Harrier flying again in the UK
Discussion
Article here about it:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviatio...
TBH it does sound a bit more challenging than a conventional aircraft.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviatio...
TBH it does sound a bit more challenging than a conventional aircraft.
The CAA mafia are very much against anything ex-military especially when that ex-military aircraft is a single engine jet fighter. Of course being one of the most famous aircraft in the world should mean something, in this case it means the CAA will ban it harder.. why? Because they are kind of Richards that way.
Eric Mc said:
The Harrier and always was a very, very tricky aeroplane to fly.
Maintenance is naturally critical with the mixture of engine, overhead fuel [incl l/r collector tanks] and hot bleed air [aka Afgan Nimrod] along-with the simplex flight control wires and their routing past the engine [in the case of the uppy/downy one]. Eric Mc said:
The Harrier and always was a very, very tricky aeroplane to fly.
Sound like the man for the job though......Nalls Aviation said:
While on a training mission attached to VMA-231, Art's "Harrier" suffered a catastrophic engine failure near Richmond, Virginia. With little time to react, he essentially landed the Harrier engine-out at a civilian airfield. This was an extremely precise and risky landing, not normally attempted. The emergency procedures recommend an ejection. Art is the only person to have made such a landing and he was consequently awarded an Air Medal, with gold numeral one for the act. With over 900 hours in the AV-8A and over 400 shipboard landings, Art was selected as the single Marine Corps Pilot to attend the USAF Test Pilot School at Edwards, AFB, CA for Test Pilot Course, 85A. One Marine, per year, is sent to Edwards, and for 1985, it was Art.
After graduation and as a newly-designated Test Pilot, Art was assigned to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, to join three other Marine Corps test pilots flight testing the then-new AV-8B "Harrier II." As part of a very small test team, he performed lots of test flying, in the "Harrier" and the A4-M "Skyhawk."
After graduation and as a newly-designated Test Pilot, Art was assigned to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, to join three other Marine Corps test pilots flight testing the then-new AV-8B "Harrier II." As part of a very small test team, he performed lots of test flying, in the "Harrier" and the A4-M "Skyhawk."
Mojocvh said:
Eric Mc said:
The Harrier and always was a very, very tricky aeroplane to fly.
Maintenance is naturally critical with the mixture of engine, overhead fuel [incl l/r collector tanks] and hot bleed air [aka Afgan Nimrod] along-with the simplex flight control wires and their routing past the engine [in the case of the uppy/downy one]. Either way, based on fatalities nowhere near as tricky as the Star Fighter AKA 'The Widow Maker'!
Godalmighty83 said:
The CAA mafia are very much against anything ex-military especially when that ex-military aircraft is a single engine jet fighter. Of course being one of the most famous aircraft in the world should mean something, in this case it means the CAA will ban it harder.. why? Because they are kind of Richards that way.
They've been OK with Hunters (and helpful with the Vulcan.) I think it's just that aircraft over a certain level of complexity need manufacturer support to keep the CAA happy.Mind you, there was a civilian Harrier operating in the UK in the 1980s, but that was something of a special case.
HoHoHo said:
Whilst tricky I thought as they progressed through the marques they became easier and whilst difficult not 'as' difficult. Either way, based on fatalities nowhere near as tricky as the Star Fighter AKA 'The Widow Maker'!
Presumably if they were still developing it, it would have an idiot-proof fly-by-wire system now to iron out all the little jiggles.Dr Jekyll said:
They've been OK with Hunters (and helpful with the Vulcan.) I think it's just that aircraft over a certain level of complexity need manufacturer support to keep the CAA happy.
Mind you, there was a civilian Harrier operating in the UK in the 1980s, but that was something of a special case.
Martin Baker??Mind you, there was a civilian Harrier operating in the UK in the 1980s, but that was something of a special case.
heightswitch said:
Martin Baker??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXE4yBXjCpQThis one used to create a hands off landing system for the harrier and used alot in development of the F-35B. Owned and run by QinetiQ, as evidenced here http://www.qinetiq.com/news/pressreleases/Pages/qi...
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Technically the VAAC Harrier operated by QinetiQ was not a civilian a/c since it retained its Military serial of XW175.
Correct, it was packed with avionics, but the airframe and engine were essentialy non tech. A lot of the funding came from over the pond for the trials. It was still in use when I finished at Boscombe about 4 years ago.Dr Jekyll said:
They've been OK with Hunters (and helpful with the Vulcan.) I think it's just that aircraft over a certain level of complexity need manufacturer support to keep the CAA happy.
Mind you, there was a civilian Harrier operating in the UK in the 1980s, but that was something of a special case.
Seen the Hunter a few times over the year, albeit over water down to effectively 10 feet, superb sight at 500+mph. Boy does it use fuel doing that though!Mind you, there was a civilian Harrier operating in the UK in the 1980s, but that was something of a special case.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff