Talk:Hawker-Siddeley Harrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hawker-Siddeley Harrier is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

Contents 1 where was the GR1 developed?? 2 skijump 3 Variants 4 Section on Controls and handling - added 5 none was lost to enemy aircraft in the Falklands 6 Picture 7 Why are Entries being removed?

[edit] where was the GR1 developed??

I read here that testing was done in Somerset but I have a very clear recollection of a lot of testing going on at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Bedford in 1981/2? (looking out of the school windows at Harriers looping round and round!!)

[edit] skijump

perhaps it was the skijump itself rather than the aricraft that was under development? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.8.115.252 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Variants

I've started cleaning up the Variants section - it would be really good to have separate sub-articles for each. Idealy the main article should be 'the story of' the Harrier - military role and evolution - and the sub-articles a detailed technical description. I'd like to separate Hawker P.1127 and Hawker Siddeley Kestrel more strictly (the latter is a redirect to the former !) and add Hawker Harrier GR.1 up to Harrier GR.9. We need a consensus as to if it is GR9 or GR.9 - comments please. PeterGrecian 14:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet is a disambiguation page. That page could be expanded to cover the overall history, especially military role and evolution, of the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier/Harrier II family. -BillCJ 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Controls and handling - added

Have started a section in this article on the piloting skills, etc, required for this aircraft, based on a few google hits and the one week training course I attended on Royal Navy aircraft some years ago. Not much to go by then; actual pilots or engineers should work on this section. I put this section in the Harrier I article; opinions on whether it should be moved to the article on the newest model are welcomed.--ChrisJMoor 02:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's no mention of viffing involved; as far as I knew, all modern variants of any harrier are cleared for these manuevers.JaderVason 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] none was lost to enemy aircraft in the Falklands

Would be notice that the enemy planes haven't any capable air-to-air missile and were also on their flight time limit meanwhile the harriers were waiting on station. Spitfires with those AIM-9L perhaps would get the same victories. On the other side, like argentines aircraft, they were very vulnerable to anti aircraft guns and could not destroy the Stanley runway in 74 days, in spite of having all the NATO inventory of air-surface bombs available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jor70 (talk • contribs).

They didn't have every weapon available to them though as it was such a rush to get the task force together different equipment was on different ships sailing at different times. Aswell the argentine pilots were told not to engage the harriers but go straight for the fleet, otherwise the result might have been different.yerkschmerk

[edit] Picture

Considering that this article is about the first generation Harriers, is it really appropriate to have a photograph of a second generation Harrier? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.30.147.43 (talk • contribs).

Maybe we should find one of google then (and ask for if we can use it obviously)

[edit] Why are Entries being removed?

Why are some people taking it upon themselves to remove factual information concerning the fact that this aircraft featured in the John Travolta film Battlefield Earth, whereas other films and games are being allowed to stay?

I can see no reason for the removal. A fact is a fact, and the film in infamous for it's stupidity.

For details of the entries made by myself, and others, please see the article history.

If it isn't deemed important for this information to remain, then perhaps there shouldn't be anything concerning the aircraft's affect on Popular Culture, or films and computer games whatsoever.

I don't think it is reasonable to include one fact, while deeming another, of equal importance, to be unimportant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobAnt (talk • contribs).

Alot of weapons have links to seperate entries on the impact in popular culture, such as films and games, mabye thats a good idea, By the way the reason your article may have been removed is because the film used the Harrier II not the original. yerkschmerk