Talk:Harrier jump jet

Harrier story page idea

Peter, back in January, you noted on the Talk:Hawker-Siddeley Harrier page that we ought to have a single page covering the story of the Harrier - military role and evolution. Harrier Jump Jet is a disambiguation page. What if we expanded it to cover the overall history and evolution, of the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier/Harrier II family, dealing with the story overall, and parts that really aren't covered by the other Harrier pages. I am considering doing this, but wanted to get your thoughts before putting anything together. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bill, it would be a great project. The name of the aircraft presents difficulties because it has changed so much over the last 40 years, with no definitive name. Harrier Jump Jet is descriptive but colloquial. Maybe the main article should be Harrier V/STOL fighter aircraft with a redirect from Harrier Jump Jet. The main article should be a short overview leading to longer sub articles. The sub articles should link to the main in the first paragraph. The overview would be 'military role and evolution (history)' with maybe a 'current status'. History would cover the development. The Kestrel page could be a sub-sub page (sub page of History).

I think this might be a good case for a 'Wiki Project' but I don't know much about these. It might be worth using Categories to collect the articles into a hierachy.

Your thoughts? PeterGrecian 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I don't know much about setting up Wiki Projects either. I hadn't considered that "Harrier Jump Jet" was colloquial; I have heard it used in both British and American sources, esp print. That page just seemed like a good place to start. "Harrier V/STOL aircraft" might be a better title, given that the Harrier really isn't considered a fighter in all of its incarnations, Sea Harrier and Harrier II Plus being the main "fighter" variants. "Story of the Harrier" might work to, though its a bit unorthodox for most Wiki aircraft titles. We might actually go through several page moves till we get one everyone is satisfied with. Harrier jet, Harrier fighter/attack aircraft, Jump Jet, and Harrier (aircraft) are all redierect pages (to HJJ) that might work also.

Your basic outline sounds good though. In putting it together, I would basically copy relevant section from the other articles, and expand them where needed in the new article. That's how I usually start new articles - I steal from the existing ones :). Once we have it completed, we can then ask for input if we want to redact any repeated material in the other articles.

I'd basically like this article to be an overview, and deal with the history as a whole, the impact the aircraft has had, etc. Some of this is mentioned in the other articles, but usually only briefly. The history definitely needs to start with the P.1127 and the Kestrel (they are both covered in one article right now because there isn't enough material to justify 2 separte ones), and probably even mention the "Flying Bedstead". It can also cover some of the parallel development of the Pegasus and its forebearers, which really made the Harrier a reality. I want to try to make sure we cover enough original material (not original research), esp history, to justfiy retaining the article.

If we can decide on title soon, I'll start on it as I can, and maybe not link to the other pages till we at least get the basic outline done. At first, it will just be a collectin of various paragraphs and pics in somewhat chronological order. We can work on formatting it as we go along, a bit at a time. We may have to fight off "Requests for Deletion", but if I start with a a lot of material from the other orticles, I think we can hold that off. I realize you won't have a lot of time to work on this for no, but feel free to contribute as you can. Make any any edits you feel are necessary, and if I disagree, we can discuss it on the article talk page. It's definitely going to be a work in progress though, going through many changes, especially as others start to contribute. - BillCJ 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this page needs a number of things, which may or may not be appropiate for the sub articles:-

• A list of users of the aircraft, including when they begun using the type, and which types they use(d)

and any differences in the variety they are using. 

• Also, the proposed sale to Australia of the Sea HArrier would also be quite interesting to include. See[1] for more info.
• theres plenty of info on this page which should be incorporated, and links needed to be added to each page to that site [2]

Tom of north wales 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Language

You seem to use the English from across the pond, rather than my quaint dialect :). Given that the Harrier is of British origins, we should probably use British English throughout. Although I can read/understand British English fairly well, I don't write it in naturally. So feel free to change any dialect/spelling/grammar you feel is necessary, as you go along. For the most part, we ought to use as neutral a reading as we can.

Anyway, thanks for your input, and the original "germ" of the idea. - BillCJ 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well deduced! I live in Kingston upon Thames where the Harrier was concieved. A pleasure to collaborate over such distance! I'm not going to quibble about spelling! PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first generation Harriers are certainly of British origin, but the Harrier II is as much American as it is British. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint. Doesn't change much, though, especially as it's simply not true. Dave420 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true too. But since the British designed and developed it first, I thought we could default to their rules in case of any conflict. It doesn't seem it's going to be an issue with Peter either way though. We might end up with quite a mix in the article, so I was trying to preclude that beforehand. - BillCJ 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One other thing -- remember that the Harrier project began as a multiservice project (much like JSF), and the U.S. was an equal partner. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it didn't. The US Marines definitely helped when they made a large order for the aircraft, but to suggest some level of cooperation akin to the JSF is woefully inaccurate. Dave420 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

the very orgional was a french aircraft which was scrapped, the idea spawned the british to create a V/STOL aircraft. there was limited British government backing so hawker funded it itself.The British government had scrapped so many aircraft before it that it bought i belive 80 aircraft and told hawker it wasnt going to purchase anymore. then the USMC saw the potential of the harrier in comflicts such as vietnam, although it wasnt used their and injected cash and bought the aircraft after the aircraft had been fully developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgoodall (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a "yank" who has lived in London, those darn Brits just don't know how to speak English :)

I am happy to say that I did not topple the Marble Arch in 1974!

It was a rainy day in '74 and I was driving around the circle and another motorist cut me off which caused me to swerved my car and did an excellent 360 while traveling around the arch. I stayed on the road and regained my bearing and completed the circle with no casualties.

Of course English on both sides of "the Pond" have taken on their own flavours due to societal evolution, we don't have much differences except in spelling. Americanization has simplified colour to color and flavour to flavor. Brits say lorry and Yanks say truck, Brits say pram and Yanks say carriage. Even within the bounds of the UK and the US, each have their own regional ways of speaking.

I have no problem with the British, English, American and Cockney way of spelling and speaking.

I enjoy our differences.

Markgoodall, excellent contribution, but slow down - use spell cheque :}

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 21:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Main article name

On second thought, I think I'd prefer to use Harrier Jump Jet as the title, because that's what it is known as to the public at large. They see no difference between the Harrier, Sea Harrier, and the various Harrer IIs. I also think it fits in with our idea of giving a basic overview of the Harrier history, and covering the basic differences between the type. There is a disambiguation page at just plain Harrier that covers all "Harrier" meanings, not just the aircraft, though it does have listings of the 4 Harrier articles. So we really don't need two disambiguation pages. I plan to keep some form of the current disambiguation format near the top of the story page, esp if we use the HJJ page. However, if you really feel it's too colloquial, I have no problem using something else that works better. - BillCJ 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Most readers would expect Harrier Jump Jet. The principle of 'least surprise' applies here. A good set of redirects would solve the many names issue. PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the colloquial term "Jump Jet" belongs in the title of a Wikipedia article. "Jump Jet" is merely an informal epithet concocted by the popular media, in much the same way as "Concordski" was used to refer to the Tu-144. Letdorf 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

It may be informal and colloquial, but I do think it fits. THis is an overview article about the Harrier family as a whole, not the particular variants, and to many people, they are all just Harriers or Jump Jets. If you'd like to propose a move, you are of course welcome to do that. This page can go back to being what it was before expansion, just a DAB page to the Harrier articles, if the move is approved. Btw, as much as people may dislike the term "Concordski", it fits perfectly. - BillCJ 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

Something else I've noticed: The "Pop culture" sections in the Harrier I and II articles both cover the same movies, even tho different versions are used is some movies ("Living daylights" - Harrier I; "True Lies" - Harrier II, etc.). Though I am not a fan of lengthy fancruft, it would be helpful to put the existing sections in one article, with links to that section in the original articles rather than the current lists there. It would definitley keep the anti-fancruft advocates of the regular pages happy. - BillCJ 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. We would also need a link from the main article to the fancruft sections. I guess in the 'See Also' section. PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

I'd love to find a good public-domain-type picture of both the Harrier I and II together to use as a lead pic for the page. Any 2 varians would do, such as the AV-8A and AV-8B, GR.3 and GR.5, or the Sea Harrier FA2 and GR7. I have seen pics of the latter pair in books, esp from the last 10 years when they cruised together a lot. Just an idea. - BillCJ 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I bet there are some works of US government public domain pictures. Let's have a look. I took many close up photos of the Harriers at Brooklands near where I live which would be useful for a 'how it works' section. I'll upload this week if I can. PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

like this one PeterGrecian 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What version of Harrier is that from? The color looks like a Sea Harrier, but I don't want to guess in the caption. Whatever info on the plane should be posted with the pic on its Image page

Will do PeterGrecian 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just "stole" the Controls and handling" section from the HS Harrier article; it has a pic already, but I'm not sure which one I prefer. That one is of a Sea Harrier, so I may move it to that article if we use yours here.

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture

While I think moving the pop culture stuff to Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture (someone renamed it to a lower-case P and C)is a good idea in and of itself, there is a danger: Stand-alone pop culture pages tend to grOW larGER. I'm not going to fight with you about it thouygh; it's not that big an issue. However, the page may get marked for speedy deletion by someone else (won't be me). I happen to think our "Jump Jet" page is a good place for them, at least while the article is still relatively small, and where we can keep the pop culture section relatively small too!

at least the main page won't be spoilt by fan cruft PeterGrecian 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I add a hidden in-text not right above the Video Game section that I found on another aircraft page. Maybe it will help. - BillCJ 06:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

good idea PeterGrecian 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture is, IMHO, a pretty needless page. The information there would be much better off as part of this article. - Aerobird 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything to keep the mountains of fancruft tripe out of the main page is good, IMHO. Personally, I'd rather do without except in the most significant cases. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why Peter split it off, as noted above. I really didn't like the idea to begin with, but's noice not having all that cruft in the main Harrier aticles. Personally, I'd Afd the Pop culture page, but then the cruft would come back to the main articles! - BillCJ 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure ideas

How about

1. Introduction to the Harrier Family -> History (with main article at some stage)
2. Development -> Design, that is 'how it works'
   1. vectored thrust
   2. attitude nozzles
   3. Pegasus plumbing (how to get four jets from one engine), counter rotating spools
3. Controls and handling, shortened with main article, maybe 'Flying the Harrier Jump Jet' maybe 'Operation of ...'
4. Combat roles
5. Variants

etc.

Your comments, as always, appreciated. PeterGrecian 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm not sure, but I think you're suggesting a separate article on "Flying the HJJ". It's a good idea only if this article gets too big. For know, I'd like to see how this article shapes up first.

Also, I think we have a slightly different vision of this page. I want to cover everything in general about the Harrier here, with the variants covered on their pages. You seem to want a short page here that links to various articles covering different aspects of the Harrier, in addition to the variants. That's fine, we all have our points of view. Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship where I can force my view on anyone, and I don't want it to be.

However, we should try to reconcile our visions early on, so we aren't working at cross purposes here. A compromise could be a slightly-longer page than you envision (but shroter that what I have in mind), with a few sub-articles on the longer sub-topics. We really won't know which sub-topics are longer till we're further along on the project, so waiting to split them off till we have most of this completed might be good too.

Anyway, I'm trying to avoid any conflict in the future. Again, make your views known. No one is right or wrong here, but some ideas work better than others, and some ideas seem good in theory, but in practice fall flat. We don't always know which is which till we try. Also, for know, we two are the only ones working on the project. That makes it easier to make decisions, sucha as creating new pages, then later merging them back in if we diecide to do so.

All that said, I think we have the good beginnings of a page here, and it is shaping up well. It stands well on its own, even wtihout everything we imagine for it. So we are making progress here, and I've enjoyed working with you on it so far. Thanks.

- BillCJ 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'd like the article to become a good article or even a featured article. To do this it would need to be quite long. I think you are interested in the military history of the HJJ (it's definition?) and I more in the history of technology (description?). The article needs both in more or less equal amounts. I hope I can contribute a bit more in a few weeks. Thanks Bill. PeterGrecian 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood earlier you to be saying you wanted the description section split off. Actually, I'm fine with both "definition" and " description" sections being here. I moved the "Controls and Handling" section from the HS Harrier article in here last week. As far as the military history goes, I mainly want to deal with the concept as whole, as overview of what led to the Harrier's development and its evolvement since then, stuff that's not really dealt with in the type articles.

Anyway, it does seem we both want it to be long, so at least that's good. HJJ won't be a feature article this week, so we have plenty oftime to get it right. Anyway, I think it will be a great article when its finished, but then, what on Wiki is ever finished? - BillCJ 13:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made the anonymous edit to the first section, to make the heading "Harrier family overview". Given what it is, and also considering the second paragraph of the "intro" section, which is a thin and redundant intro to the overview, I suggest we kill the heading of "Harrier family overview" and replace the second paragraph, promoting the family discussion to the top, before the ToC. I am going to go ahead with this change, but feel free to revert it. Nwallins (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Harrier London-New York point-to-point record?

Just a bit of trivia that someone may find interesting enough to look into. Back in about 1969 I seem to remember, a Harrier broke the London-New York point-to-point record and as far as I know, still holds it. An RAF Harrier took-off from a coal yard in central London and, flight refuelled, crossed the Atlantic to land in a parking lot in central New York. This was a city-to-city record at the time and I seem to remember it appearing in the Guinness Book of Records in the early 1970s. Ian Dunster 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I remember reading that in a source I have too. I'll try to dig it out and see what I can post. - BillCJ 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - BTW, I've often wondered what the onlookers at the parking lot thought of all this. Ian Dunster 14:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's some video of the London-New York flight on YouTube here: [3] The year was 1969 and it was in May that the Daily Mail Transatlantic Air Race flight took place. The point the pilots had to get from was the Post Office Tower in London to the Empire State Building in New York. One of the Harriers was XV744 flown by Brian Davis, RN, and the other was flown by Sqn Ldr Tom (Lecky) Tompson, RAF. The lift-off point was St Pancras railway station and the landing was on one of the banks of the East River in New York.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Harrier Jump Jet. -- BillCJ 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested merger

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture → Harrier Jump Jet

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for detailes on performing meregers.)

• The Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page serves the four Harrier articles on Wikipedia, and was originally split off from the Harrier Jump Jet overview article. However, the pop culture page has become a magnet for non-notable items, especially the Ace combat, Metal Gear Solid, and Red alert series, as some users feel free to continually add such games as it is its own page. This is despite the disclaimer Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. Random cruft, including all Ace Combat appearances and anime/fiction lookalike speculation will be removed. The Talk:Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page aplso has comments from several users expressing the desire that the two pages be combined. - BillCJ 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support -
• Support - its such a meagre article it deserves to be wiped. GraemeLeggett 10:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose -

Discussion

None.

Decision

No contest. Will merge, and delete the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page rather than creating a redirect. - BillCJ 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning the "pop culture" section

Are the flight sims included because they're flight sims, as opposed to the "gamecruft" references to other notable games featuring the Harrier (ie GTA, MGS, etc.)? Wikiproject:Aircraft didn't have an answer for me there. Also, should it not be noted that the Harrier's features are greatly exaggerated in pop culture, as it is oftentimes shown performing maneuvers that, in reality, are impossible?

Overall, my personal feeling is that this section is a messy, jumbled compilation of random appearances of the Harrier and probably the only notable information from the section is the lawsuit. I'm inclined to edit it but I'm afraid my changes may be deleted per some obscure wikirules until I'm clear on what this article's editors believe is relevant or not. -albrozdude 18:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remeber seing your question aon teh WP:AIR talk pages, but i could have missed it. To you main question: If you think this is messy, take a look at Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture, and view some of the history before it was merged back here, and note what I did not move here! Maybee this section could use some minor clean-up and reformatting, but all the items here have been agreed to as notable at one point or another. (Note: Most of the items retained were already here before the section was split off.) As to flight sims, they are ususally considered as able to be notable (but notable in and of the fact they are flight sims), while games are usualy not, becuase they are usually highly fictionalized, while the sims are more close to reality. Hope this helps. - BillCJ 02:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. One thing I would like to do is remove this odd sentence:

"The James Bond movie The Living Daylights, and in the film Battlefield Earth."

And then just condense the rest of the information into a short paragraph, also maybe to note that in many movies and games, the Harrier's abilities and features are greatly exaggerated. -albrozdude 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unqualified statement

I removed the following statement from the text: The Harrier remains to this day the only military aircraft design bought by the United States from a foreign country. First, it is unsourced. Second, as written, it is patently false: The US has had a number foreign design in military service, including the DH.4, Mosquito, Spitfiire, B-57 Canberra, C-23, C-27A and J, T-6 II (PC-9), and T-45 Goshawk. - BillCJ 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Infobox inaccuracy

I have corrected the Infobox Image caption. It said the Harrier was from the RAF, but the Squad markings are clearly 800 NAS, so it is a Royal Navy GR-7. 81.110.254.233 07:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Operational History

This section should be in there. AThousandYoung 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is an overview article. The Operational history belongs in the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, BAE Sea Harrier, AV-8 Harrier II and BAE Harrier II variant articles.

A recent Time magazine article, Osprey: A Flying Shame claims that "Since 1971, more than a third of Harriers have crashed, killing 45 Marines in 143 accidents." This would seem to be a fact that if true merits mention in this overview, which is where people like myself will land first; the article implies this, by mentioning the high level of specialized skill required to fly the plane, but doesn't state the resulting consequences of this requirement (an extremely high rate of accidents and fatalities). tvleavitt (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why US in comparison with British forces had so many accidents, on average the RAF flew the Harrier far more yet have far fewer accidents, could the failure rate be due to lack of experienced instructers in this particular aircraft? Twobells (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

According to to John Farley, Harrier test pilot, the problem was mainly due to the USMC allocating former helicopter pilots to the Harrier. These pilots had a tendency to allow the Harrier to get ahead of them, i.e., the pilots had difficulty anticipating the aircraft's reaction to their control inputs at the high speeds compared to the helicopters they had been trained on. Although subsonic, the Harrier is still a 'fast jet' and helicopter-trained pilots for the most part don't (or didn't) have the ingrained quick reactions necessary to fly the Harrier safely, especially at low levels. When the Harrier was first introduced the USMC put their best pilots onto flying the aircraft and they had no accidents at all for the first two years. The Harrier is NOT a helicopter - it's a 'fast jet' and needs to be treated like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.52 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of users in info box

Why is the USMC at the top? The RAF should be at the top as R is first alphabetically and it was invented In Britain for the RAF.(Morcus (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

The USMC was placed on top because it has used the largest number of all Harrier variants combined. The subject of this article is all the Harrier types, both the Is and IIs. On the page for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first variant, the RAF is listed first. You're welcome to try to build a consensus to change the order. - BillCJ (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an Explanation as to why. Though i still feel it should be Alphabetical (Morcus (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Well, we could remove one of the other users, like Spain, and add the Italian Navy - that would be first alphabetically :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spain is first Alphabetically by Nation as the RAF is an organ of the UK.

Comparison spec table

I add a table to compare the main specs for the main Harrier models. This was BillCJ's idea, btw. A good one I think. I got most of the specs from the Norden book. But it did not cover the Kestrel. So I'm not sure on that data. Its MTOW might be for a vertical takeoff vs. a short takeoff used for the others. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

F-35/F22/A Link?

Shouldn't there be a link to the F-35 & F22/A entries seeing how both these aircrafts thrust vectoring capabilites are based on the harriers innovative design? I have read that the design is more in keeping with the Yak, that however is a sophistry as the Yak was born of a system based on the Pegasus engineTwobells (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, not really. Should we link every aircraft ever built that uses wings on the Wright flyer page? The Harrier may have pioneered the use of thrust vectoring, but it's application on other designs doesn't make them related, or worth linking. The F-22's thrust vectoring is solely for manuvering, not vertical lift, and several Russian desings use this too. The F-35B uses a different concept of lift that is older than the Harrier design (lift-fan). The Yak-141 (I assume you didn't mean the Yak-38) has a similar device to vector the rear exhaust as the F-35B, and while LM appears to have consulted Yak on the design's technical details, the idea is also older that too. - BillCJ (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Engine Specs

I know nothing about Harriers, but it doesn't make sense to me that the specs table should list the Pegasus 11 Mk 105 engine as having two different thrust values for the Sea Harrier FA2 and the AV-8B+ Harrier. 70.251.1.149 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a typo - Sea Harrier FA2 used the Mk 106. Good catch! - BillCJ (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive wikilinks?

Is there any consensus that one unique wikilink per section is enough? Looking at the new intro paragraph, it is very busy with the excessive linking to VTOL, etc. It feels distracting and overdone. I am going to make an edit. The first mention of a linkable term will be be linked. After that, regular text rules apply. Nwallins (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

early development of p1127

two anecdotes i've heard, but cn't quote sources.

During the early drafting processes of the p1127, the UK air ministry had a mathematical simu;ator; they fed in the expected pilot inputs for a vstol aircraft. The simulator said that it needed a two man crew. Hawker were crestfallen - a two man plane would be too expensive. However, the Hawker guys fed into that simu;atr the inputs required a ride a bicycle, and the simulator said that it was impossible for one man to ride a bike!

Secondly, Hawker's only test pilot accredited to fly vtol aircraft broke his leg in aa skiing accident; until he could fly again, progress would be constrained. Finally, he attended the doctor to get his 'fit to fly' certificate; the doctor signed it with the condition 'tethered hovering only'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.122.105 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Constant change to title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move it to the proposed name. —harej (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Harrier Jump Jet family → BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family — This article seems to be engendered a great deal of confusion as to the title. I believe that the title should be "BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family" as the "Jump Jet" was never an official designation. It was more akin to a P.R. invention. Keeping the title consistent with all the other daughter articles also makes sense. The move back and forth was the product of a campaign to move a variety of article titles to a particular individual's choice of titles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Non-consensual unproposed move

"Harrier Jump Jet" is a commone term, and the editors who created the page chose this title specifically for the purpose of making it an overview of the family. To include the manufacturers, the correct title would be Hawker/Hawker Siddeley/British Aerospace/BAE Systems and McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Harrier family. I think the Jump Jet title is much better! For those who disagree, please use the formal move process to propose a move to the new title, and allow a conSensus to be reached on it, as BRD has been invoked. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

B, see above as this back-and-forth occurred throughout the morning on a number of forums.

(repeat) This article seems to be engendered a great deal of confusion as to the title. I believe that the title should be "BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family" as the "Jump Jet" was never an official designation. It was more akin to a P.R. invention. Keeping the title consistent with all the other daughter articles also makes sense. The move back and forth was the product of a campaign to move a variety of article titles to a particular individual's choice of titles. FWiW, I refer you to a slew of edit comments and "Jump Jet" phew, show me where that was ever the designation for the aircraft. LOL Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

As a I stated before this is not an aircraft article. It is an overview page; more of a glorified disambigious page than an aircraft page. So I don't think the aircraft naming convention really applies here. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think the name should be? Harrier family? Jump Jet family or BAE/McDonnell Douglas Harrier family? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Agree (to Fnlayson) but if it has to change then perhaps Harrier family would be better than trying to add four or five manufacturers into the title. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I could live with Harrier family? Jump Jet family has connotations of the Jetsons!! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

(Unindent) Again, "Harrier Jump Jet" is a common name for the "uninformed", and is regularly used in the popular press. As detailed above, the name was previously a DAB page (which would need to exist anway) for the several articles on the Harrier. Another editor suggested an article for a "Harrier story", and that developed into what we have here today. It is inteded to give an overview of the Harrier for those not familiar with the various incarnations of the Harrier. I really don't see the problem with Harrier Jump Jet being the title for the article, as it's not intended to supplant the regular article. Of course, I will accept the consensus, if there is a clear one. - BillCJ (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, "Harrier Jump Jet", "Harrier Jump Jet family", and "Harrier jet family" are all names I think would be clear and are fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the variations also. For what's worth, there are 3 intewiki article listed. The Spanish article is simply entitled es:Harrier, while the Vietnamse article is at vi:Harrier Jump Jet. I cant read Arabic or the script, but it's title appears to be 3 words, and "Harrier Jump Jet" is in the infobox under the Arabic script. In English, Harrier is a DAB page, as theree is no clear primary topic. - BillCJ (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Harrier "Jump Jet" family would even be acceptable but not "Jump Jet" on its own, as I still think this is PR person's golly-gee invention. FWiW, I know we are writing to the great unwashed, but my preference is still for the BAE/McDonnell Douglas Harrier family as it is more encompassing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Sound's more like something a reporter invented. They're the ones who keep using it anyway. Same differnece anyway as far as aggregate intelligence goes! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Harrier weakness ?

Noticed no one has a section that the Harrier can't lift off vertically with a full load of bombs.--Ericg33 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as i am aware it was not designed to lift vertically with a full load of bombs so not really a weakness. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter how much a Harrier can lift vertically, it would always be able to carry more through a short take-off, as the wings would proved more lift that vertical power alone, up to the airframe's MTOW and its ability to carry the extra weight, available pylons, etc. That's just aerodynamics and physics. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)