Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thought it might be worth just having a thread for chat about this aircraft that we all have a fondness for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I say? I worked on GR3s for five years. They were dirty and noisy. They leaked from everywhere - fuel... hydraulic oil... engine oil... even LOX!. We used to say that a Harrier that didn't leak was a Harrier that was empty.

They were a most frustrating aircraft for armourers. Every single job that had to be done required a piece of weapons kit to be removed. An engine oil leak required the centreline pylon to come off. Putting it back on was a nightmare! The forward bolts had to be lockwired but you had to do it through a removeable panel that was just big enough to get your head through. Not your hands as well... so you were lockwiring blind... When you put your head up there to inspect your lockwiring, your head would brush against the underside of the engine which - see above - was coated in engine oil. Plumbers engaged in refitting centrelines used to look like Mexican banditos. We would wear a quimwipe bandana to stop the oil running into our eyes and our hair would stick up (this was in the days when I actually had hair! :lol: )

Putting a recce pod on the centreline pylon caused a lot of problems. You needed three elbows on your right arm to make sure that the cables connected up correctly.

Every single job in the cockpit required the seat pan to be pulled. The altimeter "pull up!" voice warning unit required the seat rail and gun to be removed - and it seemed to fail every couple of flying hours.

Loading the starboard gun was a bit of a problem. The engine had a scavenger pump which cleared the unburned fuel from the combustion chamber on shutdown. This fuel was dumped out of a vent that we called the shark's fin. Guess what it looked like. When you were on your knees reloading the starboard gun, the shark's fin was just in the right position to smack you in the temple. Plumbers would scream "OW! For fffffffffffff.....!" and leap to their feet, thereby striking their head on the miniature shark's fin from the GTS. (Ground Turbine System - an auxiliary power unit. Trivia alert! You could pull a GTS out of a Harrier and stick it straight into a Jaguar, in which case it was called a Microturbo) Plumbers on a Harrier squadron often sported a black eye and it wasn't uncommon to see them bleeding from their right temple and the back of their head!

Harriers were a pain in the backside to operate. When the INAS (Inertial Navigation and Attack System) was in align, if you sneezed next to the jet, the INAS would autorev, which put you in a whole world of hurt! Jockey walking for the jet... liney desperately trying to coax the INAS out of detent... HAS corporal smacking his head against the HAS wall, hoping he can bash his brains out before the jockey arrives... Eng Ops screaming down the radio, a dozen heartbeats away from a coronary...

Modern combat aircraft tell you what is wrong with them. Harriers didn't. You had to have an intimate knowledge of all the aircraft systems to diagnose a fault. Guns refuse to fire? Lecky problem maybe? But it could also be problem for the Nasties. Who knows.

Trying to start the aircraft up. The ignitors refuse to fire. What do you do? Well, you take off the port cheek panel and bash the ignitor contactor while the jockey pumps the LP fuel cock. Once the jet starts up, you then have to refit the cheek panel, while stood directly in front of the intake with the engine screaming in your ear - desperately hoping that you don't drop the GS screwdriver and that a dzus fastener won't pop out of the cheek panel.

Harriers were a total pain in the backside. They were labour intensive. They were definitely not designed for ease of maintenance. They could actually hurt the groundcrew. Nightmare!

And the best five years of my life! :D

Edited by Enzo Matrix
Link to post
Share on other sites
What can I say? I worked on GR3s for five years. They were.........Harriers were a total pain in the backside. They were labour intensive. They were definitely not designed for ease of maintenance. They could actually hurt the groundcrew. Nightmare!

And the best five years of my life! :D

so the govt was right to scrap them then....

....INCOMING!!!!!!

(good job I LIKE harriers...I do...honest!...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fell in love with the Harrier after seeing a FRS.1 at a Families Day at Chatham Dockyard in around 1981.

And then seeing an RAF Harrier at an airshow around the same time.

An unbelievable aircraft, such a shame it was retired early.

Edited by daz greenwood
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Guys, just a quickie are there any banners for this one ?

All the best

Chris

Er......No. Anyone who's artistically inclined is welcome to create some as its beyond my abilities I'm afraid.

Stephen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to enter this GB as I'm over committed at the moment. However, I notice that no one appears to be doing a GR.3 and I feel I must correct this oversight :thumbsup:

I'm in with an Italeri GR.3 in 4 sqn markings with the lightning flash on the tail.

I've also put a GB banner in the banners thread, feel free to use it.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my T4 build progresses. I have decided on a wheels up build and some stuff under the wings. I think I will add external tanks to the inboard pylons and perhaps rocket pods or bombs on the outboards. My question is: did the T4 usually carry the gun pods? The only picture I have seen is of the BAe demonstrator carrying them. Would a gunpack/tank config be pausable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
T4 ... Would a gunpack/tank config be pausable?

I've seen a few photos where they have gun pods - and they have tanks on most of the time. If you have a particular a/c in mind, tell me the serial and I'll see if I can find a photo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen a few photos where they have gun pods - and they have tanks on most of the time. If you have a particular a/c in mind, tell me the serial and I'll see if I can find a photo.

Thanks, I only have decals for ZX145, so I suppose that will be the aircraft I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

re XZ145 as T4 - yep, she has been photographed with gun pods and tanks (both items in dark green). When with 3(F) sqdn, she was in DG/DSG/LAG scheme; with 233OCU and 1(F) sqdn she was in DG/DSG scheme in photos I have seen. She ended up in the fire dump at Predennack with RN SFDO id "45".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be doing a 1/48 Revell Harrier, I'm going to do one of the options that come with the kit. So what sort of ordnance would I be able to put on them to keep it realistic? I don't want to leave it looking too empty!

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your best bet Tom is to try and get some pictures of the aircraft you're doing with different configurations of ordnance, that way nobody can say it couldn't have carried that etc.

Are you thinking the GR.7 or the 9?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your best bet Tom is to try and get some pictures of the aircraft you're doing with different configurations of ordnance, that way nobody can say it couldn't have carried that etc.

Are you thinking the GR.7 or the 9?

True. I was thinking the GR.9, I've found this pic, what's the little pod under the fuselage? And which model AGM-65s are they?

http://www.airfighters.com/photo/19944/M/U...rier-GR9/ZG478/

Thanks.

Edited by T0M4ever
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

I've got a Harrier kit I'd like to build, as I was wondering if I could join this build? I have to warn you though, it'll be all strictly OOB and I'm only doing this a few months now, so accuracy will be last on my list of goals, after having fun and trying to get it to look ok. I'm just trying some kits for practice really, but I find building as part of a GB is always more fun. I don't want to be annoying anyhow here who knows a hell of a lot more about the Harrier than I do and can't believe I haven't fixed this pod or removed that incorrect bump etc! :)

Let me know, thanks!

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've loved the Harrier since it performed so well in the South Atlantic and having seen it at various airshows.

I've currently got eight different examples in my diecast collection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me again!

Just wondering if it's ok to join this build? Thanks!

J.

Hi there,

I've got a Harrier kit I'd like to build, as I was wondering if I could join this build? I have to warn you though, it'll be all strictly OOB and I'm only doing this a few months now, so accuracy will be last on my list of goals, after having fun and trying to get it to look ok. I'm just trying some kits for practice really, but I find building as part of a GB is always more fun. I don't want to be annoying anyone here who knows a hell of a lot more about the Harrier than I do and can't believe I haven't fixed this pod or removed that incorrect bump etc! :)

Let me know, thanks!

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi guys am i too late to join in this group build, been toying with doing another harrier for a while, got a couple of gr1s one has the fuselarge nealy together and the other is unstarted. ive been thinking of doing another as well can i enter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...