Harrier engines...

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi all
There was a quote in one of the UK papers, the Torygraph or such like, to the effect that 8 Joint Force Harriers had consumed 44 engines in little over a year.Can this be true? Is the Pegasus Mark Whatever made of old MiG parts or some things? What's eating up those engines at such a rate?
regards
TDD

[TheInquisitor]

How about sand?

[Stuff]

Seems high but not out of the realms of possibility.

[Navaleye]

Probably explains why their are too many pilots chasing not enough planes. RN JFH just 12 a/c, only 7 where they are really needed.

[Two's in]

Nothing sucks dirt quite like a Pegasus - It's just an Operational factor that would have been worked in to the Logistics solution provided by the razor sharp minds of Des Browne and his boys in Whitehall, when they checked how many spares had been procured. No cause for alarm at all, it'll just be another shining example of how Prior Planning and Preparation by the Government has absolutely and totally Prevented a Piss-Poor Performance on the ground.

[LateArmLive]

Thank god for the Navy, eh Navaleye? Obviously the RN never fodded an engine and it's just the nasty crabs out to ruin the Harrier Force. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :mad:

[Navaleye]

Two's,

You may not have any engines, but at least there's a nice new Internet Centre and Coffee Bar and Cott to relax in, while they are being re-built. :ugh:

[enginesuck]

Bloody hell its hell to change a Harrier engine as well, Wings off !!! The sooties wil be busy.

[Navaleye]

LateArm,

I'm sure that 800NAS will be lunching just as many Pegasus in the 'stan as any other unit.

[Truck2005]

Believe it or not, the Pegasus 107 was advertised as a FOD Tolerant Fan Blade ECU:confused:

The LPC1 was far more resistant than the following 2 stages. RR advise was to check further in regardless of whether there was 1st stage damage or not, (ie Ignore the FOD tolerant bit).

From a sootie point of view engine changes were part of every day life on Harrier aircraft, ( got to admit though, I didn't think that you could get any tighter fit than the 105 but RR have managed it with the 107).

[Two's in]

In all fairness to the FAA, (prior to the emascualtion and degradation of the Harrier force) it was probably a bit harder to FOD a donkey out in the middle of the oggin than when operating from a land base, although where do all those Tesco's carriers come from (other than Tesco's of course)?

[dirtygc]

I find it very hard to believe that 8 aircraft have been through 44 engines in little over a year, the torygraph is spouting such 'Tom Kite' nowadays.
Truck2005
ECU changes used to be an everyday way of life. Now we have to wait an eternity to get a serviceable one, especially if it's a 105 as this years budget to fix them (fodded ECU's only) has ran out.
Yesterday 23:16
If by sand you are referring to Candybar then I can honestly say this is not the problem. Most fodded engines are still occurring in the UK.
enginesuck
The mechanicals will be busy, not the sooties:}
Naveleye
I can recommend the sausage and egg baton in the new coffee shop;)

[WPH]

Anybody currently involved with the Harrier will know that the GRs are not seeing anymore engine changes than they ever have historically. The problem probably being referred to by the paper was with the Sea Harrier Mk 106 engines that had a problem specific to Sea Harrier/ 106 FOD tolerant fan combination resulting in many engine changes for chipped snubbers in their final year of service. Believe it or not the figures quoted are probably not too far wrong! Another reason that the Sea Harrier could not have continued for much longer without significant investment!

[WhiteOvies]

Lies, damn lies and statistics!! Don't know where they got their figures from but not from the sooties/mechs/grubbers in the 'stan. Everyone accepts that the harrier is a hoover, always has been, but dirtygc is spot on with his comments.

Truck - 106/105 had the 'FOD tolerant' LPC1 mod following 2 x cat 5's including a fatality. 107 was never sold with that tag attached.

[Archimedes]

From Flight International, 28th March 2006, article Hover and Out (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/28/Navigation/177/205735/Hover+and+out+UK+Royal+Navy+retires+the+Sea+Harrier.html) (Oh Dear. Byline writer with aspirations for the Sun?)

Engine trouble

While the FA2 performed admirably on its final operational exercise, recent use of the type has been marred by reliability issues linked to a fan blade upgrade to its Pegasus 106. Intended to improve the powerplant’s resistance to foreign object damage, the modification resulted in increased engine vibration and a reduction in individual blade life from 500h to around 90h.

The RN had expected to conduct five engine changes on its remaining Sea Harriers through the type’s final 18 months of operations, but was forced to conduct 43, largely as a result of the reliability issue.


It would seem, therefore, that the Torygraph or similar distinguished organ of the fourth estate (assuming TDD saw it recently) may have been recycling six-month old news unless eight GR7s have had a remarkably similar FOD rate. Inaccurate Torygraph defence reporting or stunning coincidence?

[WhiteOvies]

:mad: reporting on the part of the Torygraph, compounded by the fact that FI's original maths on 106s was wide of the mark. :ugh:

[The Helpful Stacker]

The WAFU element of PPrune seem to have gone quiet on this issue....

[Blacksheep]

We had a Roller 535E4 "on-wing" on one of our 757s for over 15,000 hours/5,500 cycles. Its a nice safe place to hang an engine is a 757 pylon.

Its the operating environment that eats blades and the Harrier's Pegasus lives in just about the worst environment of any engine I know of. Jets were never meant to hover or hoover.

[Truck2005]

Whiteovies,

I am not too sure what the squadrons were told when the 7A was delivered but when the 107 Upgrade program started the RR Field Engineers attached to us handed us the RR Mk105/107 Basic Physical Comparison Handouts. In the Blade Damage Limit Section is states - " The LPC1 blade is more tolerant to FOD and is known as the 'FOD tolerant Fan Blade'. Whilst this brings great benefits it also requires more vigilance during all LPC inspections.....".

My point was that on operations, particularly QTRs, the last thing you need is to enlongate the inspections! In my experience of the 107 I would go along with others and say it is not much better, FOD wise, than the previous marks. Power wise is another thing. During initial engine tests the first thing we noticed was how smooth it ran throughout the range, particularly at 0 deg nozzles, (I could understand the figures I wrote down during the blowoff valve tests)! It is a shame that it seems to be failing in ops.

[WPH]

It is a shame that it seems to be failing in ops.
Sorry Truck, but it is not failing on Ops at all! The Mk 107 is far more reliable than the Mk 105. When we bought it we rode on the back of the USMC experience of the Mk 408 and took many mods that emerged through their experience, most of which they are still to catch us up on! We are seeing very few technical issues and don't have to remove them for 500 hr hot end changes either (unlike the Mk 105/6). Yes, the engine gets FOD'd the same as the Mk 105 but if anything Ops are FODding fewer/fg hr than Cott/Witt!

Perhaps the literature you saw compared the pre-mod Mk 105/106 fan (pre-03) with the new Mk 107, in which case it would be correct.

As far as turnarounds go, the time taken to inspect a Mk 107 is the same (if not less - fewer blades) as the FOD tolerant Mk 105 and similar FOD limits now apply to both.

Trust me, the Mk 107 is not failing on Ops! Anyway, that's far too much technical detail and I'm starting to bore myself!

WPH

[Tequila Sunrise]

If, as the quote above from Flight International seems to suggest, the 'upgrade' to the SHAR's Pegasus 106 engines resulted in the drastic reduction in blade service life then why weren't the suppliers of the 'upgrade' taken to task and asked to replace the 'upgraded' engines with new engines that were fit for purpose.

That would surely have made more sense than retiring them early and citing engine reliability issues in defence of their early retirement.

Without the 'reliability issues' the SHAR's retirement could perhaps have been deferred and they could perhaps then have been able to provide CAS with their cannons in 'stan, rather than there just being the gunless GR's from JFH over there.

I know the SHAR premature retirement decision was taken in 2002 and so went largely to plan, but then the Jaguar was planned to have passed into history in UK service by now wasn't it (?) yet is (I think) still around and doing it's job. (Do please correct me if I'm wrong on that)

Cheers,
TS

[Navaleye]

Tequila,

From the RAF website:

The RAF's Jaguar fleet has recently undergone a major upgrade programme and been designated as the Jaguar GR3 (or T4 for the 2-seat version). The upgrade included improved avionics including Global Positioning System (GPS) and Terrain-Referenced Navigation (TRN) , Night Vision Goggles (NVG) compatible lighting (both internally and externally), helmet-mounted sight and ASRAAM capability, and new Head-Up and Head-Down Displays in the cockpit.



A waste of money then?

[WhiteOvies]

The decision to scrap the Sea Harrier was taken before the 'FOD Tolerant' fan was brought in. When the new fan was fitted the snubber chipping issue was unexpected but by then it was not worth the expense and trouble of changing them all again when the axe had already been brought down. There was sufficient stock to enable the management of ECUs out to OSD so that was what was done. Yes, it was a ball ache for the Squadron's, who became experts at changing engines and fans.

As a matter of interest there was a study and trial installation of the 107 in the SHAR but this was also shelved due to the early retirement.

The SHARs had cannons but had other limiting issues with sustained gunnery. They were also very good at dropping 'iron' bombs but had no precision capability that would allow them to drop weapons as close as the GRs do.

Anyway, before I start reminiscing too much and the thread drifts further...:ugh:

[Tequila Sunrise]

Thanks Navaleye.

So the Navy's fixed wing stuff get's retired early and the RAF's stuff that was going to get retired gets upgrades.

No surprise there, eh!? :ugh:

I am pleased though that the Jag's are still about. (Just wish the SHAR's were too:{.)


Thanks for your perspective too, WhiteOvies.

I realise that the retirement was planned before the fan upgrade - It just seems such a shame that an 'upgrade' screws the engines and the supplier doesn't (seemingly) get the book thrown at them. Just kind-o' wonder if without the problems the SHAR OSD could've been pushed out too to help with our many current committments.


I'll shut down for now.

Cheers,
TS

:ok: Fly Navy :ok:

[LateArmLive]

There are issues with the Jag that allow us to do pretty much what we want to it concerning upgrades. I think it's something to do with BAe not being involved :hmm: . Most, if not all, of the upgrades discussed above were carried out very cheaply (relatively) before the retirement was announced.

[Archimedes]

TS, not entirely fair.

The Jag GR3 upgrade took place from 96/97, when the type wasn't due to retire (HM's Treasury permitting...) until 2009 at the earliest. The nice Mr Hoon scuppered that plan with his 'rebalancing' in 03/04. It wasn't the case that the Jag chaps were given shiny new toys despite retirement being months around the corner. 6 Sqn is still going and is due to stand down next year (but see rumours elsewhere...)

By the by, I thought that the Jag ASRAAM integration was never actually funded?

[Tequila Sunrise]

I stand corrected on the Jag timeline, Archimedes - apologies and thanks.