Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Boeing is the Prime Contractor

I have listed the manufacturer as Boeing/BAE Systems on the AV-8 Harrier II article, and BAE Systems/Boeing on the RAF Harrier II article.

Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) and BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) are partners in the total Harrier II program. Boeing is the prime contractor on US and export versions (Italy and Spain) of the AV-8B; BAE Systems is the secondary partner. However, on the RAF Harrier GR5/GR7/GR9, BAE is the prime contractor. I can provide sources for this if I need to.

Please do not make further changes to the order Boeing/BAE Systems on this article without providing sufficient sources and gaining a concensus to make changes first. Thanks. -BillCJ 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't notice this before. I added the original manufacturers (MDC/BAe) on 1 line with Boeing/BAE systems on the 2nd line in the Infobox. Similar things are done in other aircraft articles. If that's a problem, you can fix it or I can.. -Fnlayson 00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! - BillCJ 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Simulation

Do any commercial simulators exist that enable you to fly the harrier? Bastie 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of computer games involving the Harrier would be of interest? Desert Combat for one has a flyable Harrier, though it's fairly unrealistic and cartoonish. Bastie 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture Drutt 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AV-8, AV-12, AV-16, BR-549...

I seem to recall seeing AV-16 mentioned in some 'mainstream' publications (years ago regrettably, no idea where now), without any mention of its having been a manufacturer's construct (grr). But I don't see how AV-12 would be 'the proper designation', yet alone the FV-12 'eventually taking it up', as the FV-12 was an early-70s project and Harrier II a late-70s one... - Aerobird 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but the AV-8 designation was given in the 60s, before the FV-12. The whole paragraph in the text refers more to the original Harrier, and doesn't discuss what the Harrier II's designation should have been. I do have a source that states the AV-16 was a manufacturer's construct, chosen to indicate twice the capability of the AV-8. - BillCJ 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised that referred to the AV-8A as opposed to the B, thanks. - Aerobird 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes

i think you are confused.. the AV-8B Harrier II and the Harrier GR7/GR9 are different aircraft. so why do you state otherwise, this article seems to be flawed in the origins of the American harrier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardMathie (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

If you have a verifiable source for that, please site it. But to be honest, you are the one who is confused. The AV-8B and the Harrer GR5/GR7 are the same basic airframe, though with some different avionics to suit them for the different roles. The Sea Harrier is a totally British aircraft, and is based on the original Harrier, not the Harrier II. The Sea Harrier FA2 is an upgrade of the Sea Harrier FRS.1, and is also wholly British. If you look at pictures of the Shar FA2 and Harrier II on the RN carriers, you can see there are lots of differences between the two planes. Except for the markings, the GR5 and AV-8B are externally identical, tho the B+ has a different nose for the radar. - BillCJ 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite identical. Interesting enough, the AV-8B has MDC's supercritical composite wing and the BAe Harrier II (GR5 and on) have their metal rooptop. BAe's wing allowed higher speed. MDC's wing was lighter and better at low speeds. MDC worked on their new wing before the British really got on board. The Harrier II uses a lot of composites to get more performance with slightly improved Pegasus engine. -Fnlayson 00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I think you're referring to the "Big-Wing" Harrier, which was also called a GR.5. THe British governmet didn't want to fund the BWH, so BAe got on board with McDD as a partner, and when the RAF dicided to order the Harrier II, that was the only version availabe (with supercritical composite wing). I just got the Nordeen book today, and in the appendix, it describes the different production variants on pages 183-187, and it doesn't mention a metal wing at all. - BillCJ 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of that book and I'm sure it said the British used BAe's roopftop wing. It may have been composite. I guess the profile was the main thing. I'll check some more.. -Fnlayson 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• You're right. It's explained in Ch. 6. The GR5 with the metal rooftop wing was a study concept against the AV-8B. This GR5 concept was nicknamed the big wing Harrier as you mentioned. The production GR5 was AV-8B modified for the British, including extra hardpoints for Sidewinders and more protection against bird strikes. -Fnlayson 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The BAe "big wing" Harrier, which I believe was referred to as the "GR.5(K)" (K for Kingston, where the design work was done) was a completely separate project from the AV-8B/GR.5/7/9. It was much closer to the GR.3 and the new wing was quite different to the AV-8B's. Letdorf 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Mid-sentence full stops

Those pesky mid-sentences full stops (British for periods) are the accepted two-letter abbreviation for United States, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). Three letters is "USA", but "U.S." is preferred over US by Wikipedia. For the record, I prefer to use "US", but they didn't ask me! - BillCJ 22:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• True. Funny how period or not is OK for some common abbreviations (WP:MoS abbreviations). I wish acronyms were treated seperately and without the periods. -Fnlayson 22:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see the Harrier GR models written in some places with the periods and some without. Looks like BAE Systems writes them without now.[1] Did they used to use periods? -Fnlayson 22:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The British MoD stopped using the period in designations around 2003. THe informal consensus on most Brtish aircraft pages is to not use the period at all if there are modern designations present, but to use the period on older aircraft which were out of service before the change. I don't think it's been discussed at WT:AIR, but I couldn't find the discussions I remeber on aircraft talk pages, tho I only looked briefly. - BillCJ 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK. You summed it up pretty well there. Although it might be confusing on the borderline models. -Fnlayson 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Production years

I added production years for the AV-8B and B+. I included the time where planes were remanufactured at the plant. This Nordeen Harrier II book lists 1978-79 for the YAV-8B prototypes, and 1981-2003 for the B/B+ models. Looks like the B+ started in 1992. -Fnlayson 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Design / avionics

Doesn't this article need a sub-section on design features including engines, avionics and cockpit? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes and the airframe details too. Its primarily made from composites. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"rejoined the project"

I removed a sentence from the leader because it was out of context. It was the second or third sentence of the leader and said that BAe "rejoined the project". However nothing up until then had said who was in the project, or when or why BAe left. It than said who had managed the project from 1990 without saying who had managed the project up until then.

I'm not sure the first paragraph is a good place to put sentences about management of the project. Most people will be wanting to know about the plane, not its management team. If we do decide we want to describe changes to the management structure in the first few sentences then we need to give a short but complete summary, not just mention unconnected facts. I'm happy to discuss things we might put there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so why not move the sentence instead of simple whole sale removal? In any event, I restored that part and reworked the lead. It could probably use some more tweaking though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that information on the management of the development belonged that high up in the lead. I also don't know enough to fill in the information that clearly needed to be there. What I was hoping to do was prompt someone who did know that information to write it in a more coherent form. That's exactly what happened, thanks. It's what cooperative editing is all about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just start with the talk page. And try an edit summary when you want to just delete content.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

End of Life

I'm thinking about the best place for this comment:

"The assumption that AV-8B Harriers will be retired by 2020 is based on data provided by the Navy in November 2008. However, as CBO noted in its May 2009 report Alternatives for Modernizing U.S. Fighter Forces, Harriers could be maintained in the force longer, if necessary, because their scheduled retirement is based on deliveries of F-35Bs rather than structural service-life limitations like those facing the Hornets. In recent testimony before the Congress, the Navy has indicated that it is exploring ways to upgrade Harriers’ capabilities and improve readiness, which could keep those aircraft in the force through at least 2022." http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11279/05-27-FighterInventories.pdf

At the end of Operational History or a new section? Hcobb (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Widow Maker

Isn't it culturally significant that the Harrier is known by its pilots as a "widow maker"? In reverting my edit mentioning it (with reference), User:BilCat commented that the term is "not a unique nickname in aviation, and therefore not notable to the Harrier." Yet on the widow maker page, only two other planes are listed. And on my Talk page, Dave said that the information is "considered as trivia and are usually ommitted". Yet neither editor has a problem including the trivial information that the "Harrier's unique characteristics have led to it being featured in a number of films and video games." [I wonder if the 'unique characteristics' referred to end up killing its pilots in those films and games.]

I've made another edit on this theme, and submit that the fact that the plane is known by its pilots to kill its pilots is more significant than its image's use in video games; and that the term "widow maker", if indeed in widespread use, remains non-trivial. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your add was uncited and "Widow Maker" was added in the edit before yours. One mention in the Development section is enough for the whole article. -fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was in the act of putting in the reference when I saw your revert. I did indeed miss the earlier mention, although I would prefer a more conspicuous placement. And for those more interested, there is a good external link to the Pulitzer Prize-winning L.A. Times story in 2003. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, alright. It was added just a couple minutes before your edit. I have 3-4 books on the Harrier family and don't think any of them mention "Widow Maker" as a nickname. So I think the mention provides reasonable coverage. -fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It may need to be balanced with a view on the USMC training methods which caused a lot of accidents something to do with taking fast jet pilots straight on to the Harrier or it may have been using helicopter pilots. I am sure it is in one of the Harrier books. The RAF learned the lessons early and suffered less accidents. I know I need to find a reference! MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Jenkins Harrier book (ISBN 1-58007-014-0) says the Harrier has a high accident rate (per flight hour) due to the higher percentage of time it spends taking off or landing. I probably don't have anything more specific than that. -fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi Points Case (Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

Is it worth including anything about the Pepsico Points Case? At least a quick mention and a link to the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.217.105 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This was covered at Harrier Jump Jet, but somehow got lost in a move to Aircraft in fiction#Harrier_Jump_Jet about a year ago. So I restored the text in this article with references. -fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)