Dude

Cool. It would even be more cool to see him do that on a gravel road. The F35 can do that, right?

If the Russians made it, it could.

Hmm Wonder what kind of a payload it can have and still do the full vertical takeoff?

Is this going to be a success?


Travis

Well, it didn't crash that time. 'Course, helicopters have been doing that VTOL thing for years.

Scarriers didn't have a real illustrious career from what I understand.

Aren't single engines a bad idea for a killing rig?



Travis

Cool. Used to work with some Harrier pilots. Crazy guys, flying a jet that takes off and lands straight up and down...

Usually though the Harriers would use a running takeoff, into the wind. Particularly if they were carrying any bombs.

Still in the testing stage.

Will likely be kicking up dust/sand soon enough.

A Harriet pilot, whose parents lived in the Ruston, La. area, would fly from the east coast and land at the Ruston airport. He always landed vertical, but took off like a regular plane.

I asked him why. He said taking off vertical took too much fuel.

He made several trips to Ruston, I saw him twice, but I heard he put on a show one time and got in trouble for it.

It just looks un natural.

At the Duluth (MN) airshow some years ago a Harrier was on the flight line.. That pilot was amazing.. During his entire routine, that plane NEVER exhibited so much as one iota of wobble. And he would take off straight up to about 100 feet, then shift into forward flight w/o losing a foot of altitude - fly around and come in from the opposite direction, stop in mid-air and put that plane down quickly but so softly the landing gear never rebounded..

Never saw anything like it..

If you want one of your own just by some property around MCAS Cherry Point. Only a matter of time until one drops on you.

Buying a single engine jet to operate in blue water or in combat is just dumb- I don't care how reliable the motor is in testing.

The Harrier had to be "Flown." This craft's technical abilities are nearly all computer controlled. The pilot tells the plane what to do and the plain does it. In the Harrier, the pilot had to "show" the plane what to do. It was a very difficult plane to fly and the Marines crashed a lot of them in the early years.

Yes, a lot of good men died, flying those Harriers in the early years.

Needs normal TO for full weapons load; lots of debris kicked up to FOD the engine on unprepared surfaces; good for crosswinds with wet runways for landing; extra nose rotation with the variable nozzle during Air-Air Combat; four years behind operational status. A billion or so lines of code for the computer to fly and operate the Magic in its Avionics System. Too many parts moving during the VSTOL vertical landing; too many mechanical things to go wrong. My two cents.

This...

IT SUCKS period. !!!!!!Worst waist of treasury in DOD history especially for the CAS mission. NATO will have it shoved up their butts for years to come long after we chit can ours.

It would be better punched AI....

Cool? Yes

Practical/necessary? Hell no

What the hell you need that for? As FlyBoy said, a waste of money.

Let the choppers do the VTOL.

Just a question, but... Aren't these type of aircraft designed and built based upon the criteria the Marine Corps submitted?


Travis

A Single Engine Vtol? It better have auto-eject capability.

Some years ago, a Harrier was at the Daytona Beach Airport for an air show. After the show, preparing to depart on vertical takeoff, the tower told the pilot to take off from where he was.

The pilot said it would be better if he moved to a different spot at the airport. The voice in the tower apparently wasn't in the mood to listen and said, "No, take off from where you're at."

"Okay," said the pilot and proceeded to melt a big, deep hole in the asphalt.

Driven by requirments from USMC, USN, USAF, RAF, RAAF, Norway and a few others. Apparently we've forgotten the lesson of McNamara's Folly

Very useful in areas where runways have been cratered, or don't exist. Helos have limited speed ability in the forward direction.

It compliments and fills in gaps that other systems don't cover.

Also more effective in air-to-air roles than the Harrier, due to greater speed. Although, the Brit's certainly kicked the butts of the Argentine AF in the Falklands.

Marine aviation used two versions. The original Harrier. And the improved Harrier II. The accident rate of the original was very high because it was so difficult to fly. Especially with new pilots fresh out of Flight School. The other issue is a damaged Harrier is generally a loss. The Harrier can't suffer damage that the A-10 Warthog can survive. Then there is environment that the aircraft operates in. Landing on a moving ship with other aircraft and equipment close by. In the Close Air Support mission it's flying where missiles, antiaircraft guns, and small arms fire, are a threat. In addition flying low risks it hitting the ground and objects like power lines.
Obviously a Marine pilot has to be very skilled to do all of this, accomplish his mission, and survive to do it again!