Sea Harrier XZ439 takes to the skies in the U.S.

By: Nashio966 - 11th November 2007 at 09:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

beautiful, and a quite impressive achievement...wish it was here though

By: bazv - 11th November 2007 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Good old 439 !! she was always a good overtime generator;)
A big well done to Art and co...a huge undertaking!!
Here she is about to 'land on' on the speedboat Vincible during trials flying circa 1995.

Attachments

By: Creaking Door - 11th November 2007 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Congratulations to Art Nalls and his team! :)

A great pity that the RNHF couldn’t have operated one…but I do understand the funding wasn’t available. :(

Never thought a Sea Harrier would ever fly again…but as they say…never say never…RNHF? ;)

P.S. BAZV is XZ439 sporting ‘sharks teeth’ in that photo?

By: bazv - 11th November 2007 at 11:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

P.S. BAZV is XZ439 sporting ‘sharks teeth’ in that photo?

Yes applied by the groundcrew during hot weather trials in the states in 1993, don't ask me why... I was not on that trial !!

1 in the hover before landing on
2 just before touchdown
3 in dock at Liverpool during break from 3 week jail sentence,I take my hat off to the ladies and gentlemen of the RN who voluntarily stay aboard Carriers!!

Attachments

By: Manston Airport - 11th November 2007 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Thats no fair wish there was a flying Sea Harrier over here :( anyway good luck to them:cool: Wonder if one could go to the RNHF :D

James

By: SJL - 12th November 2007 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Fantastic news

I'll have to split my next overseas plane spotting excursion in two - UK (Vulcan), and US (Shar) :-)

By: Vulcan903 - 12th November 2007 at 19:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

2nd Flight - not so good

2nd flight was not so good and had an undercarriage failure. Had to land vertical. Landing seemed OK and the aircraft seems to be fine apart from scratches on the nose. This will delay flight no 3 but hey they are flying a SHAR - well done guys for getting this far.

By: David Burke - 12th November 2007 at 20:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I am fairly familiar with the GR.3 systems - doesn't the F/A .2 have the same nitrogen blow down bottle ?

By: Vulcan903 - 12th November 2007 at 20:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

This is what I got from Art,

An absolutely amazing weekend! Saturday was spectacular, Sunday was colorful, to say the least.

After a thoroughly successful first flight Saturday, we had a setback today. Thankfully, we briefed very professionally and covered every conceivable contingency. It’s a good thing we did. Our chase (Ricardo Traven in his Baron) and our Landing Signal Officer (LSO) Joe Anderson (another former Harrier test pilot) went over potential emergencies and we, as a team, agreed that certain emergencies would be best handled by a divert to Patuxent River Naval Air Station with its long runways, a VSTOL landing grid and active Crash Crew…good plan.

On our first flight, we stayed gear down, got airborne and comfortable again. After all, it’s been 16 years since I’ve actually flown a Harrier and it’s just me in the cockpit. I did some slow flight and then back for a slow (100kt) landing. Takeoffs equaled landings and by all accounts, a huge success. I lost my radio early in the flight, but fortunately, we had briefed this contingency. The chase picked up all the radio calls, as I flew the briefed profile. The radio problem was corrected on the ground- a simple comm cord.

For our 2nd flight, we scheduled cycling the landing gear, increasing G turns, mild acrobatics (aileron roll, wingovers, approach to stalls, etc) and some cruise performance, followed by 3 Short TakeOff’s (STO’s) and 3 Slow Landings (SL). We put vertical work on hold until we had a “feel good” about the slow work. After takeoff and the initial landing gear cycle, with the chase aircraft close aboard, all systems appeared normal. I continued with our test card for steep turns up to about 3 G’s.

Approximately 15 minutes into the flight, I got a “hydraulic 1” warning light. Since fuel was not a major concern, at this point, I lowered my landing gear early and secured the fuel flow proportioner, the first procedures in the emergency checklist. My chase plane broke out the emergency checklist and as a team in constant communication with the LSO, we stepped through the procedures and discussed our options. All landing gear indications remained unsafe, confirmed by the safety chase. A vertical landing was our best bet and Pax River was the safest place to do it.

While orbiting overhead he airfield and in contact with the Pax River tower, we tried positive and negative G maneuvers to let gravity help us lower the gear- none of which gave us a positive response. There was simply no pressure in the system and gravity was unable to overcome the aerodynamic loads.

I arrived in a hover over the VSTOL grating at Pax with the Sea Harrier looking like all landing gear down (confirmed by the LSO to include an illuminated nose gear approach light), but still unsafe indications in the cockpit. After a gentle touchdown, I was rewarded by an abrupt collapse of the nosegear and starboard outrigger. Our Sea Harrier rests undignified on her nose, but unbowed. It probably looks worse than it really is.
There is no evident engine damage, only cosmetic nose abrasions, and some minor skin wrinkling. At this point, that appears to be the extent of the damage. My estimate is that this has set us back by 90 days (2 weeks in Art-speak). I may be wrong, but once we know for sure the extent of the damage, I will realistically report what must be accomplished and go from there.

We will not be deterred from our ultimate objective of showcasing our Sea Harrier. In fact, these past two days have demonstrated quite a lot. First of all, we FLEW! We actually flew an airplane not many believed could fly, and we can operate from a small airfield. We have a beautiful flying airplane! I can’t tell you how great this airplane flies. Many pilots prefer the Sea Harrier to the AV-8B and I now know why. We also have an extremely powerful engine, just right for breaking those time-to-climb records.

If we go no further than we have, we’ve managed to fly a Sea Harrier for 1.5 hours over two flights. That, itself, is significant, but we’re not done yet….

Last night and early this morning, we have had several team meetings. No ego’s here and no holds barred. Brutally honest and fostering the belief that we may not be perfect, but we are professional - and a team. We have a list of “lessons learned” and WHEN we fly this airplane again, we will all be the better.

Now it’s time to get back to work. We’ve got an airplane to fix.

Sincerely,
Art Nalls

By: David Burke - 12th November 2007 at 21:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The undercarriage will dangle but what happens is that it cannot push the fluid - it just compresses it .The blowdown bottle blows the legs down in the event of Uc carriage failure and dumps the fluid out of the mains but you have the legs locked down. If it had locked under gravity he would have heard a loud crack fom the nose leg and similarily the main. The outriggers dont have mechanical locks so it's not unusual for an outrigger to go back.
I good indication that all is well would have been the nose and main doors closing once the gear was down .

By: BlueRobin - 12th November 2007 at 21:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Nice to see Pax River were accommodating.

By: pagen01 - 13th November 2007 at 11:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Excellent result and good news, I didn't realise that there was effort being made to fly a SHAR.
Hope it dosen't go the way of other British types that have flown in ths States.

By: nobby nozzles - 13th November 2007 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The sharks mouth was painted on at Eglin A.F.B. in response to a remark made by the project test pilot who said that he always wanted to fly a plane with teeth.... I was there! The trial in 1993-94 was in fact the Sea Harrier AMRAAM firing trial, the first non American aircraft to live fire the missile.

By: bazv - 13th November 2007 at 20:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I am fairly familiar with the GR.3 systems - doesn't the F/A .2 have the same nitrogen blow down bottle ?

Yes David it does..exactly the same.
it has a 3300 psi Nitrogen bottle with an electrically initiated, explosive operated frangible disc valve(start valve) to let the pressure through shuttle valves to the leg jacks.
There could be a few reasons i can think of in this case why it was not used...all pure conjecture on my part of course !!
1...electrical failure to start valve.
2...lack of suitable spares for explosive start valve.
3...inability to gain clearance to fly with this system live in the US.
4...lack of high pressure nitrogen.

What a shame after all that work,i wish the team the best of luck in getting the old girl airborne again!!

By: HME - 13th December 2009 at 00:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Nobby Nozzles,

I'd like to ask you a question. Please PM me.