Private Harrier suffers gear collapse

[Eric Friedebach]

From today’s ICAS FastFacts email:

PRIVATE HARRIER SUFFERS GEAR COLLAPSE

(Based on reports in flightglobal.com) ICAS member and air show performer Art Nalls is the world's only private owner of a Sea Harrier vertical/short take-off and landing fighter. Nalls was conducting test flights of the newly restored aircraft earlier this week in eastern Maryland when he got a hydraulic warning light. As a precaution, Nalls decided to divert from a small general aviation airport to NAS Patuxent River for an emergency vertical landing. Nalls executed a series of positive- and negative-G maneuvers to use gravity to lock the gear down, but did not get a positive indication.

Nalls, a former US Marine Corps AV-8 Harrier pilot, had not flown a vertical landing in 16 years, "but it was like putting on an old pair of shoes", he said. After a gentle touchdown, the nose gear and starboard outrigger abruptly collapsed.

Damage to the Sea Harrier appears to be minor. "There is no evident engine damage, only cosmetic nose abrasions and some minor skin wrinkling," he says. The aircraft is on its wheels and will be towed back to St Mary's by road for repairs."

To view a video of his emergency landing, visit: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... nding.html

[n5151ts]

looks like very minimal damage.

[gary1954]

Didn't even appear to be a hard landing either

[tom d. friedman]

bummer, a set back is a set back

[mustangdriver]

It was a good job by the pilot, but I also think it looked like a rough landing.

Last edited by mustangdriver on Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[bipe215]

Probably the best airplane ever to land with an unsafe gear condition.

Steve G

[gregv]

Are the square test-registration markings on either side of the cockpit leftovers from some previous role, or are they required for the FAA certification process somehow?

Just curious.

Great to see one of these in civilian hands, and flying to boot; I hope the repairs are effected quickly and painlessly. I am also quite happy to see that the few naysayers who predicted that a flying civilian Harrier would never happen were proved wrong, and same for the Vulcan.

greg v.

[mustangdriver]

Does anyone remember when the kid that won one of these from Pepsi? He didn't get the plane, but Pepsi was ordered to give him the amount that won would cost.

[AirJimL2]

Does anyone remember when the kid that won one of these from Pepsi? He didn't get the plane, but Pepsi was ordered to give him the amount that won would cost.

Nope. The Court found for Pepsi.

http://www.law.stetson.edu/courses/contracts/Leonard_Pepsico-3-88_f_supp_2d_116.pdf

Jim

[mustangdriver]

Believe it or not, I am on the kid's side.

[muddyboots]

In sum, there are three reasons why plaintiff's demand cannot prevail as a matter of law. First, the commercial was merely an advertisement, not a unilateral offer. Second, the tongue-in-cheek attitude of the commercial would not cause a reasonable person to conclude that a soft drink company would be giving away fighter planes as part of a promotion. Third, there is no writing between the parties sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.

He should of gone and bought hisself a harrier and bombed Pepsi.