Sea Harrier accident reports- looking
Thread Starter
Sea Harrier accident reports- looking
Can anyone point to links or provide accident summaries or insight on FAA Sea Harrier losses? Interested in all/any, but especially XZ438 on the ski jump trial (due to tank inballance) and the ramp/mast/ship strikes by XZ454 and ZA191.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right about XZ438, a development aircraft pressed into training at Yeovilton.
The drop tanks went asymmetric - my father was a Dunsfold charge-hand in Dunsfold Experimental hangar ( 438's normal home ); he found that after a lunch break, wing tanks had a nasty habit of syphoning - it's pretty sure this is what happened to 438.
I don't mean any insult to the pilot ( whose name I've forgotten ) but maybe a sharp Test Pilot might have got away with it...
I did meet one of the attending groundcrew on a later Harrier trial, he'd realised things were not going according to plan, and made a run for the armoured ATC door; in true Hollywood style he'd just shut it when the main undercarriage hit it !
As for other Seajets hitting masts, I don't know any details but it does tend to sound like 'brave chappies' being idiots...
I was told by a Harrier Test Pilot ( mind, he was no J.F, and wouldn't wake up unless a large cheque was waved under his nose ) that there had been several losses due to the INS toppling in the hover recovery; as the primary instrument, one tended to follow the HUD as it rolled, particularly at night, with disastrous results.
The drop tanks went asymmetric - my father was a Dunsfold charge-hand in Dunsfold Experimental hangar ( 438's normal home ); he found that after a lunch break, wing tanks had a nasty habit of syphoning - it's pretty sure this is what happened to 438.
I don't mean any insult to the pilot ( whose name I've forgotten ) but maybe a sharp Test Pilot might have got away with it...
I did meet one of the attending groundcrew on a later Harrier trial, he'd realised things were not going according to plan, and made a run for the armoured ATC door; in true Hollywood style he'd just shut it when the main undercarriage hit it !
As for other Seajets hitting masts, I don't know any details but it does tend to sound like 'brave chappies' being idiots...
I was told by a Harrier Test Pilot ( mind, he was no J.F, and wouldn't wake up unless a large cheque was waved under his nose ) that there had been several losses due to the INS toppling in the hover recovery; as the primary instrument, one tended to follow the HUD as it rolled, particularly at night, with disastrous results.
Last edited by Double Zero; 2nd Jun 2010 at 17:43.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitwe,
I stand corrected then.
There are, as I'm sure you know, no guages to inform the pilot of drop tank status, and tapping on the walk-round is of dubious value; the only cure I can think of is to be freshly topped up !
BTW, what was the purpose of said trials ? As far as I know 438 wasn't carrying any particular stores; maybe HUDCASS development ?
DZ
I stand corrected then.
There are, as I'm sure you know, no guages to inform the pilot of drop tank status, and tapping on the walk-round is of dubious value; the only cure I can think of is to be freshly topped up !
BTW, what was the purpose of said trials ? As far as I know 438 wasn't carrying any particular stores; maybe HUDCASS development ?
DZ
Thread Starter
Big tanks
Thank you DZ. I recall the loss on the ramp was with the big ferry tanks (330 US gallon?, not the "new" 190 gallon tanks), so if one were full, I presume a ~2000? pound inballance would be quite a surprise coming off the ramp. In an earlier email I asked the very respected SHAR test pilot his thoughts on these big tanks. Apparantly handling was quite sporty with these tanks, and full flap was not permittied as full flap would inpinge on the tank (although he indicated the limitation was cautious and could likley have been worked around if it was required to keep the tanks for a VL).
Still would appreciate anymore on this loss and the ramp and mast strikes. Do not need names, no intent to bring up bad memories.
Still would appreciate anymore on this loss and the ramp and mast strikes. Do not need names, no intent to bring up bad memories.
seem to recall from those present that these big tanks were in three sections and that apparently the aft section of one tank was not empty so went off ramp and pitched up. Also recall that TP's eye's popped on ejection . First guy on scene was naval surgeon so all sorted . Forgotten his name but i think left navy to go test flying in states as a contractor for USN trials work a few years later. Remember this accident occurred whilst falklands conflict on and a lot of rushed urgent requirements were trialled in a hurry. Believe these tanks were leftovers from a hunter project ? but havent seen any pics of them on a hunter.
I recall an incident at RAE Bedford involving the 2 seat Harrier during experiments on the high angle Ski Jump (at angles greater than those in service).
Due to an error in calculating the acceleration distance, the aircraft arrived at the ramp too fast and the subsequent rate of nose leg compression burst the nose leg oleo – big bang and clouds of vaporized hydraulic fluid.
The nose leg was badly damaged; this prevented a conventional landing and could have involved some risk during a normal vertical landing.
Fortunately, Bedford had a hover pit – a metal grill over a large concrete-lined hole originally built for the SC1, which enabled the Harrier to land vertically with out significant damage.
Due to an error in calculating the acceleration distance, the aircraft arrived at the ramp too fast and the subsequent rate of nose leg compression burst the nose leg oleo – big bang and clouds of vaporized hydraulic fluid.
The nose leg was badly damaged; this prevented a conventional landing and could have involved some risk during a normal vertical landing.
Fortunately, Bedford had a hover pit – a metal grill over a large concrete-lined hole originally built for the SC1, which enabled the Harrier to land vertically with out significant damage.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. The Bedford FRS1 ski/ramp loading & run accident,
in my earlier times 1980's, possibly as a result of this, BAe ski jump trials - still relatively early in the aircrafts' development - were not allowed to proceed until 3 Flight Test Engineers had all gone away, done their calculations and come back with the same figures !
Presumably a simpler set-up was thus designed for wargoing service pilots.
in my earlier times 1980's, possibly as a result of this, BAe ski jump trials - still relatively early in the aircrafts' development - were not allowed to proceed until 3 Flight Test Engineers had all gone away, done their calculations and come back with the same figures !
Presumably a simpler set-up was thus designed for wargoing service pilots.
