Jump to content

Sea Harrier flies into history


Recommended Posts

Just a pity they didn't manage to replicate previous 'last launches' (Phantom, Sea Vixen) with a little 'Fly Navy' grafitti.

That would have been great, but it was only on the carrier for a couple of hours, and during its brief stay it was used by Brian Hanrahan for his news report.

Thanks for these PCB, looking forward to seeing a GR9 in RN squadron markings soon.

You're very welcome. 3F squadron were RAF in name only, as the vast majority (over 95%) of the "lads" (maintainers in FAA speak) were RN, and only couple of RAF pilots, most being navy. :banana: FLY NAVY!!!

Really good pics Pinky! Any chance I can get some large resolution pics thru the email?

Send me an email of which pictures you would like and by the magic of the world wide web you shall receive :D

Always tot the SHARs were the best looking lot in the family!

I agree, the first generation Harriers (GR1 and SHar) are the nicest, but the GR7/9 isn't bad looking, and the Harrier is still a favourite of mine - but if only the RN would agree to buying the RAFALE :wasntme: - then there would be no contest at all!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Send me an email of which pictures you would like and by the magic of the world wide web you shall receive

I forgot to add, if you would like any full size pictures, email me asap because from next week I wont have access to the internet and a couple of weeks after that, I will be away for several months, off to India (wouldn't it be wonderful if Indian Navy Sea Harriers show up and land on the deck!!!) :wasntme:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The airbrake is opened for STOL take offs as it improves lateral/directional handling.

It is sad to see the SHARs go and I doubt the RN will get their ship of dreams with F-35s. The F-35 VSTOL capability has never seemed to have much point when you can ski-jump Fulcrums, Flankers etc that do not carry the penalty of a unusable-in-flight lift jet both in-terms of weight and lost internal fuel capacity. The only advantage would appear that VSTOL's are possibly less stressful to land on carriers, or passing small coasters if you are pushed.

I know a team that studied possible configurations to replace the Harrier and they had to conclude the Harrier configuration of a single engine four jet vectored thrust was the most efficient. The sleeker Harrier design was only considred as the benchmark against which much sexier looking designs were evaluated. I was worried the the Boeing competitor was going to win as it had the right engine solution but unfortunately they were let down by their structural design. Ironically the original Harrier was hoped to have a lighter wing than was achieved as they tried to copy the A-4.

The Harrier II itself has a simple deficiency that if remedied in a Harrier III may prove a more useful viable alternative. The wing section was designed in the early 70s when the fluid dynamacists had taken a wrong turn in their methods and resulted in a draggy wing that knocked 100 knots off the top speed the VSTOL equivalent of A-7 replaced by the A-10. A few years later the HSA Kingston team designed at a "tin wing" variant (the original GR5) that had a better performance. It is unfortunate that the aerodynamics (not considered a "core skill" within BAESYSTEMS these days) of an airframe appears to take a far back place compared to the onboard systems, stealth etc though it has shown to been fundemental to the success of many outstanding airframes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers again Pinky. I'm researching another painting, this time featuring both the SHAR and GR-7, and these photos are both useful and inspiring. Thanks for sharing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Col. :D

I do enjoy posting and seeing other peoples pictures - it's nice to see things that some people take for granted but for others this could be their only chance to see such things. (Hopefully that doesn't sound too patronising, but sometimes seeing these sights all day can make one a little indifferent about such things!)

A couple more pictures to follow. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
3F squadron were RAF in name only, as the vast majority (over 95%) of the "lads" (maintainers in FAA speak) were RN, and only couple of RAF pilots, most being navy. :rolleyes: FLY NAVY!!!

And the 3 Squadron Typhoons are starting to arrive at Conningsby

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...