Harrier safety record

[Mike_NZ]

Hey guys, I've read in the August edition of Combat Aircraft mag that the US version of the Harrier has the worst safety record of any aircraft. The USMC has lost over a third of it's Harrier fleet since they first entered service, and these were due to non-combat related accidents alone!

I was wondering if the UK operators have suffered similar rates. Does anyone have any info regarding this? Thanks!

 

[ASFC]

You might want to ask the Indian Navy what it thinks of the Harriers record. It ain't good.

The problem with the Harrier as I understand it is that it is aerodynamically unstable and very heavy aircraft, and therefore when it loses its only engine, it tends to just full out of the sky like a brick. Again as I understand it is not a huge a problem (in that there is no public controversy or outcry from the RAF) in the UK, it just seems to be accepted that because it is single engined and quite unstable a fault with the engine is more likely to lead to crashes.

This might be a bit too simplistic but when I visited 'crash and smash' at RAF St Athan (as was) a few years ago that is how they explained their photo albums having more crashed Harriers in them than any other aircraft in the current RAF/RN/AAC inventory.

 

[AegisFC]

I've heard the Harrier is a very difficult aircraft to fly, especially when transitioning from regular flight to very slow speed or hovering.

 

[fltworthy]

No Easy Job

The Harrier is attempting to do something that fixed wing airplanes were never meant to do. By the very nature of what this airplane does, it is going to be a dangerous airplane to fly. The Harrier was also the first generation of fighters to ever do this, and a lot of lessons have been learned that will benefit the F-35.

With the configuration that the Harrier (and Boeing's failed X-32 prototype) uses, there is a very real risk that hot exhaust air from the lift nozzles can be sucked back into the inlet. This can stall the engine, sending the airplane from "hover" to "drop" mode in an instant. The F-35 avoids this by using a separate lift fan to support the forward half of the airplane's weight. There's no hot engine exhaust to ingest.

The Rolls Royce Pegasus engine that powers the Harrier has also had more than its fair share of growing pains - including recurring problems with titanium fires. Once you have metal catching fire on board, its ejection seat time. There's nothing that's going to put it out.

Military hardware by its nature is going to see hazardous duty, even in peacetime training. The Harrier was just pushing the technology envelope further than it could reliably be stretched at the time.

 

[moahunter]

There is a good documentary on the contest for the F-35 design which illustrates how difficult VTOL is, even with computerized technology, and the fan built into the F-35. It is amazing that the harrier was even possible - but part of that amazement is the realization that it is an aircraft that is extremely difficult, if not dangerous to fly due to the hot exhaust issue noted above. The original test pilots must have been truley heroic. Still a very useful aircraft though, but approaching the end of its life.

 

[winnyfield]

You might want to ask the Indian Navy what it thinks of the Harriers record. It ain't good.

The problem with the Harrier as I understand it is that it is aerodynamically unstable and very heavy aircraft, and therefore when it loses its only engine, it tends to just full out of the sky like a brick. Again as I understand it is not a huge a problem (in that there is no public controversy or outcry from the RAF) in the UK, it just seems to be accepted that because it is single engined and quite unstable a fault with the engine is more likely to lead to crashes.

This might be a bit too simplistic but when I visited 'crash and smash' at RAF St Athan (as was) a few years ago that is how they explained their photo albums having more crashed Harriers in them than any other aircraft in the current RAF/RN/AAC inventory.

They (UK) have tended to be very defensive about it. The Harrier became a public darling after the Falklands.

The LA Times did run a feature about the USMCs Harriers a few years ago. Long story short, very difficult to fly, a lot of crashes and never lived up (nor utilized) to expectations. (To judge USMC criticism, you have to bear in mind that they also operate F/A-18s - who are you gonna call/send for CAS?)

Found the LA Times opinion piece: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/09/opinion/ed-harrier9 Might also be worthwhile to browse Airwarriors.com http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/index.php?