RE: Harrier GR3: You Know You Want To
Discussion
HoHoHo said:
llamafarmer said:
Oh, and they lied about it seeing missions in Falklands:
BAe Harrier GR.3 XZ132
29.03.82 - A of 233 OCU Wittering, transferred to 1(F) Sqn during April.
Allocated fin code - Red 36. Outrigger codes - Yellow 36. ALE-40 chaff dispensers fitted.
04.05.82 - flown from Wittering to St Mawgan, from there on 05.05.82 to Banjul and on to Wideawake, Ascension on 06.05.82. Suffered from incurable fuel leaks; returned to Wittering, date unknown.
Source: http://archive.is/vEKoS#selection-1717.0-1769.72
How on earth can a jet suffer from 'incurable fuel leaks'?BAe Harrier GR.3 XZ132
29.03.82 - A of 233 OCU Wittering, transferred to 1(F) Sqn during April.
Allocated fin code - Red 36. Outrigger codes - Yellow 36. ALE-40 chaff dispensers fitted.
04.05.82 - flown from Wittering to St Mawgan, from there on 05.05.82 to Banjul and on to Wideawake, Ascension on 06.05.82. Suffered from incurable fuel leaks; returned to Wittering, date unknown.
Source: http://archive.is/vEKoS#selection-1717.0-1769.72
Presumably there's a finite number of pipes and bolts that are either loose or need a tighten up?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sea-Harrier-Over-The-Falkl...
Godalmighty83 said:
A customer of ours flew a harrier in the late 80's he said once moving they were fantastic craft, almost fantastic enough to make you forget the pant wetting terror on either end of the journey.
'Have you ever gone to use your wipers and hit the indicator stalk by mistake? It's like that but you're upside down and dead before the little green light gets a chance to come on the dash'
That would seem to agree with what was in:'Have you ever gone to use your wipers and hit the indicator stalk by mistake? It's like that but you're upside down and dead before the little green light gets a chance to come on the dash'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sea-Harrier-Over-The-Falkl...
JordanTurbo said:
dukebox9reg said:
Worked on Apache helicopters for 12 years so not quite fast jet but still gas turbine engines etc......
......A blade sleeve (the bit that holds the rotor to the rotor head on the Apache) costs £24k......
Which Blade Sleeve on the Apache are you referring to? Maybe you mean the Pitch housing or Lead-lag-link sleeve bearing?......A blade sleeve (the bit that holds the rotor to the rotor head on the Apache) costs £24k......
definitely no Blade sleeves here. On a Lynx however....
Your right about the price of spares though. Just today I opened a packet of 10 tie-wraps and the FACCO label said £83.06. 6 of the 10 tie wraps are now helping to hold my bunk together in the block.
Edited by JordanTurbo on Thursday 27th March 18:13
I probably heard and saw this very aircraft when I was a kid and lived near RAF Wittering.
Having said that, I have my lotto shed in my head and I would give it room - after the Sea Harrier FRS1 that I will buy - maybe even an FA2.
I bought a new house a few years ago and a RN aviator mate of mine came to visit. His first thought on seeing the modestly sized garden was "You could keep a Lynx down by your shed."
I like his thinking but fear my aspiration to hoard old bits of UK military surplus will have to wait until my numbers come good.
Having said that, I have my lotto shed in my head and I would give it room - after the Sea Harrier FRS1 that I will buy - maybe even an FA2.
I bought a new house a few years ago and a RN aviator mate of mine came to visit. His first thought on seeing the modestly sized garden was "You could keep a Lynx down by your shed."
I like his thinking but fear my aspiration to hoard old bits of UK military surplus will have to wait until my numbers come good.
Eric Mc said:
Potential spotted by US Marine Corps (not the RAF or the Royal Navy)
Testing part funded by the US (through the MDAP programme following representations by the US Marines)
EVENTUALLY, the British military decided that such an aeroplane had its uses and the Harrier proper came into being.
That’s being a tad economical with the facts, saying the RAF or RN weren’t interested seeing as the concept started out from an original RAF Air Staff Requirement for a V/STOL aircraft.Testing part funded by the US (through the MDAP programme following representations by the US Marines)
EVENTUALLY, the British military decided that such an aeroplane had its uses and the Harrier proper came into being.
In fact the original development funding was Tri-National, as well as the US, West Germany was involved as well. The 2nd highest scoring pilot ever (Gerhard Barkhorn) in fact ‘flew’ a tethered Kestral very early on in the Tripartite test squardron, and dropped it rather heavily onto the deck, and was heard to mumble under his breath upon clambering out of the worse for wear Kestral, “Dreihundret und zwei”
The reason the RAF and RN didn’t come ‘on board’ until later so to speak, was that they were both more interested in the P.1154 supersonic version as the aircraft that met their V/STOL needs, but after the Govt. cancelled that project, they were left with no option but to fall back instead on the production version of the Kestral which became the Harrier.
eccles said:
JordanTurbo said:
dukebox9reg said:
Worked on Apache helicopters for 12 years so not quite fast jet but still gas turbine engines etc......
......A blade sleeve (the bit that holds the rotor to the rotor head on the Apache) costs £24k......
Which Blade Sleeve on the Apache are you referring to? Maybe you mean the Pitch housing or Lead-lag-link sleeve bearing?......A blade sleeve (the bit that holds the rotor to the rotor head on the Apache) costs £24k......
definitely no Blade sleeves here. On a Lynx however....
Your right about the price of spares though. Just today I opened a packet of 10 tie-wraps and the FACCO label said £83.06. 6 of the 10 tie wraps are now helping to hold my bunk together in the block.
)And you'll probably find DofQ on tie-wraps depends on the size; Big "bed repair size" coming in 10's.
On the subject of DofQ though. ASG (spares guys) out here currently have a bad habit of only giving us full bags of small items (E.g. 100 screws even if we only order 4) Because "that's the size they come in" and not allowing us to give unused ones back. It's all very well but a few times now we've had A/C on the deck awaiting out of stock spares when we know full well we had to chuck 96 of said screw away last week! If you ever wonder where the MOD budget goes it's on stupid ideas/rules like that! Rant over.
JordanTurbo said:
I've personally been in since 2005 and on Apache since early 2008 and Duke box had already been at the unit a while when I got there, although I think he's exaggerating as you say (maybe including your Lynx/Gazelle time bud? )
And you'll probably find DofQ on tie-wraps depends on the size; Big "bed repair size" coming in 10's.
On the subject of DofQ though. ASG (spares guys) out here currently have a bad habit of only giving us full bags of small items (E.g. 100 screws even if we only order 4) Because "that's the size they come in" and not allowing us to give unused ones back. It's all very well but a few times now we've had A/C on the deck awaiting out of stock spares when we know full well we had to chuck 96 of said screw away last week! If you ever wonder where the MOD budget goes it's on stupid ideas/rules like that! Rant over.
You may find that items that a have D of Q of HD/LB come in such quantities because bulk buying them is far cheaper than you think, also maintenance should have bench stock/kanban for said items. )And you'll probably find DofQ on tie-wraps depends on the size; Big "bed repair size" coming in 10's.
On the subject of DofQ though. ASG (spares guys) out here currently have a bad habit of only giving us full bags of small items (E.g. 100 screws even if we only order 4) Because "that's the size they come in" and not allowing us to give unused ones back. It's all very well but a few times now we've had A/C on the deck awaiting out of stock spares when we know full well we had to chuck 96 of said screw away last week! If you ever wonder where the MOD budget goes it's on stupid ideas/rules like that! Rant over.
Edited by KieronGSi on Saturday 29th March 18:56
KieronGSi said:
JordanTurbo said:
I've personally been in since 2005 and on Apache since early 2008 and Duke box had already been at the unit a while when I got there, although I think he's exaggerating as you say (maybe including your Lynx/Gazelle time bud? )
And you'll probably find DofQ on tie-wraps depends on the size; Big "bed repair size" coming in 10's.
On the subject of DofQ though. ASG (spares guys) out here currently have a bad habit of only giving us full bags of small items (E.g. 100 screws even if we only order 4) Because "that's the size they come in" and not allowing us to give unused ones back. It's all very well but a few times now we've had A/C on the deck awaiting out of stock spares when we know full well we had to chuck 96 of said screw away last week! If you ever wonder where the MOD budget goes it's on stupid ideas/rules like that! Rant over.
You may find that items that a have D of Q of HD/LB come in such quantities because bulk buying them is far cheaper than you think, also maintenance should have bench stock/kanban for said items. )And you'll probably find DofQ on tie-wraps depends on the size; Big "bed repair size" coming in 10's.
On the subject of DofQ though. ASG (spares guys) out here currently have a bad habit of only giving us full bags of small items (E.g. 100 screws even if we only order 4) Because "that's the size they come in" and not allowing us to give unused ones back. It's all very well but a few times now we've had A/C on the deck awaiting out of stock spares when we know full well we had to chuck 96 of said screw away last week! If you ever wonder where the MOD budget goes it's on stupid ideas/rules like that! Rant over.
Edited by KieronGSi on Saturday 29th March 18:56
There's no consistency to D of Q's though, I regularly order rivets and most of them come in pounds, then you get one particular size come in each.... but stores don't tell you till just one turns up!
aeropilot said:
That’s being a tad economical with the facts, saying the RAF or RN weren’t interested seeing as the concept started out from an original RAF Air Staff Requirement for a V/STOL aircraft.
In fact the original development funding was Tri-National, as well as the US, West Germany was involved as well. The 2nd highest scoring pilot ever (Gerhard Barkhorn) in fact ‘flew’ a tethered Kestral very early on in the Tripartite test squardron, and dropped it rather heavily onto the deck, and was heard to mumble under his breath upon clambering out of the worse for wear Kestral, “Dreihundret und zwei”
The reason the RAF and RN didn’t come ‘on board’ until later so to speak, was that they were both more interested in the P.1154 supersonic version as the aircraft that met their V/STOL needs, but after the Govt. cancelled that project, they were left with no option but to fall back instead on the production version of the Kestral which became the Harrier.
The story of the Harrier is quite complex and very political. In fact the original development funding was Tri-National, as well as the US, West Germany was involved as well. The 2nd highest scoring pilot ever (Gerhard Barkhorn) in fact ‘flew’ a tethered Kestral very early on in the Tripartite test squardron, and dropped it rather heavily onto the deck, and was heard to mumble under his breath upon clambering out of the worse for wear Kestral, “Dreihundret und zwei”
The reason the RAF and RN didn’t come ‘on board’ until later so to speak, was that they were both more interested in the P.1154 supersonic version as the aircraft that met their V/STOL needs, but after the Govt. cancelled that project, they were left with no option but to fall back instead on the production version of the Kestral which became the Harrier.
It is true that initial interest from the RN and the RAF for a militarised derivative of the P1127 was luke warm because of the more capable supersonic P1154.
However, within both services there was also serious opposition to the P1154 too. The RN particularly didn't like it as, in the mid 1960s, they were more interested in acquiring two nuclear powered "full size" aircraft carriers and were worried that an aircraft like the P1154 would torpedo (metaphorically speaking, of course) any chance of that type of ship.
The RAF were also dubious about the full benefits of the P1154 as they could only see the capability and mission restrictions that V/STOL placed on an aircraft compared to a conventional aircraft.
It was only when the P1154 was cancelled that the RAF started to put their weight behind what became the Harrier and the RN only started looking at a navalised Harrier when it was announced that the next generation of "carriers" were to be short deck "Through Deck Cruisers".
There were also technical reasons why the P1154 was cancelled. Because of the swivelling nozzles needed for vectored thrust, conventional afterburners could not be used. Instead, a system known as "plenum chamber burning" was devised. In the end, the costs involved in developing this technology were deemed too excessive.
Has anybody ever designed a successful plenum chamber burning jet engine in the intervening 50 years?
Eric Mc said:
aeropilot said:
That’s being a tad economical with the facts, saying the RAF or RN weren’t interested seeing as the concept started out from an original RAF Air Staff Requirement for a V/STOL aircraft.
In fact the original development funding was Tri-National, as well as the US, West Germany was involved as well. The 2nd highest scoring pilot ever (Gerhard Barkhorn) in fact ‘flew’ a tethered Kestral very early on in the Tripartite test squardron, and dropped it rather heavily onto the deck, and was heard to mumble under his breath upon clambering out of the worse for wear Kestral, “Dreihundret und zwei”
The reason the RAF and RN didn’t come ‘on board’ until later so to speak, was that they were both more interested in the P.1154 supersonic version as the aircraft that met their V/STOL needs, but after the Govt. cancelled that project, they were left with no option but to fall back instead on the production version of the Kestral which became the Harrier.
The story of the Harrier is quite complex and very political. In fact the original development funding was Tri-National, as well as the US, West Germany was involved as well. The 2nd highest scoring pilot ever (Gerhard Barkhorn) in fact ‘flew’ a tethered Kestral very early on in the Tripartite test squardron, and dropped it rather heavily onto the deck, and was heard to mumble under his breath upon clambering out of the worse for wear Kestral, “Dreihundret und zwei”
The reason the RAF and RN didn’t come ‘on board’ until later so to speak, was that they were both more interested in the P.1154 supersonic version as the aircraft that met their V/STOL needs, but after the Govt. cancelled that project, they were left with no option but to fall back instead on the production version of the Kestral which became the Harrier.
It is true that initial interest from the RN and the RAF for a militarised derivative of the P1127 was luke warm because of the more capable supersonic P1154.
However, within both services there was also serious opposition to the P1154 too. The RN particularly didn't like it as, in the mid 1960s, they were more interested in acquiring two nuclear powered "full size" aircraft carriers and were worried that an aircraft like the P1154 would torpedo (metaphorically speaking, of course) any chance of that type of ship.
The RAF were also dubious about the full benefits of the P1154 as they could only see the capability and mission restrictions that V/STOL placed on an aircraft compared to a conventional aircraft.
It was only when the P1154 was cancelled that the RAF started to put their weight behind what became the Harrier and the RN only started looking at a navalised Harrier when it was announced that the next generation of "carriers" were to be short deck "Through Deck Cruisers".
Anyway, in many ways it would have been so much better had the Kestrel 'failed' and no one bought it, as we now wouldn't have the fiasco of the F-35B again largely owing to the USMC 'mafia'....
KieronGSi said:
You may find that items that a have D of Q of HD/LB come in such quantities because bulk buying them is far cheaper than you think, also maintenance should have bench stock/kanban for said items.
We used to have an extensive line side kanban especially out here but everything has been back loaded and centralised recently for the exact reason Eccles stated. Better spares visibility and less cost/wastage.It's just annoying when the serviceability state of aircraft is affected because of these cost savings. Guys need top cover out on the ground and we have aircraft sat on the deck waiting on nuts/bolts to come from the UK that used to be stock items on previous tours.
Just because the DofQ is 100 doesn't mean we have to be given 100 every time we order some, especialy when it's one of the few items that is still localy stocked. There is no reason why once the bag gets to ASG the DofQ cant be adjusted to EA for our use.
JordanTurbo said:
We used to have an extensive line side kanban especially out here but everything has been back loaded and centralised recently for the exact reason Eccles stated. Better spares visibility and less cost/wastage.
It's just annoying when the serviceability state of aircraft is affected because of these cost savings. Guys need top cover out on the ground and we have aircraft sat on the deck waiting on nuts/bolts to come from the UK that used to be stock items on previous tours.
Just because the DofQ is 100 doesn't mean we have to be given 100 every time we order some, especialy when it's one of the few items that is still localy stocked. There is no reason why once the bag gets to ASG the DofQ cant be adjusted to EA for our use.
I should say i meant a bench stock of purely HD items, i.e. the ones you just said you would throw away. There is a multitude of reasons why splitting DofQs is just a bad idea but this thread is not the place to go into it. If you wish to discuss further PM me. It's just annoying when the serviceability state of aircraft is affected because of these cost savings. Guys need top cover out on the ground and we have aircraft sat on the deck waiting on nuts/bolts to come from the UK that used to be stock items on previous tours.
Just because the DofQ is 100 doesn't mean we have to be given 100 every time we order some, especialy when it's one of the few items that is still localy stocked. There is no reason why once the bag gets to ASG the DofQ cant be adjusted to EA for our use.
Eric Mc said:
Jargon Alert.
Do you guys do this to try to impress?
No, Eric, it's never really done to impress. It's just that we're taught the system of jargon/acronyms/abbreviation from the very start of our time in uniform, and continue to use it without thinking, even when we're on forums with a largely civilian membership. Every single item of military equipment which comes through the supply system has it's own NATO Stock Number (NSN). I don't know where they are now, probably Andover, but there was a whole section in the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (DSDA) whose sole responsibility was the creation of NSNs. Each NSN is a unique 13 digit number which, aside from identifying an individual part, can tell you what department first used it, and what vehicle/system it supports, as well as it's country of origin.Do you guys do this to try to impress?
The D of Q thing has been explained well already. The worst mistake I ever saw made when it came to getting the quantities wrong on an order was black bin bags.
D of Q was HD - they came in boxes of 100. Stores chimp was given a request for 1000 bags, for an upcoming 'litter sweep' of the training areas. The order was placed for 1000 x HD. What arrived was 1000 boxes, containing 100,000 black bags. Mistakes like that aren't supposed to happen, as further up the stores chain there are quantity limits above which a demand should automatically be 'flagged' and generate an "are you sure" type signal or email.
My biggest mistake wasn't my fault. I was trying to order spares for a new to service vehicle, and the process of creating full NSNs for all the bits hadn't been completed. Some of the ones that had been published were incorrect. My boss got a "snottogram" from some Squadron Leader in the RAF supply chain demanding to know why I (Army - Royal Engineers) was trying to order half a dozen fan blades for a Rolls Royce Pegasus engine. A printing error in the first four digits of the NSN had created a duplicate number which matched the Harrier engine spares. The potential cost if that particular mistake hadn't been noticed was eye watering, to say the least
Edited by yellowjack on Monday 31st March 22:36
KieronGSi said:
I should say I meant a bench stock of purely HD items, i.e. the ones you just said you would throw away. There is a multitude of reasons why splitting DofQs is just a bad idea but this thread is not the place to go into it. If you wish to discuss further PM me.
I know what you meant. Our line side stock was mostly that but with a few EA items that got used very often. you need somthing you take one and when a slot gets low you demand a new Bag, all managed by ourselfs, simples....When everything was centralised the stock was not dispanded, It was simplay moved up to the ASG (aviation support group) hangar and is now managed by them. The problem is now they refuse to let us take one at a time the draws have gone from a slot of 300 screws that last ages and only need refilling occasionally, to containing 3 bags which run out after 3 orders.
yellowjack said:
My biggest mistake wasn't my fault. I was trying to order spares for a new to service vehicle, and the process of creating full NSNs for all the bits hadn't been completed. Some of the ones that had been published were incorrect. My boss got a "snottogram" from some Squadron Leader in the RAF supply chain demanding to know why I (Army - Royal Engineers) was trying to order half a dozen fan blades for a Rolls Royce Pegasus engine. A printing error in the first four digits of the NSN had created a duplicate number which matched the Harrier engine spares. The potential cost if that particular mistake hadn't been noticed was eye watering, to say the least
Best one of those was a friend of mine back in the UK, he was tasked with making up some new extention leads to go with our exercise (out in the woods, not in the gym) equipment, Which meant he needed to order some household 3 core flex. He went through the QM's lists and found the NSN for "3 core cable" saw it came in rolls and demanded 4..........3 weeks later theres now a quite irrate sergeant major on the phone demanding to know why there were 2 lorrys at the front gate carrying 4 huge roles of industrial cable (The kind on big wooden cotten reel things) with CFN So-and-so's name on them.
We didn't get the snottogram after the order because there was building works over the back of the airfield. These rolls had been orderd in the past and so to the supply chain it didn't look out of the ordinary.
Edited by JordanTurbo on Tuesday 1st April 06:26
It is only fair to other posters not to indulge in jargon. Ex-service types are dreadful for descending into acronym speak and they might as well be writing in code as far as the rest of us are concerned.
I am an accountant and it would be very easy for me to talk about accountancy and tax matters in a similar way. But I also have to communicate these issues with non-technical clients and therefore keep the jargon to a minimum. I also make a conscious effort NOT to use "in-house" terminology when speaking in a general forum on such matters - so that others can know what I am talking about.
I am an accountant and it would be very easy for me to talk about accountancy and tax matters in a similar way. But I also have to communicate these issues with non-technical clients and therefore keep the jargon to a minimum. I also make a conscious effort NOT to use "in-house" terminology when speaking in a general forum on such matters - so that others can know what I am talking about.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff