Author Topic: Harrier crashes in back yard (Read 506 times)

JB73 · « **on:** June 16, 2005, 10:41:22 AM »

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=39023

kind of suprised noone have mentioned this yet.

i heard the fire dept. kept water on the bombs instead of the fire, just to make sure they didn't go BOOM.

wasn't there a video of a harrier that ditched in the ocean like last year just off shore?

what is the service record of those planes? are they crash prone?

Hangtime · « **Reply #1 on:** June 16, 2005, 10:54:37 AM »

Harriers are very problematic.. tuff bird to maintain, tuff bird to fly, particularly decked out with an Ords load.

On the plus side, they fill a role the Marines consider crucial.. they can operate real close to the lines from very short / small clearings or roads.

It's an old bird now.. 20+ years in the inventory? Slated to be replaced by the JSF I believe.

rpm · « **Reply #2 on:** June 16, 2005, 11:21:35 AM »

I saw the story on the news this morning. They were very lucky that there wasn't mass casualties.

The Harrier is one of the most unstable aircraft in the sky. It takes one heck of a pilot just to keep it airborne. The JSF is a much better design and will outperform the Harrier.

Hangtime · « **Reply #3 on:** June 16, 2005, 11:31:09 AM »

RPM.. yah couldn't be more correct. Well, maybe if yah wore a shirt ta dinner...

One lil piece of history tho... the Harriers and their pilots played a magnificent role in the Falklands.. exteme conditions, workloads and sortie profiles... they done good.

rpm · « **Reply #4 on:** June 16, 2005, 11:57:32 AM »

Absolutely. The Harrier does things that no other bird is capable of. But, it is VERY unforgiving.

Chairboy · « **Reply #5 on:** June 16, 2005, 12:02:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
The JSF is a much better design and will outperform the Harrier.

I'd caution against effusing too much about a system that hasn't entered service yet.

The Marine JSF is a tremendous leap, absolutely, but until it's used in an offensive role, we won't know if some of the design decisions (like deleting a build in cannon from the role) will bear fruit or not.

The turbine driven lift fan is amazing, so much more efficient then balancing on on a farting Pegasus.

Is the JSF more advanced? It better be, there's over 30 years of new tech behind it. Is the JSF a better design? I'm adopting a cautious 'wait and see' attitude.

A Honda Accord is a great, advanced piece of automotive technology. Is it better then a '69 Firebird? Depends on who you ask.

dedalos · « **Reply #6 on:** June 16, 2005, 12:08:17 PM »

I wonder if there was an LTAR in that part of the town that tools shed dweeb was after

rpm · « **Reply #7 on:** June 16, 2005, 12:15:30 PM »

I'm not saying the JSF is a perfect aircraft. I would say it is a much more advanced airframe with advanced design capabilities. It is the next evolution of VTOL.

Compairing a 2004 Honda Accord to a 1974 Honda Civic CVCC would be more accurate.

eagl · « **Reply #8 on:** June 16, 2005, 12:59:58 PM »

Not to dispute RPM's legit comments, but the JSF will be better than the harrier primarily due to SOFTWARE enhancements. The Harrier is a great aircraft but it's limited by the control feedback system. It's mostly analog, routed through a human brain. That, combined with the single-engine design, means they're going to lose a few each year. Compare the harrier loss rate with the F-16, and you'll see that on average we lose only a few more harriers each year than F-16s. Guess what - the JSF is also a single engine fighter so no matter how advanced the jet is, we'll lose a couple every year to engine failure.

I won't go into details, but we've had half a dozen incidents in the last year here at Lakenheath that would have guaranteed resulted in aircraft losses if they'd happened to an F-16. All engine related problems, all unexpected or unavoidable, all recoverable because the F-15 carries a spare.

I found it amazingly lucky that the harrier shacked the precise intersection between 4 backyards and an alleyway. One lucky dude gets a new swimming pool courtesy of the USMC, and nobody needs their house rebuilt. Damn lucky if you ask me.

Vulcan · « **Reply #9 on:** June 16, 2005, 03:37:07 PM »

Try 36 years old, for the prototype harriers. The test bed was a bit older.

Chairboy · « **Reply #10 on:** June 16, 2005, 03:43:02 PM »

Oh, and dont' forget the AV-8X Ultra Harrier with radial-mount tank buster coilgun, dual scramjet engine nacelles and fully pressurized short-sleeve cockpit for extended orbital ops.

wait...

TracerX · « **Reply #11 on:** June 16, 2005, 03:49:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dedalos
I wonder if there was an LTAR in that part of the town that tools shed dweeb was after

Too funny D.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #12 on:** June 16, 2005, 06:32:13 PM »

I was stationed at Yuma for about 6 years and actually lived a few blocks away from were it crashed. I probably know most if not all of the firemen that responded to it.

Back in 1998/99 we were losing about 1 a month it seemd. The entire fleet was grounded for months at a time. I even saw one crash after the pilot punched right there on the flightline after doing practice hovers.

anyhow the harrier is in fact a great aircraft but they are being flown to the limits of their capabilities now. They only got night vision capabilities and RADAR a few years ago.

We had a group commander that was slated to get promoted and take over the 3rd Marine Air Wing get killed in a Harrier. He had to eject out of the seats envelope and didn't survive. I had the unfortunate task of reviewing and marking the ATC tapes of the incident. Literally the guys last words were "i'm gettin out of here"

Quote

(like deleting a build in cannon from the role)

Chairboy Harriers didn't have cannons either. If they need them they carry them in pods.

Lizard3 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2005, 07:51:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dedalos
I wonder if there was an LTAR in that part of the town that tools shed dweeb was after

First real outloud laugh I've had in here in months!:rofl

Replicant · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2005, 12:38:35 PM »

I had a go on the Lockheed JSF flight simulator at the Harrier base I used to work at. Damn impressive! However, the JSF can't VIFF so in many ways it won't be as manouvrable as the Harrier but it will be much faster.

As for the Harrier being unreliable, well, the RAF and FAA have lost quite a few Harriers due to engine problems. All RAF Harriers are being upgraded with newer engines to become GR7A/GR9A ('A' denotes new uprated engine). For those that don't know, as well as the hot air stabilisers (tail, wingtips) the front two thrust vector nozzles actually kick out cold air whilst the rear two are the 'hot air'. Harriers also carry 500lbs of water to assist (increase thrust) during the hover and I'd assume to cool it down.