Jump to content

Sea Harrier query: Is the FA2 a modded FRS.1?


AnonymousER99

Recommended Posts

Hi all

Am I to understand that all FA2s are indeed refurbished FRS.1 Sea Harriers?? I was always under the impression that the SHAR were new airframes.

Mike

As I understand from SAM Modelers Datafile for the Sea Harrier,

35 surviving FRS1 aircraft were converted to FA2 between 1989 and 1996

with an additional 18 new build FA2's being delivered between

1995 and 1999.

Murfv :pilot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it there were 9 Falklands FRS.1s that were converted to FA2s they were:

XZ492

XZ459

XZ455

XZ457

XZ494

XZ499

ZA176

XZ495

ZA175

This info is contain in the IPMS Harrier Sig notes on the Falklands Harrier force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it there were 9 Falklands FRS.1s that were converted to FA2s they were:

XZ492

XZ459

XZ455

XZ457

XZ494

XZ499

ZA176

XZ495

ZA175

This info is contain in the IPMS Harrier Sig notes on the Falklands Harrier force.

How does one join the Harrier SIG? Do they accept us Westerners without accents??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it there were 9 Falklands FRS.1s that were converted to FA2s they were:

XZ492

XZ459

XZ455

XZ457

XZ494

XZ499

ZA176

XZ495

ZA175

This info is contain in the IPMS Harrier Sig notes on the Falklands Harrier force.

Which (by my counting) means that 22 of the original batches of Sea Harriers were lost either in accidents or in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much a bad landing as an undercarriage failure after a systems failure.

http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/news/Priva...ews_165005.html

A bad landing you could blame on a bad pilot. A systems failure you could blame on a bad design..........................

A bad landing is a bad landing :analintruder:

It's on Art's website

Edited by entlim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bad landing is a bad landing :analintruder:

It's on Art's website

The landing gear collapsed because pressure was lost from the hydraulic system through a capped connector in the system that was present on account of the aircraft's former testing role (and not present in production aircraft).

Art's team would be entirely forgiven for not knowing it was there (as it would not be described in his documentation) so the root cause of the incident could not easily be laid at their door.

Likewise, it is hardly a failure of design; the system had been adapted for its intended purpose.

As has been said, the pilot landed with considerable skill and walked away from the plane.

The irony in all this is that there is an emergency backup system designed to blow down the landing gear with compressed nitrogen in just such circumstances. It is debatable whether this system would have worked if fired given the amount of fluid lost from the system, but the point is entirely academic - the US authorities will not let civilians have the necessary explosive cartridges used by the system (although running a 7 tonne ex-military jet is apparently OK). The team are modifying the backup system to use solenoids to replace the cartridges...

It always amazes me how willing people are to have a dig at the efforts of others. Surely Art is to be congratulated and encouraged for getting the a/c down in one (ish) piece. Or would we rather only see SHARs in 1/48th etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...