The Harrier is sooo cool

[Princess L]

Anyone ever see it live?

start at 7:50

[Red Hook]

Anyone ever see it live?

start at 7:50

yeah, that is pretty cool. I wonder if this it feasible/affordable to be used in commercial flights, probably not.

giving the current state of the airline industry I doubt.

They can't even figure out that it would better to board passengers in the back on the plane first.  How many times have you tried boarding a plane only to have to wait in a stupid line in the "shoot".

Also, there is trend in NY that when the plane lands everyone from the back rush to the front and clog the aisles, so much for de-boarding in an orderly fashion.

[HDPhysiques]

I've seen it in person several times during the Fair St. Louis airshow over the 4th of July holidays back in the 80's and 90's.   It's LOUD AS FUCK!!!!

[noworries]

Saw the Harrier up close and heard it way back in the 70's.  We used to go to the Pt Mugu air show all the time when I was a kid.  I thought that plane was the coolest anywhere

[Princess L]

I've seen it several times at the EAA convention.  Doesn't look like it's going to be there this year  .  Quite the coveted show.

The AV-8B Harrier II demonstration is one of the most sought-after aerial demonstrations offered by the U.S. military. The Marine Corps does not have a dedicated AV-8B II Harrier demonstration team, so demonstrations are performed by the same aircraft and crewmembers who train and deploy in support of real-world contingencies, including support of on-going operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. For this reason, Headquarters Marine Corps annually selects a handful of events to receive the coveted demonstration.

[tendonitis]

don't most getbiggers own a couple of these?

[polychronopolous]

don't most getbiggers own a couple of these?

I'm posting from mine, 20 thousand feet up in the air, as we speak.

[grab an umbrella]

In all honesty, the harriers are pretty shitty planes.

[HDPhysiques]

In all honesty, the harriers are pretty shitty planes.

QFT.  Big wow factor, but pretty useless as a weapon.  It was designed for the sole purpose of being able to take off from a base whose airstrip has been bombed during a time of war.  We can pretty much count on zero hands the number of times that has been necessary over the last 40 years.  Traditional air to ground, or air to air fighters, are both far superior at meeting their objectives as long as they have a place to take off.

[Parker]

QFT.  Big wow factor, but pretty useless as a weapon.  It was designed for the sole purpose of being able to take off from a base whose airstrip has been bombed during a time of war.  We can pretty much count on zero hands the number of times that has been necessary over the last 40 years.  Traditional air to ground, or air to air fighters, are both far superior at meeting their objectives as long as they have a place to take off.

Doesn't the JSF doe it better?

[oldman]

actually, its a sitting duck.  you just cant hover like that in a hostile area, you will be shot down!  seen the demos for years in ...

[grab an umbrella]

actually, its a sitting duck.  you just cant hover like that in a hostile area, you will be shot down!  seen the demos for years in ...

God you're retarded.  Its for takeoffs with no runways.

[HDPhysiques]

Doesn't the JSF doe it better?

It will, yes.

[noworries]

QFT.  Big wow factor, but pretty useless as a weapon.  It was designed for the sole purpose of being able to take off from a base whose airstrip has been bombed during a time of war.  We can pretty much count on zero hands the number of times that has been necessary over the last 40 years.  Traditional air to ground, or air to air fighters, are both far superior at meeting their objectives as long as they have a place to take off.

Yea pretty shitty plane

[El Diablo Blanco]

Anyone ever see it live?

start at 7:50

Driving up the I-5 through Pendelton there was a Harrier hovering about 50n years in creating a nightmare of a dust-storm.  The whole freeway came to a stop to see this thing.  Awesome

[oldman]

God you're retarded.  Its for takeoffs with no runways.

no offense to you, but to take off you have to land first.  if you have been to the big sand box take a look at what happens to helicopters.  They create a huge dust storm and the pilots experince vertigo, this has created many an accident.  Over hostile territory, its a one engine, underarmed showpiece.  And dont make fun of retarded people asshole.

Article by two Los Angeles Times reporters on their four-part series on the Marine Corps' Harrier jet. In February 2001, the Marine Corps Commandant was touting the flying abilities of the Harrier, which could land and take off vertically. However, by then the Times had discovered "a different reality." "The aircraft had crashed at alarming rates for three decades, making it the most dangerous plane flown by the U.S. military." Three more Harriers crashed in July 2001, bringing the total number of major accidents to 143, and "the loss of one-third of the fleet." 45 Marines had died in non-combat crashes. The article chronicles the investigation by the Times, and how it was revealed that the Marines knew for years about the Harrier's problems, and took steps -- including falsifying records -- to cover them up. The series prompted a number of congressional hearings, including an inquiry by the House appropriations subcommittee on defense into "whether the Harrier...should be flying at all." An infobox on other military accidents is also included.

[TommyBoy]

I've talked to and worked with these planes quite a bit when stationed in Okinawa. Pretty impressive to say the least. They aren't allowed to vertically land on normal runways because most runways aren't re-enforced to handle the ridiculous amount of heat/pressure it takes for them to do VTOL (vertical takeoff/landings) operations. We had a VTOL landing area specifically put in for these guys so they wouldn't literally burn holes in our runways. They can still do normal takeoffs/landings like other jets though, though that is obvious to most, some people don't realize it. The JSF SHOULD do everything this plane does, and better, but the harrier was ahead of its time. Way ahead. It is pretty neat watching them come screaming in to your traffic pattern only to be able to slow down to hover speeds when needed.

edit: To you guys saying this thing has uses that aren't needed nowadays don't truly understand the operational advantages being able to VTOL provides. Why do you think the USN and USMC wouldn't take the JSF unless it had VTOL capability? It is very hard to explain, but just from an air traffic standpoint having an aircraft able to float or go ridonkulously fast is awesome. It allows for some interesting pattern work to expedite air traffic flow and in a war-time scenario that could be life-saving. Not to mention its actual combat advantages.

[oldman]

Tommy Boy,

FYI, the Harriers used to do a demo at Kadena AB Okinawa. First of all, they didnt burn holes in the runways and they landed vertically without damaging the runways.  Their ability to slow down and hover is not used to manage air traffic or for combat manuvers.  The general use was intended to be short take off and landing.
Remember, the SR-71 Habu used the same runway as did heavy C-5A Galaxys, the runway is also an alternate for the space shuttle.  Bottom line, it is designed to take a beating.  So, tell me, were you stationed at Camp Butler?  Ever go to Sgt Peppers rock house on BC street or Charlies tacos?

[Cy Tolliver]

i'm sure you like the Millennium Falcon more Princess Leia.... rofl

[oldman]

I've talked to and worked with these planes quite a bit when stationed in Okinawa. you talked to the harrier, now I see the problem

Pretty impressive to say the least. They aren't allowed to vertically land on normal runways because most runways aren't re-enforced to handle the ridiculous amount of heat/pressure it takes for them to do VTOL (vertical takeoff/landings) operations. We had a VTOL landing area specifically put in for these guys so they wouldn't literally burn holes in our runways.  they did it everyday at Kandena AB Okinawa, much heavier planes used the runways there, the F15 did a flight demo with afterburners and it took off vertically, no damage to runway


They can still do normal takeoffs/landings like other jets though, though that is obvious to most, some people don't realize it. The JSF SHOULD do everything this plane does, and better, but the harrier was ahead of its time. actually, there were vtol aircraft in the 60'sWay ahead. It is pretty neat watching them come screaming in to your traffic pattern only to be able to slow down to hover speeds when needed.

edit: To you guys saying this thing has uses that aren't needed nowadays don't truly understand the operational advantages being able to VTOL provides. Why do you think the USN and USMC wouldn't take the JSF unless it had VTOL capability? It is very hard to explain, but just from an air traffic standpoint having an aircraft able to float or go ridonkulously fast is awesome. It allows for some interesting pattern work to expedite air traffic flow and in a war-time scenario that could be life-saving. Not to mention its actual combat advantages.

[TommyBoy]

Tommy Boy,

FYI, the Harriers used to do a demo at Kadena AB Okinawa. First of all, they didnt burn holes in the runways and they landed vertically without damaging the runways.  Their ability to slow down and hover is not used to manage air traffic or for combat manuvers.  The general use was intended to be short take off and landing.
Remember, the SR-71 Habu used the same runway as did heavy C-5A Galaxys, the runway is also an alternate for the space shuttle.  Bottom line, it is designed to take a beating.  So, tell me, were you stationed at Camp Butler?  Ever go to Sgt Peppers rock house on BC street or Charlies tacos?

I was an air traffic controller stationed at Kadena from 2004-2007. Meaning, just because I wasn't hands on with these planes didn't mean I didn't know exactly what I could get out of them or what I could not allow them to do. Same thing went with my airfield. I had to know everything about that place to the smallest patch of concrete. When I say they weren't allowed to do it, they weren't allowed to do it. You use the SR-71 as an example of an aircraft that used the runways there, so that gives me a good idea this was many years ago and things do change and runways do wear down. Harriers were routinely TDY there so they weren't there just for demonstration. No aircraft I dealt with there was for demonstration, including the F-22s. They were a part of day-to-day operations with all the other bajillion aircraft operating there. There was a VTOL pad put in after an incident that happened shortly before my arrival there involving the harrier causing a lot of damage to a portion to the runway after doing a direct VTOL landing on it. Airfield managers do not like harriers doing VTOL directly on their runways and neither do controllers. We have rules in place not to allow it now. The risk is to high for serious damage. When i said "burned" I didn't mean literally melt the runway. The runway there is old (or was, I believe they re-did them recently) and I have personally seen an F-15 kick out asphalt on a takeoff more than once. Just because I "talked" to these aircraft doesn't mean I wasn't educated on their characteristics in detail. Weight is not the end all reason why aircraft can/can't use certain portions of an airfield by the way. The C-5s pretty much had free reign on the airfield wherever their wing tip would not restrict them, whereas the C-141 for example was. All about how things are distributed. No, the harrier was not designed to be advantageous to air traffic but it ended up being that way. I know from my experience working with its VTOL capabilities I made good use out of it.

No, I don't think those restaurants were still there. Then again BC street was out gate 2 if I remember correctly and that was thug-wannabe alley which I avoided, unless it was time to get drunk and party it up. So after store hours. I ate a lot of CoCo's though.

I wasn't aware of other VTOL aircraft back in the 60s. I know they were working on them though. I suppose the harrier would be the biggest success story out of the bunch though? They used a harley motorcycle chain originally to move the engines back and forth if I remember correctly.

[noworries]

I was an air traffic controller stationed at Kadena from 2004-2007. Meaning, just because I wasn't hands on with these planes didn't mean I didn't know exactly what I could get out of them or what I could not allow them to do. Same thing went with my airfield. I had to know everything about that place to the smallest patch of concrete. When I say they weren't allowed to do it, they weren't allowed to do it. You use the SR-71 as an example of an aircraft that used the runways there, so that gives me a good idea this was many years ago and things do change and runways do wear down. Harriers were routinely TDY there so they weren't there just for demonstration. No aircraft I dealt with there was for demonstration, including the F-22s. They were a part of day-to-day operations with all the other bajillion aircraft operating there. There was a VTOL pad put in after an incident that happened shortly before my arrival there involving the harrier causing a lot of damage to a portion to the runway after doing a direct VTOL landing on it. Airfield managers do not like harriers doing VTOL directly on their runways and neither do controllers. We have rules in place not to allow it now. The risk is to high for serious damage. When i said "burned" I didn't mean literally melt the runway. The runway there is old (or was, I believe they re-did them recently) and I have personally seen an F-15 kick out asphalt on a takeoff more than once. Just because I "talked" to these aircraft doesn't mean I wasn't educated on their characteristics in detail. Weight is not the end all reason why aircraft can/can't use certain portions of an airfield by the way. The C-5s pretty much had free reign on the airfield wherever their wing tip would not restrict them, whereas the C-141 for example was. All about how things are distributed. No, the harrier was not designed to be advantageous to air traffic but it ended up being that way. I know from my experience working with its VTOL capabilities I made good use out of it.

No, I don't think those restaurants were still there. Then again BC street was out gate 2 if I remember correctly and that was thug-wannabe alley which I avoided, unless it was time to get drunk and party it up. So after store hours. I ate a lot of CoCo's though.

I wasn't aware of other VTOL aircraft back in the 60s. I know they were working on them though. I suppose the harrier would be the biggest success story out of the bunch though? They used a harley motorcycle chain originally to move the engines back and forth if I remember correctly.

I like when someone speaks that was ACTUALLY there and talks out of ACTUAL experience.  Not from reading in books or watching YouTube Videos.  Good job

[HTexan]