[Dave W]

Interesting developments on G-INFO:

G-RNFA Sea Harrier FA Mk.2 (ex ZH803)
G-RNTB Harrier T Mk.8 (ex ZD990)

Both registered to:

Fly Harrier Ltd of Stratford-Upon-Avon

There's also a registered charity, the Fly Harrier Trust.

[Kemble Pitts]

Now that is a juicy prospect.

There has been at least one Harrier on the civil register in the distant past, G-VTOL was the HSA demonstrator.

But then you would expect the maker to know how to keep one airworthy so ARB/CAA was probably quite relaxed about it in that case. I wonder how much credibility this new outfit will be able to provide (genuine question as I know nothing about them).

[eharding]

CAA Permit To Fly applied for in both cases?

[Hooligan]

Also GR.1 G-VSTO which I think John Farley took on a sales tour somewhere in 1971 - possibly South America?

In the US Art Nalls has two Sea Harriers, FRS.1 and a T.8, which he displays - but of course they can do things differently there.

Be interesting to see if the UK pair can jump through all the hoops for a permit or CofA, whatever it is they need.

[townleyc]

I wonder how much it would cost to get a type rating

Just a dream


KE

[PaulSS]

In the US Art Nalls has two Sea Harriers, FRS.1 and a T.8

With my Sad Spotter's hat on I would like to point out that Art's SHAR is actually a 2 (stripped down FA) and not a 1

I wonder how much it would cost to get a type rating

I think they need a bald, fat bloke with a couple of thousand hours in them to make sure they're enjoyed to the max. I happen to know just the chap

[Nick Snow]

Having the aircraft on the UK registration means nothing really. Look at XL426 at Southend, G-VJET.

No chance of a Harrier flying in Civilian hands in the UK, as much as I would love it to happen.

[JonnyS]

Looking at the appetite for risk in the current environment I can't see it happening. Flying a single engine jet that at some points in it's flying profile has very little forward momentum (or, none!) to direct it away from potential tragedy will not be an appealing thing to sign-off.

Yes you can hover over the safety of an airfield but the transition takes place during the mile or two before the hover location, which, in the UK will mean over houses, roads etc. I read on Facebook that they hope to fly them as 'normal aircraft' with no hovering, but that is likely just keyboard gossip.

I'm holding out more hope for what is hidden away at at an airfield near London...

[vintage ATCO]

The big question would be who would hold the Design Authority? You can bet your bottom dollar it isn't going to be BAE Systems, they couldn't wait to get rid of the Vulcan. Without that it ain't going to happen.

[Kemble Pitts]

I'm holding out more hope for what is hidden away at at an airfield near London...

Fairey Swordfish??

[Dominie]

Also GR.1 G-VSTO which I think John Farley took on a sales tour somewhere in 1971 - possibly South America?

It was XV748 which was taken to Lugano Switzerland by Hawker Siddeley in June 1973 for a few days as G-VSTO (according to Mason's Hawker Putnam book).

[Hooligan]

Yep, Switzerland, but definitely '71 and XV742 which HSA seem to have kept on for a while for development/sales purposes.

Here's a video of his exploits in Switzerland from the late John Farley himself.

[PaulSS]

Flying a single engine jet that at some points in it's flying profile has very little forward momentum (or, none!) to direct it away from potential tragedy will not be an appealing thing to sign-off.

Yes you can hover over the safety of an airfield but the transition takes place during the mile or two before the hover location, which, in the UK will mean over houses, roads etc.

I'd be interested to hear of specific locations where it wouldn't be possible to accel/decel from and to the hover without endangering the local population. I displayed the machine at a goodly number of events (some without an airfield at all) and cannot think of any places that fit your description. It is also possible to transition within the confines of an airfield (I used to carry out a steep decel to the hover off a reverse half cuban), so I would be very comfortable in arguing against that specific point.

I'm realistic enough to know that it will not, unfortunately, happen but the concerns about who will act as an engineering authority etc are far more relevant and applicable than an imagined problem that never existed in the past and wouldn't in the future.

The F35B has one engine and I don't see any clamouring to ensure that is flown in wingbourne flight at all times

[cockney steve]

If , as suggested, the holder of the Type- Certificate rescinds it, then it becomes an orphan and therefore comes under the aegis of the LAA, shirley?

Yes, I appreciate it's stretching the perceptions of "Light Aircraft" a bit.

[kanga]

If , as suggested, the holder of the Type- Certificate rescinds it, then it becomes an orphan and therefore comes under the aegis of the LAA, shirley?

Yes, I appreciate it's stretching the perceptions of "Light Aircraft" a bit.

But IIRC the delegated authority granted by CAA to LAA has limits on MAUW, installed power, speed .. outside those limits, the authority would remain with the CAA, who would grant (or refuse) a Permit to Fly.