Extreamly high wing loading maybe?
-
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....
- Thread starter Mumbles
- Start date
Extreamly high wing loading maybe?
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Most tactical jets don't glide well, but the Harriers intake and the face of the fan (1st stage LPC) are a HUGE amount of drag, particularly when the engine is not running. That's one reason that the jet slows down so well at idle power. We rarely use the boards.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Basically, yes.
FWIW, the times I've done it in the sim I was never at 20K'. More like 12-15K. It really depends on how close you are to the field. Higher is always better, though (generally, since nobody ever collided with the sky).
I wasn't flying the profile that Squeeze mentioned, since that isn't in the book anymore (I don't think), and even if it's mentioned somewhere, it's definitely not in the EP section/memory items. I was just "winging it". Since those approaches are specifically prohibited, there's no use of trying to memorize the profile anyway.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Not at all like the cyclic/collective setup of a helo.
The stick works like it always does, except that with the nozzles down, "puffer ducts" vent high pressure bleed air from the tips of the wings, nose, and tail to give the control authority when aerodynamics no longer affect the normal control surfaces.
The throttle works like it always does in a jet. Forward=more power. back=less power. Stays the same regardless of nozzle position.
The nozle lever is inboard of the throttle and can go "fully aft" (exhaust pointed aft, the lever is forward), straight down (for hovering), or even into the "braking stop" (exhaust pointing forward, lever is back) for slowing down. Kind of like "beta" in a T-34, only it works airborne too. Nozzles can be anywhere in between these settings as well.
The stick works like it always does, except that with the nozzles down, "puffer ducts" vent high pressure bleed air from the tips of the wings, nose, and tail to give the control authority when aerodynamics no longer affect the normal control surfaces.
The throttle works like it always does in a jet. Forward=more power. back=less power. Stays the same regardless of nozzle position.
The nozle lever is inboard of the throttle and can go "fully aft" (exhaust pointed aft, the lever is forward), straight down (for hovering), or even into the "braking stop" (exhaust pointing forward, lever is back) for slowing down. Kind of like "beta" in a T-34, only it works airborne too. Nozzles can be anywhere in between these settings as well.
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.
141 essentially tried this (well high key to impact at idle anyway) circa 93 at Fallon. Didn't go well. Crew ejected on the bounce and the fire crew had to reach in through the holes in the canopy and shut off the engines.
ECMO 1 was offered, no kidding, orders to Antarctica
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
141 essentially tried this (well high key to impact at idle anyway) circa 93 at Fallon. Didn't go well. Crew ejected on the bounce and the fire crew had to reach in through the holes in the canopy and shut off the engines.
ECMO 1 was offered, no kidding, orders to Antarctica
You mean they were just practicing it for shits and grins?
There has to be something more productive to do. What happenned to the pilot? How as it ECMO1's fault? He's serving as basically a co-pilot right?
141 essentially tried this (well high key to impact at idle anyway) circa 93 at Fallon. Didn't go well. Crew ejected on the bounce and the fire crew had to reach in through the holes in the canopy and shut off the engines.
ECMO 1 was offered, no kidding, orders to Antarctica
I feel like I've just been bukkaked with stupidity...
Ok, maybe it was a 10k High Key and a 5k Low Key. I remember it being about double what the T-45's PEL profile was, but that was when I actually remembered what the T-45 profile is. Maybe if I get some spare sim time one of these days, I'll give it a shot.
The only reason I mentioned tire speed was, that w/o an engine or hyds, blowing tires would probably be catastrophic, since you couldn't go around or wouldn't have much control authority on the deck to speak of.
And no, it's not in the book anymore.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
I'm not saying that your numbers were wrong. I don't know what the numbers were. I, too, remember seeing that depiction somewhere. Probably at 203. All I know is that in the sim, I pretty much just dove towards the runway and controlled my airspeed the best I could with the nozzles.
Start your flare at about a mile or so, but keep extra knots. You may or may not have to blow the gear down, but no-shit, do it at about 300', kind of like the space shuttle. Gear speed doesn't matter much. Tire speed is an issue, but I'm willing to accept that risk to avoid developing a huge sink rate in close to at the ramp that I have no energy to arrest. If that happenns, it's pretty much over.
The roll out is really long. Your hyds will still work most of the way down the runway, and the brake and hyd accumulators will give you more than enough control after the rudder loses effectiveness at about 30 knots or so. Put the nozzles in braking stop to increase drag. That helps more than you would think.
When I shut down the engine on rollout that time, I thought for sure I blew the tires. I didn't (and still never have!). Keeping it on centerline was pretty easy, and it stopped long before the long field gear. Having the APU on was gouge to keep the HUD and ground speed available. You'd overspeed it on the flameout approach, though. It might hold up, it might not. Not much to lose trying it if you have time.
Anyway, it's an interesting drill in the sim.
Tempting fate by putting it in print? Bold. Very Bold.
You mean they were just practicing it for shits and grins?
There has to be something more productive to do. What happenned to the pilot? How as it ECMO1's fault? He's serving as basically a co-pilot right?
ECMO 2 (one of the back seat guys) was in my RAG class for a bit and he told us all the whole story. It was a hot day and they were on their way back to Whidbey after a long cross-country when they did the break, their rate of descent was too great on downwind and they realized it too late. The guy in my class and ECMO 1 both pulled their handles right before/right as they impacted the ground but their seats didn't go until after the bounced off the ground, it saved them since their rate of descent was too great for the parachutes to fully deploy.
I am pretty sure the plane is still flying. I think they cut the nose off and put a new one on, one of the aircaft on my last deployment had an obvious seam aft of the canopies, but I am not 100% sure of it was the same aircraft.
You mean they were just practicing it for shits and grins?
There has to be something more productive to do. What happened to the pilot? How as it ECMO1's fault? He's serving as basically a co-pilot right?
Was after I had left. All JO cross country and for some reason then ended up overhead NFL still at altitude and the young (yet know it all pilot) and a more season ECMO 1 decided that a HAPL A-4 approach was just the ticket to get them to runway.
A 40,000 lb jet, summer day, a couple P408's at idle and Fallon's 3000+ MSL and a (IIRC 8000 foot rapid descent) did not mix well. Realized too late the descent rate was insane, engines didn't spool up quick enough. They hit hard and as I said, ejected on the bounce lucky for them as the sink rate was high enough that had they gone earlier they were way out of the seat envelope. Jet ended up between the duals with the nose gear collapsed and one motor still running.
This was circa 94 so one of the bubbas with access to the MIR might be able to fill in the details. 15 years of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale may have muddled my memory.
There's a reason it's aircrew error and not pilot error. ECMO 1 should have known as much as the pilot that this was not a good idea and spoken up hence his culpability. Don't know what happened to the pilot and the only reason I knew about the ECMO is I shared an office then with a guy who had done a tour with VXE-6 so had some experience on the pole and he came looking for impressions.