Video from the cockpit of the only privately owned Harrier Jump Jet. Owned and flown by Art Nalls. Recorded at the 2016 Reading Air Fest - Reading, PA Special thanks to Art Nalls, Lloyd Gill and the rest of the Nalls Aviation Team!
From here in the UK I am just full of admiration for somebody who has the wherewithal to restore, maintain and fly one of these iconic machines privately. Flying a Harrier is not without additional risks, but I am told it is a very rewarding aircraft to fly. The under officer in my air cadet platoon went on to fly harriers in the UK. The Sea Harrier was something else with its excellent (for the time) radar.
Art has 400+ carrier landings and a lot of experience. That might have had something to do with it
4 года назад
@Astuteous Maximus I know, it would be an odd world if regulations allow them to flown in civilian hands with full original weapon systems active, fully loaded with live ammunition. I'd be downright affronted if they stole all the trim from my new car.
America is not the only country where someone can privately own a military plane and fly it, its just the country where the person who did it happened to live.
In being a Commercial - Instrument - Muti Engine Pilot Art Nalls cockpit videos make you feel that you are actually flying the Sea Harrier. Art thanks for the experience.
Good job Mr. Nalls. You have made your dream come true, and she is quite a dream. She's fast, and when the day is done you can park her right next to the grill! Axios Mr. Nalls, Axios!
Super cool , just to say " i think i will just pop out in the Harrier this afternoon as there's not much on telly👍 . It would also be super cool if he had a lightning jet, as I'm sure the cockpit view in that reaching the stratosphere in a few seconds would awesome.
Excellent cockpit footage of the SHAR hovering and rotating on landing for the crowds. So stable with great control. Not in a gale in the South Atlantic, but nevertheless very cool.
Wow Art thnx for posting, been dreaming of what it's like in the cockpit of one of these things forever ,especially the RR...how one can hear the airliner type buzzing noise of the fan at high rpm ( al la rb211).. and the greater momentum of the fan as you cut the power...seems like the thing builds a lot of thrust without revving out like a turbojet...just so different from other cockpits vids one sees.. almost like having big v8 instead of a turbo'd out 4cyl, for lack of a better analogy...I guess with no re heat, engine was on the boil pretty much all the time.. rate of climb off the runway is surprisingly fast, considering the way she outputs thrust.. It's one of those machines that , i the right hands doesn't give up much to other aircraft, and has dome great advantages in thrust vectoring..getting into a turning fight , especially at high sub sonic, and medium altitude (which btw is where most air engagements take place), would make almost any enemy pilot weary, as the Argies found out in 82.. Thnx for posting this very capable aircraft, that is far more than the sum of it s parts, or the numbers would suggest. Just another tick in the box for british innovation and problem solving..
Great aeroplane designed using slide rules by genius British engineers flown but a truly great pilot ,please bring her back to the uk it would be unbelievable to to see the harrier at a uk airshow.
Are there any videos out there of what the left hand is doing when a Harrier comes to a hover and lands vertically? I would be really interested to see one of those if anyone knows of one.
mike prenis It is actually not a whether vane. It indicates your nose wheel position while on the ground. It’s basically so you can see how far the nose wheel is turning relative to the rudder pedals position.
He never flew for USAF. Nalls attended the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California having been selected for the one Marine Corps slot for that year. Flew with them, but was always a USMC aviator.
I wonder... Does he have to do AGSM maneuvers while flying that machine? Or does he keep the G level down? Is it even possible with a jet like this, to fly without having to use AGSM?
4 года назад
Check out the superb series he and his team made called Badass Pilot where he goes through how he acquired the Harrier from the UK up to his airshows. He talks about re-acclimatisation training (he'd already been through this in his renowned military career) to allow his body to become re-accustomed to higher G-forces. Of course, re-training to extreme G's (warfare training) might be unlikely - I'd suspect the authorities would restrict certain moves on crowd and pilot safety concerns.
I know someone who used to fly an F-16 in the Air Force. Would the Military allow him to purchase and fly a privately owned F-16 similar to this man's Harrier?
there are laws governing it, particularly in america, where there are laws limiting afterburning engines and it's also illegal to go supersonic above the continental united states without an FAA waver. so, if he found an F-16 for sale, could afford to buy it, and deal with all the licensing (I think the ATF regulates military aircraft as well, or at least I heard they had a say in some pieces of MiG-21's being imported), get the engines or throttle altered to prevent all or most of the afterburner stages and register in as an experimental aircraft, it's possible. How do I know this? I had an autistic friend who called boeing REPEATEDLY to ask about purchasing an EA-18G growler because they advertise it on youtube.... to people who will almost certainly never be able to buy it... about how they wasted an F/A-18F airframe on something we already have a plane for.
SanFranciscoBay There are enough out of date F-16s around the world that someone could probably buy one. But you would never be able to afford to fly it. The harrier is a much simpler airplane mad to do simple tasks. The F-16 has special toxic chemicals, software, and materials in its construction that would make maintenance and operations cost millions year and require millions more in infrastructure and manpower. Not feasible even for governments after the aircraft become too old.
Crashmaster Mike Nope. There are all kinds of exotic chemicals used in everyday F-16 operation, software updates and fixes, exotic materials repairs, etc. that make F-16 ops forever impossible for a civilian owner. Only older generation analog jets like the century series, F-4, and others of that generation or older are even feasible, although unreasonably expensive. Newer training jets are possible because they are much simpler than modern fighters.
so, if I may ask, what chemicals are there if you can tell me, that would be needed? I know for a fact we aren't getting any F-4's on the civilian market anytime soon.
You can own an F-104, if you can find and afford one. There are a few private ones out there now. Back in the 70s the USAF wouldn't sell F-104s to civilians, but it technically wasn't illegal, so Darryl Greenamyer scavenged spare parts and built one himself, called the Red Baron, and used it to set some speed records before losing it in an accident. There's a wiki page for it.
A LOOOOOOOOONG way from a Cessna 152! After landing and turning to cross the active, you could see the two 'hot spots,' in the asphalt! Jet exhaust ain't good on civilian runways!
sidney collier Nah, in an unpressurized aircraft you dont need supplemental O2 if you are below 12,500 feet, O2 is required 12,500 feet to 14,000 feet for durations of over 30 minutes. You are required to wear an O2 rig if operating above 14,000 regardless of duration.
what it can't get the measure of in the f35 is the black boxes, bvor capability, ease of maintainance (harrier was a bear to work on, double the ground time of an f35), and parts commonality etc ..harrier is it's own entity and not terribly user friendly..I do wish the air frame could be brought up to spec in terms of electronics and weapons, but it's simply better to start with a clean sheet in terms of materials and computers.. remember one on one, it may out perform the f35 in some respects, but as an integrated weapons system, hooked into information sharing, j stars, wing men, simulator training, supersonic capability, rate of climb, weapons load and radar capability, as well as redundancy in all aspects, it's like the F104, vs a phantom, f104 was an amazing performer, in one role.. phantom could choose when and where it wanted to fight it, and had far more weapons to do it with.. plus could stay in the fight longer and absorb more damage.. The harrier met it's apex as the Av8b, ground support variant , which it performed very well as, and a low level dog fighter..air frame was not versatile enough to do all the jobs required of the f35.. the russians tried with the yak 141, and failed, excellent raf training got them through the falklands, but mirage entendarde, skyhawks, and pucara's aren't first rate stuff by ant means in 82', my hats of to the Brits on that performance.. but the sea harrier has had her time, now if the brit's get their shit together and design it's successor, (typhoon is pretty badass so we know BAE can do it, that would be an incredible aircraft)
