The "Harrier" Final days PHOTO. Tribute. (Set 1 of 3)
Thread Starter
The "Harrier" Final days PHOTO. Tribute. ( 1 of 3 consecutive "Posts")
This is my Photo. tribute to the final days of the "Harrier"
(Mods. please move this thread if you think it is better on another Forum)
I covered the final days in three sessions, so follows three seperate sets of Photos. over three "posts".
They are a result of sessions in the recent very cold/wet/windy/weather!!!!!
The conditions did not make for best Photography, but it was a "Must do" situation. The results are mixed but overall I was pleased with them.
Hope they meet with approval, observations/comment welcome. Enjoy!!
SET 1
RAF Wittering, pm Thursday 9th Dec 2010
OPF
(Mods. please move this thread if you think it is better on another Forum)
I covered the final days in three sessions, so follows three seperate sets of Photos. over three "posts".
They are a result of sessions in the recent very cold/wet/windy/weather!!!!!
The conditions did not make for best Photography, but it was a "Must do" situation. The results are mixed but overall I was pleased with them.
Hope they meet with approval, observations/comment welcome. Enjoy!!
SET 1
RAF Wittering, pm Thursday 9th Dec 2010
OPF
Last edited by Old Photo.Fanatic; 4th Jan 2011 at 00:00.
Thread Starter
Harrier the Final day, Photo set 3 of 3
THE FINAL DAY ARRIVES.
RAF Cottesmore, pm Wednesday 15th Dec. 2010
(ZH657)
(ZD433)
The final long taxi back to retirement!!!
This photo. I think is a fitting end shot to "Cottesmore"
Photo. taken on Monday 13th Dec. But I think its apt.
OPF
RAF Cottesmore, pm Wednesday 15th Dec. 2010
(ZH657)
(ZD433)
The final long taxi back to retirement!!!
This photo. I think is a fitting end shot to "Cottesmore"
Photo. taken on Monday 13th Dec. But I think its apt.
OPF
Last edited by Old Photo.Fanatic; 4th Jan 2011 at 00:10.
Thread Starter
Really annoyed
Would you be ok to move /resubmitt your reply to be after the Final set of Pics? (3 of 3)
I dont want to appear cheeky but it breaks up the sequence, with thanks.
Yes I do have other Aircraft photos.
60,000+ Slides 1975-2005
Hundreds of Digital "Files " Average content 200-300 photos per "File" from 2005 -2010 and ongoing!!!!!!
OPF
I dont want to appear cheeky but it breaks up the sequence, with thanks.
Yes I do have other Aircraft photos.
60,000+ Slides 1975-2005
Hundreds of Digital "Files " Average content 200-300 photos per "File" from 2005 -2010 and ongoing!!!!!!
OPF
Last edited by Old Photo.Fanatic; 3rd Jan 2011 at 23:07.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OPF:
You have managed to combine two things in that series of images. Firstly, the end of a great era and one that will be sadly missed by both those who were there at the the start and those who will miss them in action today. Secondly, you have in there a few incredible images in a photographic sense. The combination of the two makes for quite a remarkable and memorable set... Thank you for your effort and skill.
You have managed to combine two things in that series of images. Firstly, the end of a great era and one that will be sadly missed by both those who were there at the the start and those who will miss them in action today. Secondly, you have in there a few incredible images in a photographic sense. The combination of the two makes for quite a remarkable and memorable set... Thank you for your effort and skill.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the Bay, Vic, Oz
Age: 80
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Vulcan and Lightning avionics eng, I can appreciate the shear beauty of such a fabulous aircraft. But it belonged to an era when the costs of going to war were considered irrelevant. Given the brute force necessary to lift the Harrier vertically, the quantity of fuel being burnt must have been ginormous. Not dissimilar to a Lighning sticking it's tail down and climbing vertically after lift-off. Read somewhere about how much of their fuel load was expended in the first few minutes after takeoff and in getting to operational altitude. Glad I wasn't personally picking up the tab.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZD321
Interesting to see 321 in 'modern' warpaint, I haven't seen it since in original green livery.
This aircraft was used for some development work at Dunsfold; a clown in the hangar tried to get it nick-named 'Dusty Bin', apparently after the appalling 'Countdown 321' TV programme.
We in Photographic would have given our eye teeth for the digital cameras available off the shelf now...
This aircraft was used for some development work at Dunsfold; a clown in the hangar tried to get it nick-named 'Dusty Bin', apparently after the appalling 'Countdown 321' TV programme.
We in Photographic would have given our eye teeth for the digital cameras available off the shelf now...
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alisoncc
I am afraid you have been poorly advised about fuel consumption (but you are not the first).
Let us take it one step at a time:
The Harrier has a jet engine.
The amount of fuel you can burn in a jet engine depends on the amount of air going though it.
In the hover or during a VTO the engine is sucking in air.
When you are flying fast the air is rammed in.
If you want to see some high fuel flows then get going fast - you will be surprised especially at low level on a cold day.
With your new found knowledge you will now realise why the Harrier uses less fuel from VTO until it reaches its cruising speed on the first leg heading than it does using a conventional takeoff (and one of those silly runways that are never pointing in the direction you want to go)
JF
Let us take it one step at a time:
The Harrier has a jet engine.
The amount of fuel you can burn in a jet engine depends on the amount of air going though it.
In the hover or during a VTO the engine is sucking in air.
When you are flying fast the air is rammed in.
If you want to see some high fuel flows then get going fast - you will be surprised especially at low level on a cold day.
With your new found knowledge you will now realise why the Harrier uses less fuel from VTO until it reaches its cruising speed on the first leg heading than it does using a conventional takeoff (and one of those silly runways that are never pointing in the direction you want to go)
JF
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent pics.
How many Harrier pilots were operational at the time of Harrier retirement & what are they generally up to at the moment?
Are many of them being converted to Tornado/Typhoon?
Are the Harriers going in to long term storage or getting smashed up?
How many Harrier pilots were operational at the time of Harrier retirement & what are they generally up to at the moment?
Are many of them being converted to Tornado/Typhoon?
Are the Harriers going in to long term storage or getting smashed up?
With your new found knowledge you will now realise why the Harrier uses less fuel from VTO until it reaches its cruising speed on the first leg heading than it does using a conventional takeoff (and one of those silly runways that are never pointing in the direction you want to go)
Excuse my questioning of the great "Harrier God", but if FJ VTOL was so wonderful then why did Harrier ever use a runway or ski-jump?
I know that it probably has a lot to do with MTOW and "bring back", but you could argue that fuel consumption would be exponential in VTOL compared to CTOL when at high weights...at some point CTOL consumption will eventually be better than VTOL!
iRaven
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven
Please pay attention!
The problem with VTO is that your payload is limited on takeoff (NOT bring back we have not started yet) otherwise your thrust will not exceed weight so if you want to takeoff at maximum weight you need to add a bit of wing lift so need to do an STO.
On board ship an STO when the sea is V rough can be disappointing if you get to the bow just as it points down at the sea.
So to enable max sea state ops you need a ski jump to make sure you are going up and away. It also has many other advantages in reducing deck run, leaving space behind for folk to land on, do turn rounds or whatever.
Dunno wot that means. Exponential is a long word (and it has a specific meaning)
The reason a VTO uses less fuel that a CTO is JUST ABOUT THE TIME.
When you lift off from a VTO you can rotate round with the rudder pedals on to the heading you want and dart off. The STO requires a taxy out somewhere (20/lb per min) then after TO you have to take more time at full throttle as you turn from the runway direction on to the heading for your first leg.
The difference in fuel saved on a VTO to crusing speed on heading is only about 30 lbs but that is not the point. It uses less and the problem with a VTO is NOT NOT NOT fuel consumption.
Bye
The problem with VTO is that your payload is limited on takeoff (NOT bring back we have not started yet) otherwise your thrust will not exceed weight so if you want to takeoff at maximum weight you need to add a bit of wing lift so need to do an STO.
On board ship an STO when the sea is V rough can be disappointing if you get to the bow just as it points down at the sea.
So to enable max sea state ops you need a ski jump to make sure you are going up and away. It also has many other advantages in reducing deck run, leaving space behind for folk to land on, do turn rounds or whatever.
but you could argue that fuel consumption would be exponential in VTOL compared to CTOL when at high weights.
The reason a VTO uses less fuel that a CTO is JUST ABOUT THE TIME.
When you lift off from a VTO you can rotate round with the rudder pedals on to the heading you want and dart off. The STO requires a taxy out somewhere (20/lb per min) then after TO you have to take more time at full throttle as you turn from the runway direction on to the heading for your first leg.
The difference in fuel saved on a VTO to crusing speed on heading is only about 30 lbs but that is not the point. It uses less and the problem with a VTO is NOT NOT NOT fuel consumption.
Bye