RAF Harrier crash lands

**Usarka** · 5th June 2010, 17:49

Yeah this one's got lift problems too.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltqas...eature=related

**schrodingers cat** · 5th June 2010, 18:36

Originally Posted by Usarka

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltqas...eature=related

If I was an American taxpayer I'd take a lot of pleasure from watching that!

**flyingcrocodile46** · 5th June 2010, 19:38

Originally Posted by schrodingers cat

If I was an American taxpayer I'd take a lot of pleasure from watching that!

As you gorged yourself on Twinkeys, Cheeseballs and Bonbons

**toycollector10** · 5th June 2010, 20:02

Marty and Dangerousbasterd, I was commenting on the arrival of the Harrier, the departing IL76 is just for fun.

I do know the difference between an arrival and a departure, boys!

I also loved the Cherokee 6...But just me and three hours gas, not loaded up....&*(#$%^&@

**marty** · 5th June 2010, 20:33

re-reading your post carefully, i see your intent...

**Urano** · 5th June 2010, 21:03

uhm...
it actually seems an human error to me...
the engine revs up, the pitch goes up... only too late... he probably messed up with landing weight and target speeds, maybe thought to be lighter or something similar.
as for the ejection, it is not a garden walk: the mb seat kicks you in the ass pretty heavy, so if you can avoid is always better.
aside that he could have no exactly idea of the airplane damages, so he would have thought to have simply crashed a landing gear and hoped to keep damages low.
he ejected only when flames got around the cockpit, so he probably got scared of a possible explosion...

Originally Posted by Ronin

Only the British are classy enough to crash then eject.

LOL!

Originally Posted by Usarka

Be fucked if you're going backwards at Lake Eyre in aus (-50ft)

reLOL!!!

Originally Posted by toycollector10

Hot and high (elevation 3312 ft above Mean Seal Level), a heavy aircraft, big sink rate and "a bit late on the round-out Hoskings" Ptwaaaang.....

My favourite below.

he was completely crazy.
i understand military operations have lower safety procedure than civilian, but judging from the tower comments he was a fool.

Originally Posted by marty

not sink rate - just a long time between v1 and rotate...
I used to work with a guy who was a flight engineer on the first of the Air NZ 747-200s. Full and heavy out of LAX for AKL on a 25 departure (over the sand dunes) - could be up to 15 seconds between v1 and rotate,

well "up to 15 seconds" means not to much... it depends on how much runway you have left.
normally on civilian operations you use a "balanced" runway, which means that you adjust your speeds to match the distance you'd need to go to the distance you'd need to stop, and keep it equal to the runway you actually have in front of you.
when you reach the vr there is no good reason to remain on the ground, stated that you don't want to blow all your tyres at once...
so he likely to have reached the vr when he rotated the airplane, which is pretty close the end of the runway.
but it's clear that if the v1 (v1 is the so called "decision speed": until that you have enough space to stop the plane if something goes wrong, over that you have to take off, 'cause you cannot stop it inside the runway anymore...) has been reached, let's say, 15 seconds before, and exactly at the v1 an engine blowed up, he had to continue the acceleration anyway with less thrust and there would have been no way for him to keep the airplane inside the runway or take off safely...
it's true that a 4 engine has less thrust reduction than a twin in case of failure, but he couldn't have done it anyway.
it seems also that he has pretty large problems of climb gradient, after the takeoff: he was probably much heavier than the safe in those conditions.