Cockpit View: AV-8B Harrier II Taking Off From USS Kearsarge. Pilot's Perspective 

AArcticAA This is not a Sea Harrier

That's not a Sea Harrier, it's an AV-8B. They're completely different machines. Only the UK and India have ever operated the "Shar" (Sea Harrier).

MACOPA

MACOPA

Just like small pox and slavery.

A British Doctor discovered the CURE for smallpox. Please read some history before commenting. I presume that you are a child, so just be careful what you say. PS. Slavery goes back thousands of years. It was the British who STOPPED it.

john adams If you look into the history of the Harrier a little deeper, you'll see that it would have likely never made it into production (cancelled & scrapped - like so many other potentially great UK aircraft designs of the 50s & 60s), without the US. While it was originally designed & developed in the UK, it received significant US funding (through NATO) - in a program that supported promising foreign designs that could contribute to NATO' abilities. The US' own approach to VTOL design wasn't producing anything that resembled a useful combat aircraft - so they were very interested in the Harrier. After the P1127 concept demonstrator flew, the UK, US & W. Germany funded the Kestral. These 9 aircraft were evaluated by the RAF & RN & also by W.Germany & the US (USAF, Navy, Army & also 2 ended up going to NASA). It was this foreign interest, funding & testing that saved the project & led to the Harrier's survival. While the Harrier 1 / AV8A project was led by the UK, with work shared with the US, by the time the AV8B/Harrier2 was designed, McDonnell Douglas had taken the lead (due to the UK being reluctant to radically redesign it with a larger composite wing). BAe joined the project as a subcontractor, with 40% of the work share - the UK no longer 'led' the program, due to UK political lack of ambition (they favoured a less radical redesign). I'm not an American making erroneous patriotic claims - I'm a Brit & I like to give credit where it's due. I spent 2 years on the Harrier GR9 JUMP (Joint Upgrade & Maintenance Program) & it's a fascinating plane - a real 'Frankenstein's monster', regarding it's construction.

U.S money , but Brit brains.

john adams Mostly, but the UK/US Kestrel flight test & development partnership (the W. Germans dropped out & the US used their aircraft) contributed greatly to the finished Harrier 1 / AV8A. Test pilot evaluation & feedback is critical during development (fine tuning the aircraft design for the operational pilots who will later fly it in service). Regarding the training of Hawker test pilots Bill Bedford & Hugh Merryweather - they were invited to the US to fly the Bell X14 VTOL demonstrator (also flown by Neil Armstrong, during Apollo training), before the original P1127 flew, to familiarise themselves with VTOL take off & landing & transition to/from wing-borne flight. It was during the UK/US Kestrel flight test development program that the STOVL concept (as opposed to VTOL) was developed, as a way to increase combat radius and/or stores load. So while it was a British concept, after evaluating it for their own purposes, the US contributed to it's development into an operational aircraft. Of the surviving development aircraft on display, 3 P1127s are in English museums, with another in Scotland & 1 in Germany, while 1 Kestrel is in England and 4 (all with US serial numbers, one in a NASA livery) are in US museums. If only they had felt the same about TSR2...

True Lies HAHA

The only use of a Harrier in a movie I'm aware of, thankfully it was in the hands of James Cameron and it was fantastic.

+Vannara Meas There is the F-35B.

ELECTROSTATIC DISC LIFTERS Yes I have heard of that, it's just that this aircraft is less costly compared to the advanced f 35.

Vannara Meas But is has much better capabilities.

ELECTROSTATIC DISC LIFTERS​ The military will find a way to limit their budget, this aircraft is 30 million compared to the 300 million dollar f 35. Yes, I do agree that the f 35 have better tech and controls, but it's just not necessary to use it since our enemy is less advanced than the us. I could see the f 35 in the future though. It's a lot of money to put the lockheed Martin made aircraft as an airmen's standard.

Vannara Meas If we want to stay on the cutting edge, The F-22 and F-35s are the answer.for the next forty five years.

+Andrew Silva It's an explosive cord to crack the canopy so the ejector seat doesn't have to do all the work. Generally the pilot ends up with a load of molten glass and third degree burns whenever their used. But hey, at least their alive.

+William Arnott Thank you so much for responding, so if the pilot has to eject from the jet I thought when he does, the whole Canopy just comes off of the jet and flies into the air, so if that explosive cord goes off, will it just blow a hole like you advised me in the top of the canopy and like you said when he goes up through that hole he probably will get cut quite a bit from the rest of the glass, right???? Thanks again

Yeah, basically it's designed to shoot the glass to the left and right of the cockpit (outwards) but yes, the pilot can get considerable damage from glass shards and literally molten glass since the cords explode at such high temperature. But yes, you're right a large percentage of the canopy comes off, pretty much the entire thing besides the HUD shield at the very front of the cockpit... (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Ejectionseat.jpg) you can see in this image the glass goes left and right away from the pilot, but chances are he or she would still cop some richochet. Notice also the front of the cockpit stays connected as it has expensive pieces of technology which are designed to be destroyed with the plane if it were to go down.

thank you so very much, all question pretty much answered, and by the way, those ejection seats really do have quite a big motor on the back of them that propels the pilot out of the plane....

William Arnott Pure bullshit, it is the antenna you dumb fuck.

Harriers always look like they land hard, that seemed quite gentle from inside the cockpit.

Relief.

Cause squids don’t ski, and because US Navy have catobars, and can launch multiple aircraft at a time with larger payloads and have more space on the flight deck whereas the big ugly lip takes up space and can’t launch aircraft with large payloads as well as taking up spots for aircraft and rotary wing

Plus on small boys like the Wasp class the Marines need the extra flight deck space for their rotary wing which is crucial for the MEUs

It cant vertically takeoff with a pay load it weighs to much. Same with the F 35 so they both use STOVL

Also, the heat from the engine would peel the nonskid and destroy the deck. I much preferred helicopters than these flying bricks. was on lhd3 from 04-09

+Matt Schnepp WRONG, it is high fuel consumption for vertical take off with high weapons load, STOVL saves fuel.

+eric quibodeaux WRONG, neither the Harrier or F-35B peals off the deck. But they can shorten the deck material's usable life.

+ELECTROSTATIC DISC LIFTERS so tell me, were you on an amphib? Extreme heat from turbine exhaust/output will not only degrade the nonskid but also cause it to peel after extended torture. But hey.. No need for me to argue that. Im just a nobody without a brain or eyes. 9 months of flight ops in the NAG isnt anything

Theyre judged and graded on every landing just like every pilot that lands aboard a ship. Theyre graded by senior pilots and any little issue subtracts from there score. To many points missed and theyre grounded. Probably screwed up the pitch or roll.

+Dennis Notenboom yes i think it was a good landing too, he looked so unsatisfied with that landing for some reason

could be checking his left and right to see where he was or what boredout said it was a little rough and quite alot of wobble on final

was slightly too hard on undercarriage.

This is a comercial jet or fighter jet..?

So?

Dear roti.You should try raptor or Ef2000 seriosly.