid to late-80's ALL initial Harrier pilots went to a helo squadron to get the hang of hovering.

I was under the impression that most of the early AV8 guys were F-8 and A-4 peeps.

Posted: 12/14/2007 11:21:13 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The flight controls on the AV8A are electro-hydraulic-mechanical in that they have electro-hydraulic "power packs" connected to push rods and bell cranks.

There are also "puffer ducts" in the nose, each wing tip and tail cone for pitch, yaw and roll control in the hover. A very rudiemntary "auto-stabilization" system was employed in the A's to help the pilot control the hover, but it was still balancing a ball on a needle.

This is also why early Harrier pilots came from the rotary wing units; Up until the mid to late-80's ALL initial Harrier pilots went to a helo squadron to get the hang of hovering.

I failed to mention the puffer nozzles - in the A and earlier versions, those are all controlled through the mechanical mechanism, not sophisticated at all. We had a full size inboard drawing on the project wall here that depicted how all the controls, push rods, links, chains, and so on were connected. That was an interesting drawing. I don't have much left from that program except a book, because truth is, I despised working on that project almost every second I was there. The Harrier is the reason I got out of production and went to the advanced side of the world.

Posted: 12/15/2007 2:24:05 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

This is also why early Harrier pilots came from the rotary wing units; Up until the mid to late-80's ALL initial Harrier pilots went to a helo squadron to get the hang of hovering.

I was under the impression that most of the early AV8 guys were F-8 and A-4 peeps.

Some were, but most came from heli-flopters.

Posted: 12/15/2007 2:27:51 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The flight controls on the AV8A are electro-hydraulic-mechanical in that they have electro-hydraulic "power packs" connected to push rods and bell cranks.

There are also "puffer ducts" in the nose, each wing tip and tail cone for pitch, yaw and roll control in the hover. A very rudiemntary "auto-stabilization" system was employed in the A's to help the pilot control the hover, but it was still balancing a ball on a needle.

This is also why early Harrier pilots came from the rotary wing units; Up until the mid to late-80's ALL initial Harrier pilots went to a helo squadron to get the hang of hovering.

I failed to mention the puffer nozzles - in the A and earlier versions, those are all controlled through the mechanical mechanism, not sophisticated at all. We had a full size inboard drawing on the project wall here that depicted how all the controls, push rods, links, chains, and so on were connected. That was an interesting drawing. I don't have much left from that program except a book, because truth is, I despised working on that project almost every second I was there. The Harrier is the reason I got out of production and went to the advanced side of the world.

Us maintenance guys always said the bird was designed by a madman and built by midgets because of the tight areas we had to work in.

I've seen the drawings of the Harrier (well, not ALL of them

) and I gotta agree- they're a freakin' nightmare.

AeroE- I'm guessing you worked for McD-D (now mother Boeing)? If so, we share the same paymaster.

Posted: 12/15/2007 2:36:51 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The flight controls on the AV8A are electro-hydraulic-mechanical in that they have electro-hydraulic "power packs" connected to push rods and bell cranks.

There are also "puffer ducts" in the nose, each wing tip and tail cone for pitch, yaw and roll control in the hover. A very rudiemntary "auto-stabilization" system was employed in the A's to help the pilot control the hover, but it was still balancing a ball on a needle.

This is also why early Harrier pilots came from the rotary wing units; Up until the mid to late-80's ALL initial Harrier pilots went to a helo squadron to get the hang of hovering.

I failed to mention the puffer nozzles - in the A and earlier versions, those are all controlled through the mechanical mechanism, not sophisticated at all. We had a full size inboard drawing on the project wall here that depicted how all the controls, push rods, links, chains, and so on were connected. That was an interesting drawing. I don't have much left from that program except a book, because truth is, I despised working on that project almost every second I was there. The Harrier is the reason I got out of production and went to the advanced side of the world.

Us maintenance guys always said the bird was designed by a madman and built by midgets because of the tight areas we had to work in.

I've seen the drawings of the Harrier (well, not ALL of them

) and I gotta agree- they're a freakin' nightmare.

AeroE- I'm guessing you worked for McD-D (now mother Boeing)? If so, we share the same paymaster.

Yea, I work for the Big B. I'm working on wing ribs for the 747-8 freighter right now.

If you ever worked on a radar Harrier, that ECS bay behind the seat bulkhead could have bee worse if I hadn't intervened on some of the layout. That is one tight son of a bitch and I thought we would never figure out how to cram all that crap in there.

I wouldn't mind transferring to another site, I need a change.

Posted: 12/16/2007 2:17:06 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The flight controls on the AV8A are electro-hydraulic-mechanical in that they have electro-hydraulic "power packs" connected to push rods and bell cranks.

There are also "puffer ducts" in the nose, each wing tip and tail cone for pitch, yaw and roll control in the hover. A very rudiemntary "auto-stabilization" system was employed in the A's to help the pilot control the hover, but it was still balancing a ball on a needle.

This is also why early Harrier pilots came from the rotary wing units; Up until the mid to late-80's ALL initial Harrier pilots went to a helo squadron to get the hang of hovering.

I failed to mention the puffer nozzles - in the A and earlier versions, those are all controlled through the mechanical mechanism, not sophisticated at all. We had a full size inboard drawing on the project wall here that depicted how all the controls, push rods, links, chains, and so on were connected. That was an interesting drawing. I don't have much left from that program except a book, because truth is, I despised working on that project almost every second I was there. The Harrier is the reason I got out of production and went to the advanced side of the world.

Us maintenance guys always said the bird was designed by a madman and built by midgets because of the tight areas we had to work in.

I've seen the drawings of the Harrier (well, not ALL of them

) and I gotta agree- they're a freakin' nightmare.

AeroE- I'm guessing you worked for McD-D (now mother Boeing)? If so, we share the same paymaster.

Yea, I work for the Big B. I'm working on wing ribs for the 747-8 freighter right now.

If you ever worked on a radar Harrier, that ECS bay behind the seat bulkhead could have bee worse if I hadn't intervened on some of the layout. That is one tight son of a bitch and I thought we would never figure out how to cram all that crap in there.

I wouldn't mind transferring to another site, I need a change.

The -A Harrier was a bitch to work on. I never got the chance to swing a wrench on the -B's, but from what my cousin (who did work on them) said, the -B wasn't a piece of cake either.

AeroE- check BESS... I have it on good authority Boeing JSC needs engineers- mechanical and electrical- and Huntsville is gonna need some design guys PDQ for Constellation.

Posted: 12/18/2007 4:31:48 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Blech. I know 4 USMC fighter pilots who watched harriers become smoking holes in the ground taking the pilot with them at different times at different places. They felt bad for the guys flying them.

I know a retired USMC pilot who flew AV8A models, and has over 1000 hours in it, without a mishap. He then went on the fly the F4 and then F18. Last name is Piasecki.

He was one of the only A model pilots to get thru the program without a mishap in the beginning. They didn't call it a widow maker for nothing.

Cool concept tho.

I flew with Rich "give you a hand?" Piasecki at SWA. He has a good sense of humor too. He used to carry a rubber hand in his flight bag and would often ask if you needed a hand.

Posted: 12/18/2007 5:03:50 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Blech. I know 4 USMC fighter pilots who watched harriers become smoking holes in the ground taking the pilot with them at different times at different places. They felt bad for the guys flying them.

I know a retired USMC pilot who flew AV8A models, and has over 1000 hours in it, without a mishap. He then went on the fly the F4 and then F18. Last name is Piasecki.

He was one of the only A model pilots to get thru the program without a mishap in the beginning. They didn't call it a widow maker for nothing.

Cool concept tho.

I flew with Rich "give you a hand?" Piasecki at SWA. He has a good sense of humor too. He used to carry a rubber hand in his flight bag and would often ask if you needed a hand.

Yup, "Radar" is a crazy guy. Those USMC fighter pilots are never quite "right"

Posted: 12/21/2007 7:38:55 PM EDT

[#38]

When I was at Cherry Point in the early '80s, the CO of MAG-32 was doing push-ups (in the AV-8) on the tarmac, went inverted and punched at about 150'. A friend of mine was crash crew at the time and responded. The Colonel was still strapped in, but minus his head and legs below the knees.

Also in 80 or 81, An LT flew through a hanger at about 400 knots. The parts ended up in the parking lot and burned about eight cars up.

I used to have stacks of pictures I took of the Harriers, A-6s, EA-6Bs, C-130s doing Jato take offs and the like, but I don't know what I did with them. I'll have to look.

Posted: 12/22/2007 7:26:29 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I did not think that us private citizens could own any plane with hard points?

Later,

Badredfish

They can if the aircraft has the hardpoints removed and the aircraft modified so that they can't be refiitted. I've heard of A-3's, A-4's, an F-100, an F-104 and one or possibly two F-4 Phantoms as well as a Saab Draken in private ownership in the US. There are also several older model MiGs in private hands as well.

There are no privatly owned A-3's.
Raytheon (or L3) operates them under an agreement with the Navy and DOD.

There are a few privately owned A-4's that are flight worthy, they are used for military training and DOD programs.

There are privately owned F-100's and F-104's, they were bailed then given to TRACOR/BAE/ by the USAF. The Draken's also came from here.

When TRACOR stopped using them they sold them to private parties.

There is one flyable F-4 that was sold to a private party, it took an act of congress to get it done, that's the F-4D of the Collings Foundation.

There are two on-going efforts by at least two private parties to piece together parts of F-4's to get them in flying condition.

Paul Allen (of Microsoft) owns the largest collection of privately owned "modern" jet attack/fighter aircraft that are still in flying condition, including 2 F-8 Crusaiders.

Don't forget that there is a guy who owns a complete FA-18A fuselage that (in theory) could be made airworthy if he could get the required avionics and engines/engine management systems.

There are a few F-5's/T-38's in civilian hands too.

The Dutch were going to "give" a private company 6 of their older F-16's in exchange for the company to set up a training program in the USA for their pilots.
Both the State Department and the USAF nixed that.

The end of the DOD selling jet aircraft to civillians ended in 1972 when that fucktard crashed his F-86 into Farrell's Ice Cream at the end of the runway in Sacramento.

Posted: 12/23/2007 12:11:37 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
When I was at Cherry Point in the early '80s, the CO of MAG-32 was doing push-ups (in the AV-8) on the tarmac, went inverted and punched at about 150'. A friend of mine was crash crew at the time and responded. The Colonel was still strapped in, but minus his head and legs below the knees.

Also in 80 or 81, An LT flew through a hanger at about 400 knots. The parts ended up in the parking lot and burned about eight cars up.

I used to have stacks of pictures I took of the Harriers, A-6s, EA-6Bs, C-130s doing Jato take offs and the like, but I don't know what I did with them. I'll have to look.

You and me were there at the same time. I was about 400' away from the hangar when that dumb bastard committed suicide flying thru the H&MS-32 hangar. It was spectacular to say the least!

Posted: 12/30/2007 8:26:04 AM EDT

[#41]

well FB41 at least you can take pride in knowing the cad on the blowdown bottle was good on the landing gear mishap. hahaha I also remember 311 balling up alot of jets during thier transition. I f i recall correctly, it was 7 in 3 months. I worked up the street. We always laughed at 311. They were a bit off.

Posted: 12/30/2007 2:09:03 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
well FB41 at least you can take pride in knowing the cad on the blowdown bottle was good on the landing gear mishap. hahaha I also remember 311 balling up alot of jets during thier transition. I f i recall correctly, it was 7 in 3 months. I worked up the street. We always laughed at 311. They were a bit off.

311 was doing their transition after I left Cherry Point for the West Coast. I kept hearing about all the crack-ups thru friends.

Posted: 12/30/2007 2:18:00 PM EDT

[#43]

Although it is highly maneuverable, it is not especially suited for dog-fighting due to it's relatively slow speeds, largely due to it's intake size- as it approaches Mach, the force of the air entering the intake could potentially "blow out the fire".

The Harrier isn't supersonic in level-flight, it is in a dive & the engine stays lit.

The lack of supersonic capability and the large intake size has no bearing on it's suitability for dog-fighting. "Dogfighting" has typically been at subsonic speeds. Wing loading, thrust-weight ratio (energy mgt), endurance and available CR weapons are the key factors influencing an aircraft's suitability in WVR combat.

While the Harrier's large intake encures a large drag penalty it is offset by the excellent t/w ratio and manuverability. However, it doesn't have "long-legs" in WVR combat.

The Harrier capabilities in close combat are well established with other fighters like the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18, etc.

Posted: 12/30/2007 6:05:00 PM EDT

[#44]

If I remember the NATOPS for the AV8A correctly, it specifically said to stay away from Mach as the engine could quit.

Most any tactical jet can hit Mach in a dive... for the Harrier, Mach isn't necessary for it's mission.

When I said it wasn't particularly suited to dog-fighting, that was information from experienced Harrier pilots. As a close air support airplane, it is superlative, but it doesn't (at least the -A model) have the legs for ACM that other aircraft do.

Posted: 12/31/2007 1:13:37 AM EDT

[#45]

Posted: 12/31/2007 5:05:46 AM EDT

[#46]

Good to see you're back.

Had a few photos backed up there, I see!

Posted: 12/31/2007 5:36:02 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/harrier/harrier_05_1280.jpg

I love the design of the Vickers VC-10. Frankly I love any plane that has the engines tail mounted ala DC-9. The only thing I can really say is bad about the VC-10, is that is suffers the same problem of the Lockheed Jetstar. The need for four engines, and tail mounting the whole damn thing. If you have to change number 2 or 3, you have to drop the whole pod to get to it. Engine technology has advanced to the point where they should be able to re engine those with two engines. Granted you need 84k Lbs of thrust to match what's on there, so you're looking at getting at least into the Pratt 2000 series