Ex-GB Harriers

[muppetdave]

Just going through my feeds on Flickr and I noticed this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew_henderson/9146...

I'm not an aviation buff, so don't shoot me down but is that a UK roundel on the plane, but given the tailplane signage it's now a US plane?

[The Nur]

muppetdave said:

Just going through my feeds on Flickr and I noticed this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew_henderson/9146...

I'm not an aviation buff, so don't shoot me down but is that a UK roundel on the plane, but given the tailplane signage it's now a US plane?

We sold them most, if not all, of our Harriers a couple of months ago, IIRC.

[muppetdave]

Yeah that's what I thought, wondered why if that had transferred it still had a UK roundel on it.

[Simpo Two]

So we pay the fine if it goes through a speed camera... not daft those Merkans.

[muppetdave]

doogz said:

I thought they were all being stripped for parts.

Perhaps not!

I'm sure the last comment I read on here was that the Americans found them to be in better condition than their own and kept out flying and thus broke their own?

[maffski]

It's a privately owned Sea Harrier, owned by Art Nalls.

Looks to be at the Atlantic City Airshow from a few days go, http://youtu.be/BIbntUNJ1cQ

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

If you actually look at the photo' you will notice that the a/c is a Sea Harrier FRS2.

The airframes we disposed of to the Spams were GR9s (Sea Harrier was binned a long time ago).

The aircraft in question belongs to, and is displayed by, Art Nalls an ex- US Marine.

The logo on the tail is down to the fact that the a/c is displaying at Atlantic City (where most of the serving Military a/c have cancelled owing to budgetary restraints) and is also a nod to the fact that Atlantic City took such a big hit in last year's Hurricane Sandy.




Edit: Beaten by 6 minutes

[muppetdave]

Ah ok, cheers

[insurance_jon]

and he has a petition runing to see if he can get permission to fly it over here

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/civil-aviati...

[HoHoHo]

insurance_jon said:

and he has a petition runing to see if he can get permission to fly it over here

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/civil-aviati...

Signed

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

insurance_jon said:

and he has a petition runing to see if he can get permission to fly it over here

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/civil-aviati...

Not a chance, sadly. The Campaign for the Abolition of Aviation will never allow it.

[fatboy69]

Forgive my stupidity in this one but why do the CAA say that flying the Harrier is dangerous?

Assuming that the preparation etc is up to scratch why is it dangerous? Surely no more dangerous than flying XH558 or any other old aircraft.

Or no more dangerous than flying a Cirrus!!!

Pathetic. It's part of our aviation heritage yet faceless cretins have deemed it dangerous. Grrrrrrrr.

Edited by fatboy69 on Friday 28th June 19:17

[tdm34]

fatboy69 said:

Forgive my stupidity in this one but why do the CAA say that flying the Harrier is dangerous?

Assuming that the preparation etc is up to scratch why is it dangerous? Surely no more dangerous than flying XH558 or any other old aircraft.

Or no more dangerous than flying a Cirrus!!!

Pathetic. It's part of our aviation heritage yet faceless cretins have deemed it dangerous. Grrrrrrrr. Tossers.

Yup! welcome to the crazy alternate world of the CAA!!!

[Seight_Returns]

fatboy69 said:

Forgive my stupidity in this one but why do the CAA say that flying the Harrier is dangerous?
Pathetic. It's part of our aviation heritage yet faceless cretins have deemed it dangerous. Grrrrrrrr. Tossers.

To be fair - the record of Harriers lost in crashes makes pretty painful reading. Even when operated and maintained by professionals on a virtually money no object basis there were numerous incidents where aircraft were lost and the cause attributed either to issues with the exceptionally complex control system and/or the excessive demands the aircraft made upon its pilot. Particularly so with the pre Harrier II generation of which Nalls's FA2 is an example.

Read the history of Art Nalls and his aircraft - he's had one very near miss which if it weren't for his background as a USMC Test Pilot would have been a fatal accident.

XH558 is the only complex ex-military aircraft on the UK Civil Register - and that's only allowed because of the professionalism of VTTS and the design authority support the aircraft has.

The "Tossers" do sort of have a point. People called them names because they wouldn't allow any Lightnings to be operated on the UK Civil register and pointed to the Thunder City operation as an example of how a civil organisation could operate Lightnings perfectly safely - and look what happened there .............

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Part of the problem with displaying a Harrier on the Civil register (aside from the fact there is no Design Authority support) is that the control systems are simplex not duplex.

[fatboy69]

Seight_Returns said:

fatboy69 said:

Forgive my stupidity in this one but why do the CAA say that flying the Harrier is dangerous?
Pathetic. It's part of our aviation heritage yet faceless cretins have deemed it dangerous. Grrrrrrrr. Tossers.

To be fair - the record of Harriers lost in crashes makes pretty painful reading. Even when operated and maintained by professionals on a virtually money no object basis there were numerous incidents where aircraft were lost and the cause attributed either to issues with the exceptionally complex control system and/or the excessive demands the aircraft made upon its pilot. Particularly so with the pre Harrier II generation of which Nalls's FA2 is an example.

Read the history of Art Nalls and his aircraft - he's had one very near miss which if it weren't for his background as a USMC Test Pilot would have been a fatal accident.

XH558 is the only complex ex-military aircraft on the UK Civil Register - and that's only allowed because of the professionalism of VTTS and the design authority support the aircraft has.

The "Tossers" do sort of have a point. People called them names because they wouldn't allow any Lightnings to be operated on the UK Civil register and pointed to the Thunder City operation as an example of how a civil organisation could operate Lightnings perfectly safely - and look what happened there .............

Surely the same can be said for all 'old' aircraft. They all have a history of losses - even the Vulcan was not exempt from major accidents.

I have never heard of Art Nalls so i dont know his history however i will divert to our friend Mr Google to read up on him.

Also i have followed VTTS for many years so i know just how they work - extremely well with no cost cutting or short cuts etc etc & with superb technical & hands on knowledge to fall back on when needed.

Who is to say that Mr Nalls would not run his Harrier the same way?

I also followed, with interest, Thunder City & at first thought 'what a great thing to do'. Until the problems started.....

Having read my original reply i think that the use of the word tossers is uncalled for so i have deleted the word. Not necessary & of no real value to the thread.

I still think that the sight of a Harrier in the UK skies would be superb as we seem happy to let our heritage become nothing more than a memory to be re-visited via YouTube!!!!

[Mojocvh]

I have never heard of Art Nalls so i dont know his history however i will divert to our friend Mr Google to read up on him.


Who is to say that Mr Nalls would not run his Harrier the same way?

I think your google search may be enlightening.

He has done a fantastic job, no doubt of that, but some areas have been taken "out of design".

That, I believe, may be the stumbling block.

[Mojocvh]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Part of the problem with displaying a Harrier on the Civil register (aside from the fact there is no Design Authority support) is that the control systems are simplex not duplex.

Yep. One uppy-downy wire from bottom of stick following a torturous route to the uppy-downy hydraulic thingy at the back.

I know this as I have added a large amount of wiring all around the zones/areas the uppy-downy wire runs through.

Not sure of lefty-righty as the 'plane was in dispersed bits [lots of] at the time.

[fatboy69]

Fair enough if corners are being cut or changes to the original design have been made.

Surely far better to leave the aircraft in its original format rather than tinker with it. That said though i would still love to see a Harrier in flight again.

[perdu]

I accede to GG15G and Mojo's abilities in these matters of course.

I still signed the petition, more in hope of a lightening of attitude for future potential projects...

Where are the cut-off points for such as JPs and Hunters with regards to control systems complexity, I wonder.?

Could ex RAF L1011 Tristar or even VC10s get limited display permits?

I do not expect Art to get the permit to fly her here, ever.