Landing Harrier on Carriers With Weapons

[dresoccer4]

hello all - it tried googling this but never came up with a good answer. i was wondering how harriers come back and land with a full weapons load out (like for some reason you didn't end up firing your weapons) without a tail hook or way of arresting? the only other thing i can think of is they jettison all of their weapons into the sea then do a normal vertical. but that would just be ridiculous and can't be right.

 

so, anyone able to point me somewhere that describes how to come in and land with a full load out? :pilotfly:

[Kula66]

You can't ... you have to dump them, which in the Yugoslavian conflict was a major issue with the SHAR2s - expensive LGBs being dumped in the the sea :(

 

Its why the RN is currently testing the rolling landing on the new carriers with the F-35s, still an issue.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

That's one of the reasons you don't see heavily laden harriers shipboard. You can have single bombs on the pylons and missiles and be fine. More than that you're probably SOL. You'd have to look at the performance numbers

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[mvsgas]

hello all - it tried googling this but never came up with a good answer. i was wondering how harriers come back and land with a full weapons load out (like for some reason you didn't end up firing your weapons) without a tail hook or way of arresting? the only other thing i can think of is they jettison all of their weapons into the sea then do a normal vertical. but that would just be ridiculous and can't be right.

 

so, anyone able to point me somewhere that describes how to come in and land with a full load out? :pilotfly:

 

It would depend on the load out and weight AFAIK. I am looking in the NAVAIR 00-80T-111 see if I see anything. It should be a normal landing.

At 7:50 you can see the harrier landing with weapons on ( video is set already just hit play)

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by mvsgas

[Mr_sukebe]

Low fuel probably.

Assuming that our Harrier is correct, I have no issues with landing with around 3000bs of fuel. Put it another way, drop you fuel to 1000lbs and you have a ton of weight allowance for weapons.

[Kula66]

In Ward's book on the Falklands he talks about telling the squadron to aim to land with never more than 800lbs of fuel after CAP missions and once landing with only 200lbs of fuel remaining after a CAP and long transit back to Invincible - scary stuff. (I know this is in a SHAR1 not an AV-8B)

[dresoccer4]

interesting stuff, guys. yeah dumping super fancy/expensive weapons in the ocean really irritates me for some reason. it seems akin to dousing large sums of money in toxic chemicals, then lighting it on fire and chucking it into the sea. because, war! f you, you damn ocean. *facepalm*

 

at least chuck a big net out into the sea and scoop that stuff up

 

anyway, maybe i'll try getting a decent load out, fly around for a bit burning almost all of my fuel, and see if i can come in for a rolling landing. will be good practice even if i bite it

[mwlue]

fly around for a bit burning almost all of my fuel

 

Or you may try dump fuel instead?

 

I remember there's fuel dump buttons on left side panel near the fuel control switch IIRC, have not tried them yet. As Im only 2 weeks in the harrier. :pilotfly:

[dresoccer4]

Or you may try dump fuel instead?

 

I remember there's fuel dump buttons on left side panel near the fuel control switch IIRC, have not tried them yet. As Im only 2 weeks in the harrier. :pilotfly:

 

that works too! but then again where does the fuel that is dumped go?

[javelina1]

that works too! but then again where does the fuel that is dumped go?

 

 

Generally, it will evaporate from what I gather.

[dresoccer4]

Generally, it will evaporate from what I gather.

 

huh, interesting. guess that's better than raining down on some poor sod on the ground.

[Cobra747]

that works too! but then again where does the fuel that is dumped go?

 

on commercials they tell us we need at least 6000' to dump as it takes that long to fully evaporate.

[rtimmons]

If you do a short landing at 60 to 80 knots touch down speed you can have a heavy load and stop ok on the landing runway without a hook. As you come in on final with nozzles in hover position put your velocity vector indicator on the deck wires and keep it there using the throttle. Use nose up to slow down and nose down to speed up . If you are heavy don't let your speed drop below ~80 knots (depending on weight) until you are over the deck. I can normally get to 60 knots before touch down by pulling the nose up and easing her down once over the deck where it finally falls out of the air. I do this kind of landing at airfields also because it seems easier on the "bicycle with training wheels" type landing gear on the Harrier...as opposed to rolling on the runway at 150 knots while heavy.

 

 

 

slyfly

Edited November 6, 2018 by rtimmons

[Sandman1330]

If you do a short landing at 60 to 80 knots touch down speed you can have a heavy load and stop ok on the landing runway without a hook. As you come in on final with nozzles in hover position put your velocity vector indicator on the deck wires and keep it there using the throttle. Use nose up to slow down and nose down to speed up . If you are heavy don't let your speed drop below ~80 knots (depending on weight) until you are over the deck. I can normally get to 60 knots before touch down by pulling the nose up and easing her down once over the deck where it finally falls out of the air. I do this kind of landing at airfields also because it seems easier on the "bicycle with training wheels" type landing gear on the Harrier...as opposed to rolling on the runway at 150 knots while heavy.

 

 

 

slyfly

 

You can also rotate the nozzles to full forward, which provides some reverse thrust. I’m not sure if it is done in real life, but one can do rolling landings on the tarawa fairly easy this way.

[jojo]

that works too! but then again where does the fuel that is dumped go?

 

Ok Greenpeace, then circle and burn your virtual fuel :D

 

But waiting to burn you virtual fuel to not drop your virtual bombs into virtual sea, you are consuming more real electricity :music_whistling:

[Snowblind]

i do what the RN is doing with the f35, a rolling near vertical landing, always dump fuel to around 1000lbs though, this gives you enough margin for error, or you just do a hail Mary rolling landing on the Stennis at virtual stall speed so you just touch down at the very back, jam you brakes on, full forward thrust nozzles and full rpm, should provide enough braking force to stop you by the end, its not pretty but it works.

[ESAc_matador]

i do what the RN is doing with the f35, a rolling near vertical landing, always dump fuel to around 1000lbs though, this gives you enough margin for error, or you just do a hail Mary rolling landing on the Stennis at virtual stall speed so you just touch down at the very back, jam you brakes on, full forward thrust nozzles and full rpm, should provide enough braking force to stop you by the end, its not pretty but it works.

 

I think full foward nozzles are forbbiden on the ground, because the air ingestion. you damage the engine.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

I think full foward nozzles are forbbiden on the ground, because the air ingestion. you damage the engine.

 

Only below around 50 knots. Then it becomes a problem. Before that it's fine. Preferred actually

[Nealius]

I think full foward nozzles are forbbiden on the ground, because the air ingestion. you damage the engine.

 

Standard braking procedure for CL, FNSL, and VNSLs is to set full forward nozzles and 70% RPM.