AV-8S Harrier - British built

[Tony Whittingham]

Hello Harrier experts,

Anyone know whether or not the AV-8 supplied direct to Spain had Martin Baker seats? If they did, were they mk. 9 or mk. 10?

 

TW

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

I suspect that they were fitted with the Stencel S III S seat as they were ordered through the US Navy to avoid the embargo Britain had on Spain at the time.

Certainly looks like that seat in the photos I have seen. 

No doubt Harrier expert will be along in a minute with more info.

[Rob G]

3 hours ago, Scimitar said:

ordered through the US Navy to avoid the embargo Britain had on Spain

 

Makes you wonder, don't it? What's the point of embargoing if an alleged 'ally' is going to slip the stuff to them under the back door?

 

Sorry OP, I can't help with the seats.

[NG899]

The answer on seats is simple - Stencel SIIIS-3 seats as on the USMCs AV-8As. Martin-Baker Mk.9A seats had been fitted to the initial orders of USMC AV-8As but these were replaced with the Stencel SIIIS-3 seat; also fitted to later AV-8A orders.

 

The answer on the ordering is less simple, they were provided from Dunsfold to the US under an extension of the USMCs 1974 FY AV-8A purchase to avoid Labour Party opposition who were hostile to the Franco government. Rational enough. Less rationale was what happened in Spain, where there was opposition as a Spanish law forbade the use of fixed-wing, carrier borne aircraft by the Navy. Somehow, the Spanish planning team managed to argue that the Harrier did not take off or land conventionally and so was really a fixed wing helicopter, which did not contravene the law! (My head hurts!)

 

On the paperwork the Harriers were labelled T/AV-8A(SP), this later being shortened to T/AV-8S. At HS Kingston, they were known as the Harrier Mk.50 or Mk.55 - single-seater and Mk.58 two-seater. In Spain they were known as the VA.1 Matador (single-seater) or VAE.1 (two-seater). The twin-stick acquired the nickname the Shark; hence the colourful sharkmouth and black fin scheme applied to one of them. 

 

The initial batch of Harriers were put on the St Louis AV-8 final assembly line before delivery to Spain, with Armada-compatible ARC-115 VHF radio kits. When a second batch of 5 Mk55 single seaters was ordered in 1977, Franco was dead and King Juan Carlos' democratic government was able to deal directly with the UK. On the second batch, externally, the logo Armada replaced Marina and they did not carry US-style Build Numbers. 

 

Hope that helps

 

Nick

[Tony Whittingham]

Thanks Nick!

I have a 1/24 Stencel seat partially scratch built, waiting for the rest of the Harrier!

 

TW

[NG899]

Oooooooo... 1/24th, there's bold!  Let me know if you need any help with the Airfix beast Tony and I'll send you over what I have from my 1/24th GR1 to FRS1 conversion which has been sitting on the Harrier SIG display at shows for the past 16 years. 90% of it will be applicable for the airframe similarities.

 

Drop me a PM with your email address in it when you want some stuff sending over.

 

Cheers

 

Nick

[exdraken]

On 8/4/2018 at 7:19 PM, NG899 said:

The answer on seats is simple - Stencel SIIIS-3 seats as on the USMCs AV-8As. Martin-Baker Mk.9A seats had been fitted to the initial orders of USMC AV-8As but these were replaced with the Stencel SIIIS-3 seat; also fitted to later AV-8A orders.

 

The answer on the ordering is less simple, they were provided from Dunsfold to the US under an extension of the USMCs 1974 FY AV-8A purchase to avoid Labour Party opposition who were hostile to the Franco government. Rational enough. Less rationale was what happened in Spain, where there was opposition as a Spanish law forbade the use of fixed-wing, carrier borne aircraft by the Navy. Somehow, the Spanish planning team managed to argue that the Harrier did not take off or land conventionally and so was really a fixed wing helicopter, which did not contravene the law! (My head hurts!)

 

On the paperwork the Harriers were labelled T/AV-8A(SP), this later being shortened to T/AV-8S. At HS Kingston, they were known as the Harrier Mk.50 or Mk.55 - single-seater and Mk.58 two-seater. In Spain they were known as the VA.1 Matador (single-seater) or VAE.1 (two-seater). The twin-stick acquired the nickname the Shark; hence the colourful sharkmouth and black fin scheme applied to one of them. 

 

The initial batch of Harriers were put on the St Louis AV-8 final assembly line before delivery to Spain, with Armada-compatible ARC-115 VHF radio kits. When a second batch of 5 Mk55 single seaters was ordered in 1977, Franco was dead and King Juan Carlos' democratic government was able to deal directly with the UK. On the second batch, externally, the logo Armada replaced Marina and they did not carry US-style Build Numbers. 

 

Hope that helps

 

Nick

wow!

 

thanks for all this great additional info!

 

I am building one myself at this very moment (in 1/48 though, but 1/24 would be way cooler!), so very very welcome!

see here, also some photos included!

 

 

regarding the fixed wing problem, it just lawyer you can convince with such stuff.... reminds me of the Russian/ Soviet aircraft carriers are not named aircraft carrier either.... but something like flat deck cruisers? in order to enter the Black Sea, as Turkey does not allow aircraft carriers pass the Bosporus.....

 

 

cheers,

Werner

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by exdraken

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

I just re-read the OP and noticed that the reference is to the Harriers delivered directly from UK and not the ones sold via USN.

By then they would have had the American seat as standard with the rest of the fleet.

[Artie]

On 8/4/2018 at 6:19 PM, NG899 said:

Somehow, the Spanish planning team managed to argue that the Harrier did not take off or land conventionally and so was really a fixed wing helicopter, which did not contravene the law! (My head hurts!)

Believe it or not, that's the truth behind this puzzle.......

The madness reached a point of stupidity, hard to believe for foreign, non spanish speakers. We didn't have a "carrier" back then, in fact we haven't got any one today....In the Spanish Navy, they're called "porta aeronaves", or freely translated as "things that fly transporter"."Things that fly" includes planes, helicopters, and everything jumping from a ship. In spanish, "carrier" translates into "portaaviones". The ridiculous argument of considering the Harrier a "fixed wing helicopter", and thus circumvent the rules, give you a clear idea of how things have always worked in my country, the misusing of language can play havoc in the hands of a politician....

That bizarre law dates back from the late XIX century, when the "Servicio de Aerostación del Ejército" was born. The traditional dispute between the Navy (Marina) and the Army (ejército), prevented those "landlubbers" to use any thing that could fly....The newly created air arm belonged to the Army those days, and most of the Army's high rank officers blamed the navy for the loss of our last territories in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philipines, so they couldn't even think about the "despicable" sailors playing with the new toys.....

 

Best regards...

[EwenS]

35 minutes ago, Artie said:

Believe it or not, that's the truth behind this puzzle.......

The madness reached a point of stupidity, hard to believe for foreign, non spanish speakers. We didn't have a "carrier" back then, in fact we haven't got any one today....In the Spanish Navy, they're called "porta aeronaves", or freely translated as "things that fly transporter"."Things that fly" includes planes, helicopters, and everything jumping from a ship. In spanish, "carrier" translates into "portaaviones". The ridiculous argument of considering the Harrier a "fixed wing helicopter", and thus circumvent the rules, give you a clear idea of how things have always worked in my country, the misusing of language can play havoc in the hands of a politician....

That bizarre law dates back from the late XIX century, when the "Servicio de Aerostación del Ejército" was born. The traditional dispute between the Navy (Marina) and the Army (ejército), prevented those "landlubbers" to use any thing that could fly....The newly created air arm belonged to the Army those days, and most of the Army's high rank officers blamed the navy for the loss of our last territories in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philipines, so they couldn't even think about the "despicable" sailors playing with the new toys.....

 

Best regards...

Sadly the madness also applied in the UK.  During the design and build process the Invincible class were referred to as "through deck cruisers" because a political decision was taken in the mid 1960s to scrap Britain's carrier fleet and the term carrier became outlawed by one First Sea Lord in the corridors of Whitehall so that the navy could get some major ship to command and support its ASW role in the Atlantic.

As the design evolved between 1960and 1970 the superstucture forward flight deck aft layout morphed into a "through deck" layout as the number of helicopters increased from 8 Wessex to 12 Sea King (9ASW and 3 AEW) and 5 VSTOL fighters to shoot down shadowers. The Staff Requirement that led to their ordering downplayed the fixed wing (carrier) role, emphasing instead the command and control, ASW, SAM and SSM facilities (cruiser) role. Eventually, by the time Invincible completed in 1979 she was given an R pennant (instead of C for cruiser) finally acknowledging what she actually was - an aircraft carrier.

When you read the background to this its not at all clear whether anyone in Whitehall was actually fooled by this subterfuge. It did however result in a ship that was compromised as an aircraft carrier at least until some of the later refits took place.

[Dave Fleming]

3 hours ago, Scimitar said:

I just re-read the OP and noticed that the reference is to the Harriers delivered directly from UK and not the ones sold via USN.

By then they would have had the American seat as standard with the rest of the fleet.

 

There was a period when USMC Harriers were delivered with MB seats only to have them replaced in the States with Stencels, as the IAM wouldn't certify the Stencel for use.

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

2 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

with MB seats only to have them replaced in the States with Stencels,

I take it politics entered into the equation here. Wonder who got the Mk9s or were they scrapped?

[Dave Fleming]

1 hour ago, Scimitar said:

I take it politics entered into the equation here. Wonder who got the Mk9s or were they scrapped?

 

Politics as safety - there was a concern regarding the operation of the Stencel -

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1983/1983 - 0481.PDF

[tempestfan]

Thanks for that entertaining piece of literature. Not wanting to sidetrack this thread, but: What happened to Stencel as a company?

[Dave Fleming]

They were bought over by Goodrich, who also bought the ACES design, who were later taken over by UTC

Edited August 6, 2018 by Dave Fleming

[NG899]

To clarify, all Spanish AV-8S had the Stencel seat. 

 

Cheers

 

Nick

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

2 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

Politics as safety

I misunderstood your 'IAM' reference earlier.

For some reason I had it is Initial Aircraft Manufacturer   

My late old friend Prof. Tom Whiteside (Air Vice Marshall RAF (ret) ),who served many years with the Institute,will laughing down at me with that cufu.