@@mattiafa6858 people who calls the Harrier a Hydra are usually dumb fucks and know shit about aviation. This kind of people think that planes like the Hydra, Tula and Avenger doesn't have real life inspirations and judge that the P-45 Nokota is a bomber by it's look, since is clearly a fighter. So, no F.
Such an astonishing peice of engineering. The front jets are driven by the inlet compression fans so are cold, the rear jets are driven by the combustion exhaust so are hot, and they mamaged to balance the whole thing up. Not only that but its a contra-rotating engine, each fan stage has to rotate in the oposite direction to the previous in order to prevent the whole thing from rolling over due to torquing of the engine. The engineers who built this deserve far more reconition that they get for this feat of engineering.
I'm still amazed and congratulate the engineers that designed helicopters so that they don't go spinning off like a top. These machines would surely blow the minds of Orville and Wilbur. Flight has improved almost as quickly as computers. Wild!
Claudes Minimum the germans didnt make the jump jet... the Brits made the only working jump jet the Nazis though DID have plans and were working on jet packs tho,
Growing up in the UK every time one of these beautiful beasts flew overhead every kid in a 20 mile radius would look up and could tell that they were looking at a Harrier. No mistaking that sound and its beautiful air frame. R.I.P RAF and RN Harriers
As a kid I spent year's growing upon and around HMS Illustrious and invincible. Got to see these tasks off, land, up and down the elevators and down in the hanger. Once I even got to climb all the way down into Invincible's deep magazine to see all bombs, missiles and torpedos. Didn't get to see the nukes though. For obvious reasons.
Such an iconic plane, the Harrier. I can also remember being a kid in Wales in the early 80s and RAF Jaguars training over the coast, hearing one of those tear the sky open at a few hundred feet was terrifying and exhilarating!
@@FastGamingSeries When most people see an airplane they imagine it flying forward you dumb fuck. Anyone with half a brain would imagine a "vertical take off" airplane would initially take off like a helicopter, avoiding the need for a long clear runway, then switch to forward/standard flight once at a safe altitude.
The vertical take-off of the Harrier Jump Jet is a sight that's difficult to forget. Watching this amazing airplane slowly rise, balancing on four jets of air, is the definition of amazing.
Ten tons of atmosphere that beauty use a minute in VTOL. I remember seeing one (and feeling it) take off, going from jetborne to airborne transition, I will never forget it - and neither will the earths' crust ! Sea Harrier FRS 1 being my number one choice - will hover hands free !
No microphone or sound system can properly reproduce the sound of the Harrier's engine. Voice coils will melt, diaphrams will shred and front baffles will crack under unbelievable energy loads.
I think it's funny how in awe of the sound of jet engines some people are, suppose it's like some people and car engines. I work around aircraft every day, the main thing I think about when engines start is I just want my hearing to last. Even with hearing protection it's still really loud.
thats not true! there are speakers that can reproduce the sound of this jet engine easely. they are so called compression drivers. they have a chamber infront of the diaphragm that works like a compressor. the souind wave gets compressed in a high level and for this reason the sound quality might be bad but the loudness of those speakers is phenomenal. they have more than 110 db sensivity at 1metre 1 wtt so you need only 1600 watts on compression drivers to produce over 160 dbs at 1 metre. or you use a sonafr. sonars are very very powerfull sounding devies used for ships or boats.ultra strong piezo transducers do the work. And yes you can use a huge plate using alot of piezo trancducers and kilowatts of power and then you can produce a very loud sound!
Man listen...seen this awesome piece of machinery at the Cleveland Air Show many years ago. Was so in awe of it's amazing abilities to hold steady in place. Move sideways, front and back, do a 360 turn while standing still...then just take off like a thief in the night.
@@frannydarko2698 Prototype flew in 58 but, importantly, it already used the RR Pegasus engine. The Harrier is still in active service with a 1950s engine. Absolutely bananas.
I definately prefer the harrier too, the fact that it's served so long and is still used is so amazing. I drew the image with a pencil and then took a photo of it and used paint to fill in the colours, thanks.
Yesssssss!!! This puts goose pimples on my goose pimples. I used to watch these birds perform with a direct view from where I used to live near to the naval base in Portland harbour, Dorset. Revolutionary.
jets usually stay in service for very long periods of time (usually 30 years), because they are hard and expensive to develop, and the final product may not be very innovative. But it is still very impressive that this jet has been in service for that long, going through 3 generations of jet design.
I was stationed in Cherry Point, NC in 1979. In fact I was with MWCS 28 and went over to Turkey for Display Determintation 1979. I remember the sound of the Harriers flying over. They had a very distinct sound. Interesting video. Thanks for sharing.
This is a beautiful and Great aircraft, It's jjust amazing the fact of that this plane can take off vertically. We, the argentines, had the experience of fighting against those aircraft :S, so we know what are those Harrier capable of. Greetings from Argentina :D
I remember the first time I saw her. I was with my dad, He was station in D.C. I looked out and saw this jet coming for the hanger. It wasn't and F4-Phantom. I remember screaming,"He's gonna crash",but my dad grabbed me."son watch this." She pause in flight and lowered herself to the ground. She's not my favorite jet., but at that one time. Me and my father shared a memory.
Indeed, the F35 was developed 37 years after the harrier was put into service. A fun fact, the Harrier was developed only 32 years after the Hawker Hurricane was first developed, it really puts it into perspective.
I remember walking when I was 16 up Mount Snowdon in North Wales with a very heavy back pack and some friends as we were youth hostelling and suddenly there was an almighty roar overhead - it was piercingly deafening and then looked around in astonishment we looked around and about 3 or 4 seconds later a Harrier was on the other side of the valley and we were walking higher up than it was - an amazing sight but the fright did cause my friend to fall and he subsequently broke his arm!!
Is this using mechanical gyros when it reaches about 30' and hovers before moving forward? Am watching it pitch and roll. (Very slight) we knoww the downward jet blast is what got it there. But what's keeping it level should one of its engine's output be more/less than the opposed side?
+ Enclave Sympathiser Yes the USAF invented the F-35, also quite a good aircraft. It has 2 engines I think, one for VTOL and the other for forward thrust. All the moving parts and the 2nd engine were a bit unnecessary and caused technical issues. The harrier only uses one for VTOL and forward thrust which is a bit simpler. Not saying the F-35 is bad , there's just room for improvement.
Still my favorite Strike fighter. A beautiful design, and advanced for its day. Hard to believe there were only 111 built. 20 Argentine planes were shot down by harriers in the '82 falklands war with no air-to-air losses. The harrier was deployed again in the '92 - '95 in the yugoslav wars/bosnian conflicts. They were even used to patrol air-space to keep yugoslavian MiGs on the ground in 1999 during "operation allied airforce". When they were finally decomissioned im not sure.
I first saw this beauty on television when I was a kid just 5-7 years old ...it was Arnold my fav action hero flying this beauty in the movie true lies .... It was like a combo of beauty and the beast ...!!!
Concorde was pretty impressive. New York to Paris, in just under 3.5 hours. An average cruise speed of Mach 2.02, (1155 knots / 2140 km/h / 1334 mph), A maximum cruise altitude of 60,039 ft
With an unrefueled 7000km+ range. Nothing could do that, not even the Tu-22M3, the Russian supersonic bomber. Incredible piece of technology, again made from 60s tech.
It is a fascinating jet, but at a price: It cost so many lives of the pilots who flew them, because of the nature of the jet's complexity and the fact it was the infant of VTOL jet aircraft; so many complications were discovered from it.
Profile wise its a beauty, and still is even to F-35... Take-off and landing wise, nothing beats watching harrier doing it. While technologically its kind of outdate, it still beats and ass any day today, 60+ years and counting. Amongst best jets of my (amateurish) favors, along with the Tomcat, Intruder, F15, Sukhoi(s), A10 Warthog to name a few... Still remembering the scene in film True Lies over the harrier's flight and manoeuvres!
If we could put this on every fighter jet on an aircraft carrier we'd save a lot of weight, room for jets, less runway space taking up the flight deck, and it can make the carrier a smaller target
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess it spends too much fuel and spoils the straight aircraft speed, because a tiltmotor isn't as fast as a common jet engine.
12MinecraftElite And an F14 is nearly 1550, F/A 18E s about 1200 Eurofighter is 1550, Su-33 is 1400, Mig 29 is around 1500...Pattern here is that a jet designed as a jet, will out pace an F35 because they're just designed different. There are different aerodynamics involved so you can't just replace everything with it. Different planes for different situations. Harriers most of the time are kind of niche.
Rin Okumura They worked well and were proved in the falklands war, in a dog fight, they wouldjust lift up, let enemy underpass them and shoot them in the arse.
Chimpman1187, if the F-35 is "more advanced in every way", please tell me how. It can only take off vertically without a payload - which is useless. It's payload even has to be completely used when they return as well, otherwise it has to land like any other conventional fighter. This was never a concern for the Harrier, so how is the F-35 "more advanced"?
F=35 is the most expensive military design failure and project in history. More money than the manhattan project, more than the entire Apollo moon shot . It is the most expensive piece of military hardware Ever produced and it cannot compeat in the real world of air combat with it's advisories current or even older air craft.
What are you on about the harriers maximum vertical take off weight was very low, it couldnt take off with a combat load fuel and munitions vertically.
As a Kerbal Space Program nooblet who has always wanted to make a VTOL aircraft in game and to this day HASN’T… This is the inspiration for my Dream. And I cannot POSSIBLY sing enough praises for the engineers who made this piece of engineering sorcery possible in the real world.
Am sorry but that cannot be categorized its not a plane nor helicopter so.............. *NO* and that is too large to on an aircraft carrier too much space
I went to the Waddington airshow a few years ago, people all walking up and down the taxiway not watching the F-16's from Denmark do their fantastic display, same reaction for the Grippen. But when Harrier went up Every one stopped Harrier stopped It stayed in the air Everyone transfixed By this single aircraft It wasn't doing anything And that is what was so spectacular
+Redstone Technician No, but then again, the F-35 was built with bits of pieces of other fighters. the F/A-18, as a naval version, the A-10, with its large 25mm, the f-22 with stealth, the harrier when it comes to VTOL, F-16, Air Force superiority.. But of course it won't really replace them, it's just putting them all together. And things are better together.
Steven Swaney america said it wasnt worth making as it couldnt go atleast mach 2. when we made it work you wanted in and we pretty much said fuck off.i though it was joint but i got a book written by most of the developers with written and photographed proof it wasnt joint.
What a fucking machine, to say we went from the spitfire to this beast in 24 years is amazing, especially considering we havnt gone that much further in the 43 years since the harrier.
FYI thejasaon, they are nozzles, not thrusters. They all are all from the single rolls royce Pegasus engine. The 2 front ones are only powered by the HRP intake fan, and the back ones are the exhaust ducts. those two beam looking things underneath it are stakes, they help create a box of air underneath the bird to help keep it airborne. My information comes from being a Harrier mechanic. Kudos to you knowing how they work
Hate to burst your bubble but this is a Hawker Siddeley Harrier - a British design. We pioneered vertical takeoff jets. The design was exported to the USA as the AV-8A - for USMC support use around 1971.
