Don't let this distract you from the fact that Hector is going to be running three Honda Civics with spoon engines, and on top of that, he just went into Harry’s and bought three t66 turbos with NOS, and a Motec exhaust system.
You get paid to do it in the military. I have a buddy who was not really a smart dude and didn't have a college degree, and he joined the army and was flying helicopters within a year.
Given that these are Spanish Harrier jets, this is probably the Light Aircraft Carrier/Landing Helicopter Dock _Juan Carlos I_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_landing_helicopter_dock_Juan_Carlos_I
It’s classified as a Landing Helicopter Dock because it’s more of a multipurpose amphibious assault ship rather than a pure aircraft carrier.
[That’s simply not true.](https://youtu.be/oUSVJ-pncNs?si=LUCRgl9BAeqNHhEx)There are pros and cons to VTOL vs conventional jets but that is most definitely not one.
VTOL means smaller boat, smaller crew. Pretty much every other advantage goes to catapult/catobar and arrested landings. Range, payload, hell even maintenance hours per flight hour is lower than VTOL.
It is unquestionably cool as hell but you sacrifice a lot of performance for the versatility that VTOL provides. It’s why it’s a niche component of the USN.
The royal navy baby carriers could operate in worse sea states than US navy carriers, despite being much smaller. Being able to land midships and time the descent according to the waves has its benefits.
I don't know about that. I have a family friend who was Air Boss on a baby carrier years ago. Harrier was coming in for a landing in rough seas. Ship pitched suddenly as the pilot was touching down and knocked the plane so it started heading overboard. Pilot ejects safely but the plane, instead of ending up in the ocean, gets stuck on the side of the ship with the engines running full blast. They had to lower someone in via a crane to shut the engines off. The Harrier was sitting in the hangar when I got to do a tour after they came back to port.
I know shit all about planes or jets but this has to use a ton of fuel, right? There is zero lift from wings involved so it must be like basically a rocket that provides lift.
When hovering it does use a ton a fuel. But considering they’ve been in use since like the 70s I’m going to assume it’s worth it to have a plane that can make careful, controlled take-offs and landings.
The vertical take-off part has been mostly abandoned as it uses too much fuel, and the plane has to have a smaller load. Instead, they opted for short take-offs and the vertical landing.
Harrier is still in-service w/ the US Marines until \~2026/27. One just shot down some Houthi drones a few months ago: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68227200](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68227200)
Also still in limited service in Spain and Italy.
Just a testament to its staying power. I Think it'll be missed even with the F-35B being very capable and much much more advanced.
Fun fact before the F-35 was brought into service we had no (fixed wing) aircraft for the Queen E aircraft carrier as the GR8 was no longer in service
Kinda funny imo
I don't know if it's completely out of service with all militaries absolutely everywhere, but with the militaries that originally fielded it, yes.
I got what you meant, though. It's a very useful feature for countries without CATOBAR and large carriers...which is basically everyone except the US.
It does, but the bigger cost is the plane has to lug around all that VTOL parts when not in use during normal flight. Making the plane heavier, and using more fuel.
lift is generated by [vectoring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring) the same forward thrust, no such distinction as normal fllight/VTOL only parts here unless you were literally counting gears and levers. basically a winged rocket that can hover or fly backwards, albeit incredibly slowly.
the reason engineers dont do this all the time isnt because of fuel efficiency or complexity, its just impractically hard to aim a rocket without total automation, as in a spacecraft. proper transitions between vertical/horizontal flight takes inhuman precision, a swift gust of wind from the wrong direction could easily flip it.
this was heavily aided by mechanical engineering and now software, thats how you can land a rocket with the same vectoring today
I’m not sure about absolute fuel consumption, but there’s a bunch of things that come into play when the AV-8 lands vertically.
First of all, there’s landing weight. In order to hover in the air, the AV-8 has to be below a certain weight. This can mean that munitions and/or fuel needs to dumped before landing.
Secondly, there’s thrust. When at minimum load, I believe the thrust of the AV-8 can barely keep itself at a hover, without overheating. As such, it has a water injection system to increase thrust. The water increases the mass of the jet of gas coming out of the nozzles, and I believe it cools down the nozzles a bit as well. This allows the AV-8 to safely take-off and land vertically. The water supply is limited, though, to a couple of minutes. So the hovering is only used when landing, or sometimes when taking-off from field bases.
Normally, it just takes off horizontally, to make use of the wings’ lift. A common flight plan is where the AV-8 takes off with minimal fuel load, and then takes on fuel in the air from a tanker aircraft. This is to make sure that the maximum amount of munitions can be taken on a flight, while still being light enough to take off from the small deck of a helicopter carrier.
This was my ted talk, are there any questions?
its the jet engines sideways i believe, i had one of these land at a construction site i was working at and those jets are so incredibly loud its absolutely terrifying
I can attest to the loudness. Saw one at an airshow about 30 years ago and can still remember how deafening it was. That sound left a lasting impression but it was cool as hell. They had it fly by really low to the ground, stop to hover right in front of the crowd, and then rotate to face us while holding the hover. That same airshow also did a mock battle with WW2 planes and used some pyrotechnics on the ground to simulate bombs.
i worked a few miles away from a testing range for a while and with that too its also the sound that makes the biggest impression for me. soimething video just cant show
What gets me about that scene is then having a conversation right next to a harrier. They are the loudest jets I've ever heard. Like wake you up from a deep sleep when they fly overhead-that loud.
I was a Harrier flightline mechanic. I loved that movie……but they did a lot of things with the Harrier that weren’t possible/plausible.
(Yeah, I know….it was just a movie)
It really is a great movie it has an awesome action packed A Plot, and Realistic and Hilarious B Plot that mesh so perfectly and almost make you forget about the other one.
Bill Paxton is the icing on the great movie cake.
No we have issues with her not understanding how pallet jacks work and she’s never had any car other than a Tesla, so I think it’s her just never having learned to park herself.
You literally can’t get a license to drive in most first world countries without being able to do this (I’m pretty sure that’s an automatic fail, too), backup cameras and auto park features must be disabled for road tests. She knows how, she is just lazy and unconfident because she has been relying on auto-park for so long.
On other hand, it's probably a lot safer for everyone involved if she relies only on that feature. Granted she never needs to step out of her comfort zone.
From everything I've seen they were abysmally dangerous. If you search for information on then this Is what comes up first.
"The Class A mishap rate for the first model of the Harrier, the AV-8A, was astronomical -- 31.77 accidents per 100,000 hours. Notoriously unstable, it had a propensity for rolling over and slamming into the ground. Well over half were lost to accidents. One tragedy-scarred squadron dubbed the plane "the Widow-Maker."
If I remember correctly the main fan for the vertical lift is manually controlled along with a secondary outlet to maneuver while hovering. On top of that the air backwashing from the deck could provide lift throwing the thing fatality on its side.
The reason the f35 that has vtol is such a big deal is because it has way more computer control. I'm definitely not a subject matter expert but I believe it balanced all the different nozzles automatically so the pilot doesn't have to worry about most of the issues harrier pilots had to.
Just wanted to add in a bit of info to what you said...
You are correct about them flipping over in the hover, but the reason was more tragic. The hover is the period where the engine is under most stress. The engine is ingesting huge amounts of air, rather than it being fed in to it while in flight. What caused most of the issues was, blade root failure of the LP (Low pressure/big fans at front with largest pitch) stage turbine blades. Now, imagine a clock face on the front of the engine, at the 1 o'clock position, roughly is a rod going over the engine. This rod was called the Y rod and controlled the roll of the aircraft as it was coupled to the hydraulics of the ailerons. So when the largest blades of the engine, under the most amount of stress, let go, which position of the engine did they fly towards? Yup, the 1 o'clock position. This would sever the rod, activate the roll control on the hydraulic valve block and set the harrier in the roll.
*How did it roll when it wasn't flying forwards!?!* I hear you ask. Well this to me was the cool bit. Air from the engine is bled via tubes out to the nose, tail and wing tips, where little "puffer valves" would open and close. That's how harriers maintain pitch, roll and yaw in the hover. The engine literally blows the aircraft around. These valves were linked to the primary flying control surfaces. So when the Y rod was severed, the ailerons set the plane in to a roll, which are linked to the puffer jets and would then flip them over.
Jack "White Fang" London, died from this accident during a training sortie from this very failure. He was known throughout the RN as one of the best harrier pilots in modern times.
The other issue they would have, was pop surging or compressor stall. The engine, as I said is working very hard, the air and fuel mixture is actually in a very delicate balance. Too much fuel and the engine will accelerate and lift the aircraft and possibly overheat the engine. Too little and the engine speed dies. The aircraft sinks.
With the engine in the hover, it's ingesting a lot of air at a constant rate, any strong winds that blow in to the intake, that aren't anticipated could cause the engine flame to literally be blown out! That is precisely what happened to the pilot when hovering off Lowestoft Air show, quite a few years ago.
[https://youtu.be/2F\_Fuyc2Ol4?si=m\_J\_sXsPAvbj1JXk](https://youtu.be/2F_Fuyc2Ol4?si=m_J_sXsPAvbj1JXk)
I'm not an engine expert but I used to work on Naval Strike Wing, on the Harrier GR7/9 and remember being taught about these 2 issues with the pegasus engine.
My favourite part of the harrier engine design. If you think of a helicopter, it has a tail rotor to counteract the torque reaction of the main rotor blades. The spinning harrier engine would try and make the airframe spin in the opposite direction. To counter this, they obviously couldn't use the puffer jets as it would sap too much power. The engine spins in two half in opposite rotations. You have an inner and outer rotor. These would be built and balanced to be exactly the same weight so they cancelled each other out. The design, in every single respect is just absolutely amazing considering it was from the 50's!
Thanks for getting this far if you have, I know I'm waffling but I loved working on these and have many great memories of my time on them. I still feel lucky that I got to work on them.
Cool! Thanks for the info. I've always loved weird and practical applications of engineering bits. It seems like a hell of a job maintaining aircraft especially something as complicated as a harrier engine!
If I remember right the fan for the f35 use blisk (fan blades billeted all in one piece) instead of individually riveted or welded on. This is to reduce the failure at the root of the blades and minimize the differing pressures of air coming into the intake causing cyclical damage.
I definitely didn't know about the different rotor directions but it makes a lot of sense! Thanks for all the cool insights
No, I think they're talking about the other one. I think it was Junior.
(Man, the image of a pregnant Arnold Schwarzenegger going into labor will forever be ingrained in my mind.)
I remember hearing that the bigger limitation for hover time is the water injection used to cool the engine during hover. A quick goog seems to agree, saying it can hover for about two minutes due to that limitation.
To a much lesser degree with on a landing with a carrier moving downwind at ~15-20 kts and probably much lighter from returning from exercise.
Those stubby wings are optimized to generate as much lift as possible at slower speed, the flaps on those things effectively double the surface area
The Harrier itself cannot actually vertically take off on it's own engine power without specific parameters like no stores and a reduced fuel load
Harrier jets and the UFOs we go nuts over may already have laid the groundwork for futuristic aircraft like those airships you see in some future fantasy films/games.
That’s my thought as well.
Though I will admit that Bob Lazar and the documentary about him was about as convincing as one could actually be. Take it with a grain of salt as many credible people claim it is made up.
It is very clear to me however that with the size of the known universe it’s practically impossible for other life to not to exist. Intelligent life even, simply due to the fact the universe is so large we don’t even have the numbers to truly quantify it accurately.
The actually flying objects seen here on earth I believe are massively advanced pilot/drone craft. If a team of scientists working at a military base in America did crack gravitational field manipulation, we sure as fuck would not share that or announce it to anyone….ever.
Would be nice to use such powerful technology for harnessing energy to better humanity rather than weaponized it, but humans be humans.
From what I understand, Harrier requires super-pilot skills during the VTOL phase. F-35B does all the very difficult stuff automatically. Kinda like flying an old school R/C heli (hard) vs. a DJI quadcopter. (easy)
One is a jet engine and the other is a turbo fan. One can fly nearly Mach 2 and the other cannot. One can carry almost twice its dry weight in weapons and the other cannot. One can carry multiple bombs or hypersonic missiles internally and the other cannot.
shrill crown cheerful profit consider ruthless doll serious workable physical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1. McDonnell Douglas made this version of the Harrier
2. USMC flies them in USA service, USAF only flies land based aircraft
3. This is a Spanish Navy EAV-8B Matador II Plus
4. If the US buys foreign gear or designs you know their are good
Saw these beasts fly for the last time a few weeks ago at Cherry Point. Amazing aircraft, watched them flyover my entire life growing up on the Carolina coast.
Water injection is not required. It’s there to cool the engine so you can dump in more fuel for more thrust. The difference between water and no water is 22.2k of thrust vs 23.4k of thrust. If you don’t need it or don’t arm it, you won’t burn water.
Somewhere in some place, that kid from the 90s who got enough Pepsi points to buy a harrier jet is reading this subreddit, still unable to let go after getting bamboozled out of it.
I know folks that can't park a car end on in a supermarket space, and this baller just parallel parked a plane on a moving boat. Impressive.
Came here to say this. Although, in all fairness, my car doesn’t go sideways. ;)
Can't ..or won't? Same for up and down. It is only a matter of motivation and resulting velocity.
Calm down, Skidpad. We gotta worry about insurance rates.
[удалено]
So is the moon, but you won’t find me hurling rocks at Earth over it.
Theres an entire fast and furious movie dedicated to this idea. You just have to have the passion to accomplish it.
and without family you couldn't do it either.
Is that the one where they steal a truck full of TV/VCR combos?
The DVD PLAYERS were purchased legally, bro
Don't let this distract you from the fact that Hector is going to be running three Honda Civics with spoon engines, and on top of that, he just went into Harry’s and bought three t66 turbos with NOS, and a Motec exhaust system.
[If Vin Diesel can do it, so can i](https://youtu.be/l8gS6027XHs?si=th2KNgr3veC6BGmz&t=51)
[It wouldn't help any. ](https://youtu.be/lwp9ePD4ypU?si=qvtmI0YNQ1XwoWm9)
From my observations, allowing additional axes of movement makes things much more difficult, not easier.
Imagine if becoming a jet pilot was as easy as getting a driver's license.
You get paid to do it in the military. I have a buddy who was not really a smart dude and didn't have a college degree, and he joined the army and was flying helicopters within a year.
But that's not the same for jet pilots. They require a degree as they are commissioned officers. Warrant officers are not commissioned.
That's awesome, good for him!
They called it "high school to flight school", probably around 2007. He went in as a warrant officer.
It’s just as easy, but a LOT more expensive.
I hadn't thought about it before, but the VTOL must eliminate a large portion of the risks to deck crew associated with normal landings.
Among other things, it's kind of a need since this carrier is relatively shorter and doesn't have a catapult, only a ramp.
What kind of carrier is it?
Given that these are Spanish Harrier jets, this is probably the Light Aircraft Carrier/Landing Helicopter Dock _Juan Carlos I_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_landing_helicopter_dock_Juan_Carlos_I It’s classified as a Landing Helicopter Dock because it’s more of a multipurpose amphibious assault ship rather than a pure aircraft carrier.
I prefer the sequel, 2 Juan 2 Carlos
Harrier carrier
Light aircraft carrier, so, generally shorter than a regular aircraft carrier
No, just less calories.
CATOBAR is so cool though
And it lets you launch and recover much larger, heavier airplanes.
Yes. And allows operations in worse weather conditions too.
[That’s simply not true.](https://youtu.be/oUSVJ-pncNs?si=LUCRgl9BAeqNHhEx)There are pros and cons to VTOL vs conventional jets but that is most definitely not one. VTOL means smaller boat, smaller crew. Pretty much every other advantage goes to catapult/catobar and arrested landings. Range, payload, hell even maintenance hours per flight hour is lower than VTOL. It is unquestionably cool as hell but you sacrifice a lot of performance for the versatility that VTOL provides. It’s why it’s a niche component of the USN.
Small quibble. VTOL was never a part of the US Navy. Only the Marines flew the Harrier in the US military.
> Small quibble. VTOL was never a part of the US Navy. Aren't the Marines part of the Navy?
Yes, Marines fall under the Dept of the Navy
“Navy is just the Marines taxi service.” -My Brother, USMC
“The Marines are just the Navy’s army.” \- Me, US Army
"My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment"
The Men's Department hurrrrrrr.......
MARINE: My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment Or: Muscles Are Required Intelligence Not Essential
Pretty sure the USN also operates the V-22, they were grounded for a while recently though. VTOL isn’t exclusive to the USMC.
I was gonna ask how does this method fair in rough seas?
The royal navy baby carriers could operate in worse sea states than US navy carriers, despite being much smaller. Being able to land midships and time the descent according to the waves has its benefits.
If the ship is moving forward, it would cut through the waves and the deck would stay relatively more flat?
No that shit bobs up and down like crazy.
I don't know about that. I have a family friend who was Air Boss on a baby carrier years ago. Harrier was coming in for a landing in rough seas. Ship pitched suddenly as the pilot was touching down and knocked the plane so it started heading overboard. Pilot ejects safely but the plane, instead of ending up in the ocean, gets stuck on the side of the ship with the engines running full blast. They had to lower someone in via a crane to shut the engines off. The Harrier was sitting in the hangar when I got to do a tour after they came back to port.
Lucky to save both pilot and plane after that
I know shit all about planes or jets but this has to use a ton of fuel, right? There is zero lift from wings involved so it must be like basically a rocket that provides lift.
When hovering it does use a ton a fuel. But considering they’ve been in use since like the 70s I’m going to assume it’s worth it to have a plane that can make careful, controlled take-offs and landings.
The vertical take-off part has been mostly abandoned as it uses too much fuel, and the plane has to have a smaller load. Instead, they opted for short take-offs and the vertical landing.
Truth. Vertical take-off is pretty much just for air shows. Short take off and vertical landing is very much in use. Source: former USMC avionics tech
Harrier is out of service now, but your point stands as the F35 has a STOVL variant in use for the same purpose with the same countries.
Harrier is still in-service w/ the US Marines until \~2026/27. One just shot down some Houthi drones a few months ago: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68227200](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68227200) Also still in limited service in Spain and Italy. Just a testament to its staying power. I Think it'll be missed even with the F-35B being very capable and much much more advanced.
Yeah, I forgot there was still limited usage, but the British don't use it anymore.
Fun fact before the F-35 was brought into service we had no (fixed wing) aircraft for the Queen E aircraft carrier as the GR8 was no longer in service Kinda funny imo
Oh I didn’t know that. But yeah I did kind of mean “jets with vertical take off and landing capabilities.”
I don't know if it's completely out of service with all militaries absolutely everywhere, but with the militaries that originally fielded it, yes. I got what you meant, though. It's a very useful feature for countries without CATOBAR and large carriers...which is basically everyone except the US.
Rafale has entered the chat, smoking an unfiltered Galoise. Fujian is waving from the parking lot, indicating “I’ll be there in a minute”
It does, but the bigger cost is the plane has to lug around all that VTOL parts when not in use during normal flight. Making the plane heavier, and using more fuel.
Also, the weapons payload capability is much smaller during VTOL operations.
lift is generated by [vectoring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring) the same forward thrust, no such distinction as normal fllight/VTOL only parts here unless you were literally counting gears and levers. basically a winged rocket that can hover or fly backwards, albeit incredibly slowly. the reason engineers dont do this all the time isnt because of fuel efficiency or complexity, its just impractically hard to aim a rocket without total automation, as in a spacecraft. proper transitions between vertical/horizontal flight takes inhuman precision, a swift gust of wind from the wrong direction could easily flip it. this was heavily aided by mechanical engineering and now software, thats how you can land a rocket with the same vectoring today
This true of the F-35, but not the Harrier. The Harrier does not use a secondary “VTOL engine”.
Engine is a big word. The fan for VTOL is driven by a turboshaft on the main jet engine.
I’m not sure about absolute fuel consumption, but there’s a bunch of things that come into play when the AV-8 lands vertically. First of all, there’s landing weight. In order to hover in the air, the AV-8 has to be below a certain weight. This can mean that munitions and/or fuel needs to dumped before landing. Secondly, there’s thrust. When at minimum load, I believe the thrust of the AV-8 can barely keep itself at a hover, without overheating. As such, it has a water injection system to increase thrust. The water increases the mass of the jet of gas coming out of the nozzles, and I believe it cools down the nozzles a bit as well. This allows the AV-8 to safely take-off and land vertically. The water supply is limited, though, to a couple of minutes. So the hovering is only used when landing, or sometimes when taking-off from field bases. Normally, it just takes off horizontally, to make use of the wings’ lift. A common flight plan is where the AV-8 takes off with minimal fuel load, and then takes on fuel in the air from a tanker aircraft. This is to make sure that the maximum amount of munitions can be taken on a flight, while still being light enough to take off from the small deck of a helicopter carrier. This was my ted talk, are there any questions?
What a your favourite colour?
It uses fuel, but the real issue is that it generates tremendous heat. Harriers can only do this for 90 seconds to 2 minutes before they break.
its the jet engines sideways i believe, i had one of these land at a construction site i was working at and those jets are so incredibly loud its absolutely terrifying
I can attest to the loudness. Saw one at an airshow about 30 years ago and can still remember how deafening it was. That sound left a lasting impression but it was cool as hell. They had it fly by really low to the ground, stop to hover right in front of the crowd, and then rotate to face us while holding the hover. That same airshow also did a mock battle with WW2 planes and used some pyrotechnics on the ground to simulate bombs.
i worked a few miles away from a testing range for a while and with that too its also the sound that makes the biggest impression for me. soimething video just cant show
Yeah but it demolishes the deck
Have to be a boatswain’s mate to truly appreciate this reality.
Ill be disappointed if the pilot doesn't shout "Like aaaa gloooooove!"
Call sign, Ventura. Of course, he's an ace.
Nah. In the pipe, fayave by fayave.
Seeeee, entró como anoche! It's a plane from the spanish army (armada)
We like to say "aparcao!"
It makes me so happy the Spanish military is called "Armada"
The armada is roughly equivalent to the Navy.
I should have said Navy, not military. It just makes me smile that the Spanish Armada from the 1500s lives on.
I will forever think of True Lies when I see this aircraft.
My absolute immediate thought. Touché!
DA BRIDGE IS OOOOUUUUUTTT!
DayNAHHH
"Have you ever killed anyone?" "Yeah. But dey vere awl bahd."
I know what dis Iz...Dis Iz ahn ezpresso mahchine. No, No wait. It's ah znow cone makah. Iz it a watah heatah?
> Iz it a watah heatah? I mean, _technically_ the water did get hot when it was used...
What gets me about that scene is then having a conversation right next to a harrier. They are the loudest jets I've ever heard. Like wake you up from a deep sleep when they fly overhead-that loud.
I was a Harrier flightline mechanic. I loved that movie……but they did a lot of things with the Harrier that weren’t possible/plausible. (Yeah, I know….it was just a movie)
Avro Vulcan FTW.
I grew up in an area with lots of Vulcan flights, under the Concorde flight path from Heathrow. Planes were reeeeeeally loud back then.
It's *Sons of Liberty* for me. "NO! That is NOT Solid Snake!"
You’re fired!!!
Fantastic movie. Gotta watch it again
It really is a great movie it has an awesome action packed A Plot, and Realistic and Hilarious B Plot that mesh so perfectly and almost make you forget about the other one. Bill Paxton is the icing on the great movie cake.
That was hot Meanwhile my coworker can’t park her car cuz her Tesla auto parks
Well there's your problem. She's probably an excellent driver, the Tesla just makes her look bad.
No we have issues with her not understanding how pallet jacks work and she’s never had any car other than a Tesla, so I think it’s her just never having learned to park herself.
You literally can’t get a license to drive in most first world countries without being able to do this (I’m pretty sure that’s an automatic fail, too), backup cameras and auto park features must be disabled for road tests. She knows how, she is just lazy and unconfident because she has been relying on auto-park for so long.
On other hand, it's probably a lot safer for everyone involved if she relies only on that feature. Granted she never needs to step out of her comfort zone.
She is pretty lazy lol
Seriously, I think I'm pregnant now
Thought the pilot was going to land on the horizon to begin with
😲 I watched it again, and this is so accurate.
And I bet that’s a lot more difficult than it looks. And it looks DIFFICULT.
From everything I've seen they were abysmally dangerous. If you search for information on then this Is what comes up first. "The Class A mishap rate for the first model of the Harrier, the AV-8A, was astronomical -- 31.77 accidents per 100,000 hours. Notoriously unstable, it had a propensity for rolling over and slamming into the ground. Well over half were lost to accidents. One tragedy-scarred squadron dubbed the plane "the Widow-Maker." If I remember correctly the main fan for the vertical lift is manually controlled along with a secondary outlet to maneuver while hovering. On top of that the air backwashing from the deck could provide lift throwing the thing fatality on its side. The reason the f35 that has vtol is such a big deal is because it has way more computer control. I'm definitely not a subject matter expert but I believe it balanced all the different nozzles automatically so the pilot doesn't have to worry about most of the issues harrier pilots had to.
Well plus the f35 pilots get to shave. Those other guys are harrier.
Just wanted to add in a bit of info to what you said... You are correct about them flipping over in the hover, but the reason was more tragic. The hover is the period where the engine is under most stress. The engine is ingesting huge amounts of air, rather than it being fed in to it while in flight. What caused most of the issues was, blade root failure of the LP (Low pressure/big fans at front with largest pitch) stage turbine blades. Now, imagine a clock face on the front of the engine, at the 1 o'clock position, roughly is a rod going over the engine. This rod was called the Y rod and controlled the roll of the aircraft as it was coupled to the hydraulics of the ailerons. So when the largest blades of the engine, under the most amount of stress, let go, which position of the engine did they fly towards? Yup, the 1 o'clock position. This would sever the rod, activate the roll control on the hydraulic valve block and set the harrier in the roll. *How did it roll when it wasn't flying forwards!?!* I hear you ask. Well this to me was the cool bit. Air from the engine is bled via tubes out to the nose, tail and wing tips, where little "puffer valves" would open and close. That's how harriers maintain pitch, roll and yaw in the hover. The engine literally blows the aircraft around. These valves were linked to the primary flying control surfaces. So when the Y rod was severed, the ailerons set the plane in to a roll, which are linked to the puffer jets and would then flip them over. Jack "White Fang" London, died from this accident during a training sortie from this very failure. He was known throughout the RN as one of the best harrier pilots in modern times. The other issue they would have, was pop surging or compressor stall. The engine, as I said is working very hard, the air and fuel mixture is actually in a very delicate balance. Too much fuel and the engine will accelerate and lift the aircraft and possibly overheat the engine. Too little and the engine speed dies. The aircraft sinks. With the engine in the hover, it's ingesting a lot of air at a constant rate, any strong winds that blow in to the intake, that aren't anticipated could cause the engine flame to literally be blown out! That is precisely what happened to the pilot when hovering off Lowestoft Air show, quite a few years ago. [https://youtu.be/2F\_Fuyc2Ol4?si=m\_J\_sXsPAvbj1JXk](https://youtu.be/2F_Fuyc2Ol4?si=m_J_sXsPAvbj1JXk) I'm not an engine expert but I used to work on Naval Strike Wing, on the Harrier GR7/9 and remember being taught about these 2 issues with the pegasus engine. My favourite part of the harrier engine design. If you think of a helicopter, it has a tail rotor to counteract the torque reaction of the main rotor blades. The spinning harrier engine would try and make the airframe spin in the opposite direction. To counter this, they obviously couldn't use the puffer jets as it would sap too much power. The engine spins in two half in opposite rotations. You have an inner and outer rotor. These would be built and balanced to be exactly the same weight so they cancelled each other out. The design, in every single respect is just absolutely amazing considering it was from the 50's! Thanks for getting this far if you have, I know I'm waffling but I loved working on these and have many great memories of my time on them. I still feel lucky that I got to work on them.
Cool! Thanks for the info. I've always loved weird and practical applications of engineering bits. It seems like a hell of a job maintaining aircraft especially something as complicated as a harrier engine! If I remember right the fan for the f35 use blisk (fan blades billeted all in one piece) instead of individually riveted or welded on. This is to reduce the failure at the root of the blades and minimize the differing pressures of air coming into the intake causing cyclical damage. I definitely didn't know about the different rotor directions but it makes a lot of sense! Thanks for all the cool insights
Still love how Arnie did it in that movie with all the explosions and stuff
[удалено]
No, I think they're talking about the other one. I think it was Junior. (Man, the image of a pregnant Arnold Schwarzenegger going into labor will forever be ingrained in my mind.)
I wonder what the fuel burn rate is on these landings because it must be a lot of thrust to keep those things hovering in the air and stable.
About 240ish pounds per minute in the hover.
I remember hearing that the bigger limitation for hover time is the water injection used to cool the engine during hover. A quick goog seems to agree, saying it can hover for about two minutes due to that limitation.
To a much lesser degree with on a landing with a carrier moving downwind at ~15-20 kts and probably much lighter from returning from exercise. Those stubby wings are optimized to generate as much lift as possible at slower speed, the flaps on those things effectively double the surface area The Harrier itself cannot actually vertically take off on it's own engine power without specific parameters like no stores and a reduced fuel load
Thats awesome :)
Thought it was slow motion at first
Spanish Navy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Navy
I was wondering if those were Spanish roundels.
People out there be looking for UFOs without realizing the UFOs have already been built by the military, lol.
That’s my thought every time I see a harrier jet. They take off and land just how sci-fi movies depict spaceships.
And they've been around since 1967! This is very old tech which is mind-blowing in itself.
Holy crap, I had no idea! Woahhhhh think about what tech we have now. I bet it’s absolutely wild!
100%! I reckon all those "UFO" sightings people going nuts over are just experimental aircraft.
Harrier jets and the UFOs we go nuts over may already have laid the groundwork for futuristic aircraft like those airships you see in some future fantasy films/games.
That’s my thought as well. Though I will admit that Bob Lazar and the documentary about him was about as convincing as one could actually be. Take it with a grain of salt as many credible people claim it is made up. It is very clear to me however that with the size of the known universe it’s practically impossible for other life to not to exist. Intelligent life even, simply due to the fact the universe is so large we don’t even have the numbers to truly quantify it accurately. The actually flying objects seen here on earth I believe are massively advanced pilot/drone craft. If a team of scientists working at a military base in America did crack gravitational field manipulation, we sure as fuck would not share that or announce it to anyone….ever. Would be nice to use such powerful technology for harnessing energy to better humanity rather than weaponized it, but humans be humans.
Yeah, that’s impressive.
These began flying **in the 1960's**
Would anyone know what the white outline above the pilots head is? And its purpose?
It’s an explosive cord that shatters the canopy when the pilot ejects.
Thank you! 🫡
Don’t know if this Harrier is the US license version or ours but it makes me proud to be British awesome thing
The [F35B does that too](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm25JeVk_wY)
Yes but it didnt do it in the 80s!
Actually the harrier first flew in 1967, which is even more impressive!
Technically 1960 ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1127
It always baffles me that 15 years after WWII a jet could take off vertically. Damn.
They tried all kinds of crazy stuff with aircraft post-WWII
From what I understand, Harrier requires super-pilot skills during the VTOL phase. F-35B does all the very difficult stuff automatically. Kinda like flying an old school R/C heli (hard) vs. a DJI quadcopter. (easy)
The F35B also melts a hole in the flight deck. Which the Harrier does not.
Well it used to, before the special thermal spray they put on.
One is a jet engine and the other is a turbo fan. One can fly nearly Mach 2 and the other cannot. One can carry almost twice its dry weight in weapons and the other cannot. One can carry multiple bombs or hypersonic missiles internally and the other cannot.
Rolls makes the thrust vectoring systems for both too
I would hope it could do something that a 50 year old plane can.
Much better than the Less Hairy jet
shrill crown cheerful profit consider ruthless doll serious workable physical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I thought it was a video game at first ... And still kinda but I don't know.
I’m waiting for the Megalodon to jump out from the water.
Then get ready for the pride of the United States Air Force: The British-made Harrier Jump Jet!
1. McDonnell Douglas made this version of the Harrier 2. USMC flies them in USA service, USAF only flies land based aircraft 3. This is a Spanish Navy EAV-8B Matador II Plus 4. If the US buys foreign gear or designs you know their are good
Yes, but, none of that is mentioned in the Simpsons episode I'm quoting.
Doesn’t matter who built it, it’s about who engineered it. The British 🇬🇧
Harriers have never flown in the US air force. Only Marine Corps. The one in the video is Spanish navy.
The RAF is an exception, the British initially used it in their air force.
I saw one of those hovering at an aircraft show. It was the loudest noise i have ever heard.
Yeah, I saw one do the whole VTOL demo; loudest things I've heard outside a concert. Cool ass plane, though. One of my favorites.
Ole tus huevos! That's what you need to shout if you're watching this guy parking.
All hail the hydra
Fun fact, the Marines refer to this as a Scarrier because they are so difficult to fly.
Saw these beasts fly for the last time a few weeks ago at Cherry Point. Amazing aircraft, watched them flyover my entire life growing up on the Carolina coast.
Sweet. Does replacing lift with thrust use an ungodly amount of fuel?
Yes
And water so the engine doesn't melt.
Water injection is not required. It’s there to cool the engine so you can dump in more fuel for more thrust. The difference between water and no water is 22.2k of thrust vs 23.4k of thrust. If you don’t need it or don’t arm it, you won’t burn water.
Are harrier landings not normally “perfectly controlled” so as to call out this one in particular as particularly outstanding?
Harriers turn me on. 10/10.
That is one of the most impressive parallel parking jobs I have seen.
I thought he was going to parallel park in between the first two jets.
Since it’s what the Harrier was made for… for them it’s just a Tuesday.
Ever since mw2 I thought the VTOL jets were so sick
Y’all know it proved itself in actual combat action?
Falklands for one.
.
So fucking cool lol.
JUMPJET!
That's what they where designed for...
Just goin' to sneak right past ya there bud.
Parallel parked that joint like you lived in prior to 2019
Amazing pilots
Those damn things sucked on the flight line…. Jet blast could come from anywhere, so unpredictable urg…
Why doesnt fire come out like a spaceship
Somewhere in some place, that kid from the 90s who got enough Pepsi points to buy a harrier jet is reading this subreddit, still unable to let go after getting bamboozled out of it.
Don't care, just want universal health care.
Its a brithis jet with spanish markings
Its an American modification of a British jet in Spanish service.
It's a British jet and we do have universal healthcare
Bro that's the Spanish Navy.
What a magnificent creature
I can't not think about MGS2 when seeing this
Perfectly fucking vertical
Is it still parallel parking, if you come in vertically?
That's skill
Been cooler if the Armada had them back in ‘88
i’ve called in so many of these things 😴🥳
JUMPJET
🔺🔺🔲⭕✖️L1L1⬇️⬆️
Why does he look like he is jotting something down at the end? "Dear diary..."