Flying civilian two-seat Harrier to come to US

Maybe they were trying to do a deal with Del Trotter on some hookie night vision binoculars!

I have never forgotten envy and puzzlement when watching footage of Shirley Bassey flying in GVTOL,how many were they hoping to sell to her?

The RAF have never seemed to have a problem flying celebs in their aircraft.

All Harriers had water injection .

There is a long audio interview with Joe Anderson and Art Nalls at
http://omegataupodcast.net/2014/05/148-flying-the-harrier/

In our little series on interesting aircraft, this episode covers the Harrier, the iconic VTOL fighter. Our guests are Joe Anderson and Art Nalls, who both fly Art’s civilian Harrier in airshows. We discussed the history of the Harrier and its predecessors, talked about its use in the military and the advantages of STOVL and then discussed in some details the intricacies of flying a Harrier (compared to other aircraft). We concluded by talking about Art and Joe’s airshow activities.

Not much room for anything but a vertical landing on an Invincible Class carrier!

Did the GR5 / GR7 / GR9 variants have the engine distilled water ‘injection’ system for vertical landings or was that only on the FRS1 / FA2 (due to the necessity for vertical landings)?

I take your point about the novelty of the V/STOL capability of the Harrier from an airshow perspective.

As for landing speed; is the normal Harrier ‘conventional’ approach done with nozzles not fully aft? I have to say I didn’t think that there was any problem whatsoever with the Harrier making a ‘conventional’ landing; in fact, I thought that this was done routinely in preference to a vertical landing?

A normal Harrier landing would be an RVL ( rolling vertical landing) using (say) approx 50 deg nozzle down – this keeps the airspeed low and makes for a very short landing and can be done with varying amounts of nozzle angle depending on conditions/aircraft mass etc.

A normal shipborne landing would be vertical with an RVL a possibility in a dire emergency only !

A conventional landing with nozzles fully aft would be fast and with quite a long rollout – once again normally only used in emergency !

I have never forgotten envy and puzzlement when watching footage of Shirley Bassey flying in GVTOL,how many were they hoping to sell to her?

Just to clarify that none of my comments have been directed towards Art and his team – they do have extensive experience on AV8 A and FRS2 Harriers !
The acquisition of the T bird has been a long term project and I wish the team well !

Art was at BD a few weeks ago – I did not have a chance to chat to him unfortunately !

My comments have been general ones about the operation of a hypothetical privately owned harrier and I also agree with David – I have never heard a Harrier pilot have anything but praise for the aircraft !

David,

It was some years ago, I may have mis-quoted him, he did say they were certainly showing their age..

However, I am suffering from the old grey matter failure….

Tim S

Here’s the story quoted by Bager1968;

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/eaa/2014-11-13-worlds-second-civilian-harrier-acquired

Basically, the owner has extensive experience with the type…so he should know what he’s doing.

I wish him well and hope to see him fly someday.

A Harrier fixed in conventional mode (nozzels fixed aft) would make for a very sporting aircraft, especially a first generation small wing AV8A/Gr1/Gr3/T2/T4/Sea Harrier. With nozzels aft the aircraft has very high takeoff and even higher approach/landing speeds, and poor glide characteristics. Pilots did not enjoy conventional landing. Would perhaps be more dangerous than operating in STOL or even V/STOL mode, and more importantly take away most of the novelty of a flying harrier…

I take your point about the novelty of the V/STOL capability of the Harrier from an airshow perspective.

As for landing speed; is the normal Harrier ‘conventional’ approach done with nozzles not fully aft? I have to say I didn’t think that there was any problem whatsoever with the Harrier making a ‘conventional’ landing; in fact, I thought that this was done routinely in preference to a vertical landing?

Binbrook – I cannot recall ever talking to a Harrier pilot who didn’t enjoy flying them !

Which particular branch of ‘UK officialdom of the day’ was this? By the late 1970s there were several Spitfires flying in private hands (off the top of my head, these included AR213, MH434, MT818, AR501, RM689) and had been for years.

Some of us may still remember the late 1970’s and UK officialdom of the day loudly proclaiming “we will NOT authorise Merlin engined or similar aircraft types ever flying in civilian hands” . When asked if that ban would also apply to jet engined former military aircraft the answer was “why are you asking that question when the answer is that obvious?”

In 2014, maybe the Harrier solution in the UK is to set aside an example or two (in private hands) suitably protected from the elements and permit the passage of a few years and then make progress towards airworthiness?

Possibly a little fanciful but just look around us now!

A civilian registration, agreed, but also a military registration too (ZA250) – and when operated by the manufacturer that surely is a different class of civilian owned and operated wouldn’t you say?

It initially flew and toured the world as G-VTOL, ZA250 was added at a later date (due to a change in regulations or the interpretation of regulation IIRC)

I’d agree that private operation is a different class, but that wasn’t what they said! 🙂

Sadly it seems that some in this bl@@@y country just can’t get over the fact the Harriers have gone, they ain’t ever likely to come back, even in bits;

The last time I spoke to a Harrier pilot, who flew them in Afghanistan shortly before the Tornado took over, he didn’t have a good word for them.

Tim S

GOKONE,

The USMC has said within the last week that the AV-8B fleet out of service date has been pulled forward to about 2025 and the Legacy Hornet fleet will fill the gap until DAVE is fully operational

Tim S

One thought does occur to me; could the Harrier not be operated in the purely conventional configuration? In that configuration, with nozzles fixed and reaction-control-jet system disconnected, from a mechanical and operational point-of-view, there would be a lot less potential for accidents.

Creaking door. A Harrier fixed in conventional mode (nozzels fixed aft) would make for a very sporting aircraft, especially a first generation small wing AV8A/Gr1/Gr3/T2/T4/Sea Harrier. With nozzels aft the aircraft has very high takeoff and even higher approach/landing speeds, and poor glide characteristics. Pilots did not enjoy conventional landing. Would perhaps be more dangerous than operating in STOL or even V/STOL mode, and more importantly take away most of the novelty of a flying harrier.

posted by GOKONE
this STILL amazing piece of British design excellence that is STILL wasted to the UK thanks to idiots at Downing Street and their ‘advisors’, as seen on pallets in the Nevada desert. A £116m fleet flog-off of potent VTOL capability that would buy only 2 or less at today’s prices, of the much-troubled F-35 fiasco plane – whereby Boeing have ignored the practicality, simplicity, elegance and effectiveness of the British solution of 50+ years ago, and tried to re-invent the wheel.

GOKONE, It’s Arizona by the way, not Nevada. The USMC was very smart to gooble up the Gr7/Gr9 fleet. A wise investment given the uncertainlty of the F-35B and the sliding out of service date of the AV8B (largely deepnds on F-35 B success). UK’s loss. Agree it was premature to let them go.

Boeing??? Do you mean Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-35? Is this a(nother) Boeing slam thread? You are citing the woes of the F-35 in that sentence before slamming Boeing ignoring the proven Harrier concept. The Boeing design for the Joint Stike Fighter competition, the X-32, actually had much more in common with the Harrier than the Lockheed Martin X-35, which was chosen as the winner, and is now what we know as the F-35B, for the STOVL version. The Boeing design for the STOVL version was a single engine with moving nozzels and roll posts, similar to the Harrier. Lockheed Martin went with a single engine supplying both thrust and, via a clutch, powering the forward lift fan as well- a differrent approach in how to get V/STOL or STOVL flight. There is some debate if the F-32 would have ever been able to generate enough lift. The STOVL requirement for the UK and USMC versions of the JSF heavily influenced a lot of the design- especially leading to most looking at a single engine. Generating enough thrust in vertical/STOL flight was a major challenge that different teams handled differenty. The Bae/MD team with a lift jet did not make it to the final downselect.

If you really want to slam Boeing on the JSF cite ugliness. I have seen it in person, and the X-32 is uuuugggggly.

It’s nice of you and the CAA to protect people from themselves. 🙂

No, I’m just being realistic that’s all – I hate they way this country is becoming a ‘nanny state’ as much as anybody else.

When the engine goes pop on a Harrier it has a terrible sink rate, hence the uprated bang seat fitted to them. The 3 years I was based in RAFG we lost several – one ingested a buzzard on short finals and that was it – MB let down for the pilot (who thankfully got out without injury). Any other jet would have most probably made a dead stick landing without incident and been flying again in ‘x’ months…

I would love to see something like a Buccaneer back in the air again – complete in Naval uniform – now that would be something! 🙂

Hmmm… a single engined FJ with the gliding characteristics of a brick (should the engine decide to have a break) on the UK Civil register…

It’s nice of you and the CAA to protect people from themselves. 🙂

But people can still drive too fast, eat fish & chips to pack on the pounds, smoke like a chimney and drink themselves into an early grave.
But allow a SE jet to fly…”No, that’s far too dangerous..” 🙂