• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Privately Owned Harrier....

Lawman

Well-Known Member
None
So he flew his new toy Harrier once, it broke and now it sits. Off he goes like a butterfly on a flower to another toy...

Damn it must be nice to have that kind of $$$.

Makes my boss's 200K porche look like a yugo. :D
 

FLY_USMC

Well-Known Member
pilot
I really envy those who can afford their own military aircraft.
If you can ever find a reason to go into Driggs, ID, just at the base of the Grand Tetons and balls deep in mormon country, right next to Augie Busch's hangar another former Naval Aviator keeps an INCREDIBLY sweet collection of all flying birds. One is a mint condition Buckeye that he go out of mothballs and refurbed since he took it to the boat like 40 years ago! Has a pretty nice one of a kind 1953 Grumman Albatross that he still flies as well, amongst other things. Check it out, and then go skiing in Jackson Hole.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
It would indeed kick arse to have the money and time to build up a warbird collection. Personally, I'd pick up one of those re-engined Scooters the Singaporeans built, and a Turbo Albatross.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
He describes the L-39 s a "rocket ship"? There are lots of them in my neck of the woods, including a company that restores them, maintains them and trains folks for their FAA letter. It is a sharp looking ride and I would love to have one myself, but everyone I have talked to says L-39s have no where near the performance it appears they have. Some have even called it a dog (as jets go). Hey, it is a jet trainer meant to be flown by guys no yet winged. Just how much of a rocket ship can it be?
 

HuggyU2

Well-Known Member
None
The guy in Driggs, ID is Doc Sugden. He wasn't a Naval Pilot,... er, sorry,.... Naval Aviator,... but he was a Naval Flight Surgeon and did a fair amount of flying. He's now got some MiG 15/17's, and an FJ-4 Fury (the only flying example in the world, I think), and does some airshows now with them. Interesting and neat guy.
Speaking of the F-104, if anyone decides they want to fly one, give me a call: I spoke to a friend of mine today (who happens to be a former Naval Aviator), who has owned his F-104 for about 10 years now. I'm guessing it would cost you about $4000 for a full tank of fuel, but if you can spend it, he'll take you flying.

I can't remember where I saw it, but Art Nall was an early Harrier test guy that supposedly has 6 hours of Harrier time,... gliding with the engine off. Although it has a single engine and outrigger gear like the U-2, I'm a-thinkin' it won't glide near as well.
 

Semper Jump Jet

Ninja smoke...POOF.
pilot
It glides like a big gray brick. There isn't even a power off landing option because a 'high-key' would be at about 18000 feet over the field in order to execute a turn to final and still maintain enough air down the intakes to turn the turbine and supply hydraulic power to the fight controls.

I'm not scared of nuthin', but I'd be scared of that.
 

squeeze

Retired Harrier Dude
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
It glides like a big gray brick. There isn't even a power off landing option because a 'high-key' would be at about 18000 feet over the field in order to execute a turn to final and still maintain enough air down the intakes to turn the turbine and supply hydraulic power to the fight controls.

I'm not scared of nuthin', but I'd be scared of that.

One day on duty at 203, I looked through that AV-8A NATOPS they had in the display case. It actually showed a PEL pattern for the jet. If memory serves, High Key was at 20k while Low Key was at 10k. No idea if it was ever actually tested. Somehow I think that even if that gave you enough speed to turn the hyd pumps, you'd lose them on final slowing to tire speed.

If it came to that, the taxpayers can have it back.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
For interesting warbirds, there's a group in the UK which recently restored an Avro Vulcan to flight status. The Vulcan was a huge-delta nuke bomber that was Britain's contribution to the SIOP. Comissioned in the '50's, its last missions were bombing raids on Port Stanley in the Falklands War. One of the most awesomely beautiful-in-a-weird-way airplanes ever.

Vulcan to the Sky Trust

take-off.jpg
 

Harrier Dude

Living the dream
One day on duty at 203, I looked through that AV-8A NATOPS they had in the display case. It actually showed a PEL pattern for the jet. If memory serves, High Key was at 20k while Low Key was at 10k. No idea if it was ever actually tested. Somehow I think that even if that gave you enough speed to turn the hyd pumps, you'd lose them on final slowing to tire speed.

If it came to that, the taxpayers can have it back.

It was tested by Gremlin and Gator (and probably Buckwheat) for the AV-8B. Gremlin was my old CO and he told me about it. They had a RAT for hyd power as a backup on the test aircraft. They would relight the thing on final. Their conclusion was that it wasn't a worthwhile option, hence the blurb in NATOPS about flameout/simulated flameout approaches and landings being prohibited.

That said, if you ever did pull one off, you'd either be "The Man" and get a DFC or get FFPB'd like you read about. I've done it in the sim a couple of dozen times and have sucessfully landed it about 4 or 5 times. The problem is usually getting it stopped. You need to maintain 250-300 knots until about 2 miles on final (fuck gear/tire speed at this point. You have bigger worries) and need to touchdown on brick one of a long runway (NYL 21R/03L) to have any hope of getting it stopped. Also, as you mentioned, you will lose all hyds and generator on the rollout, which is problematic. Having the APU on is gouge for the electrical side of that problem.

I had to shut the engine down on landing once and roll out with no engine, and it worked OK (touched down at about 160 or so I think), but you have only accumulator pressure for brakes and NWS.

Bottom line is that a flameout landing in the Harrier is a Big City Move to say the least, and you'd be much better off to shell out.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Bottom line is that a flameout landing in the Harrier is a Big City Move to say the least, and you'd be much better off to shell out.

Pussy! ;)

I have to ask, other than test pilots, has anyone ever landed no engine in a Harrier?
 

Harrier Dude

Living the dream
Pussy! ;)

I have to ask, other than test pilots, has anyone ever landed no engine in a Harrier?

Not to my knowledge, at least on the USMC side. To be clear, the test pilots were doing engine out approaches vice landings as far as I know. I don't think that anybody has ever done a true engine out landing in a Harrier.

As soon as I see a Prowler do a dual engine out landing, I'll run right out and try it in the mighty Jump Jet. Or not.;)
 

xj220

Will fly for food.
pilot
Contributor
Why exactly doesn't the harrier glide as well? I understand it has the VSTOL capabilities, but a high key of 20k seems crazy. Is it the aerodynamics?
 
Top