Did the Russians invent Vertical take off before our harrier ???

Re the Yak-38 – I think if you study the flight hours per fatality, it was actually safer than the Harrier.

That may be so; I don’t have any figures to compare the two types but there is definitely something ‘odd’ about the figures that you quoted:

Number of aircraft in squadron service/No of accidents/Total hull losses/Fatals

Harrier 241/83/57/52
Yak-38 115/16+2 (in 1981)/12+2(1981)4+1

To tidy those up a bit they seem to be saying that up to 1981 at least:

Aircraft in Service/Accidents/Total hull losses/Fatals

Harrier 241/83/57/52
Yak-38 115/18/14/5

What seems strange to me is the number of fatalities compared to the number of ‘total hull losses’ for the Harrier and the stark difference between that figure and the ones quoted for the Yak-38. It seems certain to me that at least one type is being presented here as a ‘death-trap’!

I’m not saying that the Harrier wouldn’t have suffered a relatively high number of losses against total flight hours; by design the Harrier was a short-range battlefield-support aircraft, so there would have been a lot of low-level and a high number of relatively risky VSTOL take-off/landings per flight-hour but some actual loss statistics for RAF aircraft present a far different picture of fatalities against losses.

The figures I have immediately to hand are for Harrier GR1/GR3/T2/T4 lost between 1969 and 1991 and total some 55 aircraft that could be regarded as ‘total losses’ resulting in 17 aircrew fatalities (the figure may be one or two higher). Nowhere near the 90% fatality-rate your figures would suggest.

Some of the other statistics are interesting.

Nine Harriers were lost in mid-air collisions, eight of them in collisions between two Harriers, and these resulted in seven fatalities (two in one Harrier T4).

The other high cause of fatalities seems to be ‘controlled flight into terrain’ with at least seven pilots killed due to this cause.

Nine Harriers were lost due to ‘birdstrikes’ but in each of these cases the aircraft was abandoned and the pilot survived. I’ve heard it said that the Harrier was particularly vulnerable to this danger because of the turbofan engine layout.

Nine Harriers were lost due to ‘engine failure’ (some of which may have been undetected birdstrikes) but apparently there were no fatalities (eight ejections) from this cause.

There were about 35 successful ejections from these 55 losses and that figure alone presents a very different picture from the figures that you quoted.

Freestyle was the world’s first supersonic V/STOL jump jet prior to the advent of the F-35B Lightning II.

I think the French – with the Mirage IIIV – would not agree with that …:eek:

Re the Yak-38 – I think if you study the flight hours per fatality, it was actually safer than the Harrier.

Ken

No they didn’t, but they did produce the following V/STOL jets:

Yak-38 Forger

Yak-141 Freestyle

The Yakovlev Yak-141 Freestyle was the world’s first supersonic V/STOL jump jet prior to the advent of the F-35B Lightning II.

Not wishing to put the Yak 36/38 down at all as I always considered it a good aircraft but (and don’t take this as the truth) I have heard that if it went wrong in flight it used to dump itself into the ground before eicting the poor old pilot which could accoount for at least some of the fatalities, I can’t remeber where I got the information from and I have no idea whether it was true. They can’t have been that bad or the Russians would not have continued with the R & D to get to the Yak 141 as they are not ones to persevere with something that is going to be a loser.

lost in English translation old boy!! Someone said that they ‘copied anything’….i.e. in terms of anything and everything….implied everything! A bit like ‘he shot anything that moved’! I am fully aware that they copied somethings!

If you say so.

I recall watching from a Nimrod over the Med , Yaks doing landings on a Kiev class carrier and being very impressed. Sadly my pics are way fuzzy due to being shot from a tiny window, the crew grabbed all the best locations and collected some impressive int pics of the operations while we flew orbits. We caught them unawares by making a low level approach to their location with no radar in use.

that would make a few comrades jumpski XD

Like the Nene.

John

Sure? Tu-4 ‘Bull’

lost in English translation old boy!! Someone said that they ‘copied anything’….i.e. in terms of anything and everything….implied everything! A bit like ‘he shot anything that moved’! I am fully aware that they copied somethings!

It is unfair to say they copied anything….

Sure? Tu-4 ‘Bull’

I recall watching from a Nimrod over the Med , Yaks doing landings on a Kiev class carrier and being very impressed. Sadly my pics are way fuzzy due to being shot from a tiny window, the crew grabbed all the best locations and collected some impressive int pics of the operations while we flew orbits. We caught them unawares by making a low level approach to their location with no radar in use.

Ironically, that was one of the reasons we dumped the Sea Harrier.

Well that was one of the excuses as to why we dropped the Sea Harrier! :diablo:

I remember reading years ago something about the Yak-38 having an ‘automated’ system for vertical landings, the evidence being that the landings that had been observed by NATO were ‘too precise’ for a human pilot.

Anybody know if this was true?

Then let’s not forget the trial in Afghanistan – couldn’t do hot ‘n’ high or take -off with a usable weapons load,

Ironically, that was one of the reasons we dumped the Sea Harrier.

NATO always under-rated the Yak-38. Remember ‘it could only do VTOL on Carriers’ then a squadron of them appeared on one of the Kiev class doing STOVL.

Regarding the fatalities tables, and the dates in question, you have to consider the USMC losses as well – and the environment that the RAF and USMC operated the aircraft. The Forgers were not used low level over central Europe!

Whats interesting about this is that their aircraft had two vertical engines behind the cockpit which were deployed in the vertical mode, which seems wasteful and clumsy compared to the harrier. The new JFS [ I think this its name] aircraft proposed also has this arrangment, the difference is the modern jets weigh a lot less so there is no weight penalty.

Graham

Hi Graham
JSF has only 1 engine,but drives a (fwd) lift fan through a shaft and gearbox,personally I would not like to hover with that configuration.
Its probably a case of ‘when’ not ‘if’ you may have a shaft/gearbox problem.

rgds baz

Hi All,

Ive just seen this Video of a russain major airshow in 1967 !!, and they have a aircraft that is vertically taking off, I must say i was VERY suprised !!, the Aircraft is about two and a half minutes into the video .. does anyone know what this is or maybe even seen or heard of this aircraft before.. ???

Video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r7Qi7HqVAw

Sorry to post this on here, but felt most of the comments will not be video related . but rather about this strange aircraft ..

Hope you find it interesting 🙂

Whats interesting about this is that their aircraft had two vertical engines behind the cockpit which were deployed in the vertical mode, which seems wasteful and clumsy compared to the harrier. The new JFS [ I think this its name] aircraft proposed also has this arrangment, the difference is the modern jets weigh a lot less so there is no weight penalty.

Graham

It is unfair to say they copied anything….

I would have said it was very fair to say they copied quite a few things 😉

The Convair Pogo flew in 1953/4 didn’t it?

…….I still think birds did!!!….

joking aside….my step Gran was 4 when she and the family escaped Russia in 1917…her mum even shot a revolutionary (who was trying to kill her and the family)….they then became refugees in Europe for best part of 40 years….

My Grandad had nothing but respect for soviet aviation. It is unfair to say they copied anything….some of the most maligned people in the world are the Russians….they had it bad under the Tzars, and worse under Stalin (and the Soviets). Millions died in the war….sad stuff…..

politics and humankind (bid of a misnomer!)….I still believe birds invented it and we, as ever, exploited it!

The Yak 141 is pretty good!

From the same page it was the Rolls Royce ‘Flying Bedstead’ in 1953

Moggy

Nothing against the Shorts (after reading the Putnam Book’s description of Horace’s South Sea adventures and his time in Mexico, he’s my new hero)…but the test rig for the Ryan X-13 also made a controlled free flight to hover in 1953…albeit late in the year.

The X-13 itself (rather a good looking aeroplane) first flew in late 1955.

No, Bell X-14 was in 1957. Have a look at this:

From the same page it was the Rolls Royce ‘Flying Bedstead’ in 1953

Moggy

If you read Yefim Gordon’s ‘Red Stars’ Vol 36 – you will find various tables regarding Yak-38 attrition stats – and comparisons to Harriers.

Number of aircraft in squadron service/No of accidents/Total hull losses/Fatals

Harrier 241/83/57/52
Yak-38 115/16+2 (in 1981)/12+2(1981)4+1

Which Harriers are we talking about here?

The RAF operated 123 GR1/GR3 and 21 T2/T4 followed by 96 GR5/GR7/GR9 and 13 T10/T12, so in total about 253 aircraft. Of this total about 80 have been lost in crashes but with only about 25 fatalities in the forty years of operation between 1969 and 2009.

The quoted figure of ‘52 fatalities in 57 hull losses’ just seems a little high. :confused: