AV-8B - The Widowmaker?

I know the USMC wasn't entirely satisfied with the Harrier, but I never realized it had this reputation of being a death trap.

 

The British-designed aircraft was made famous for its ability to take off and land vertically, without the need of a full-length runway. This capability is called short takeoff and vertical landing, or (STOVL) and while the technology has thrilled air show crowds for years, the capability has cost American blood and treasure in significant numbers.

 

The Harrier has been called “The Flying Coffin” and “the Widowmaker” due to the number of crashes and fatalities associated with the airframe since it first entered service with the Marines as the AV-8A in 1971. As the accidents became more numerous, so did the protests over the continued use of the Harrier by the Marines.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-marines-will-keep-the-harrier-around-longer-as-hor-1794046061

 

Thankfully, it appears it has become a much safer, more reliable aircraft, and seems to have finally delivered in its promises during Inherent Resolve. Unfortunately, it appears it came at the cost of many airframes and lives.

Oh ya, made reference to that in my preview, and, just trying it I've made quite a few widows.

Oh ya, made reference to that in my preview, and, just trying it I've made quite a few widows.

 

So... how'd you explain it to the widows? :D

AV-8B - The Widowmaker?

 

If you look at the list of harrier losses it’s staggering. Many per year sometimes. It’s only in the last decade or so they dropped off and even then 1 a year isn’t abnormal

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

 

Throwing this link in here. Hundreds of airframe losses and many of those included pilot fatalities too. Only a couple were lost to enemy fire

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 11, 2017 by ricktoberfest

Well, thankfully Harrier losses do not always equal pilot losses. It's actually interesting to note how many aircraft over the years have been given similar (or sometimes exactly the same) titles and by far not all of those were justified. Fighter jets, by nature, are machines on the cutting edge and those who fly them are both encouraged and eager to fly them out of the 'routine comfort zone'. The point is: the reputation they get is often more depending on how the general public perceives these incidents than on how they actually developed.

I know the USMC wasn't entirely satisfied with the Harrier, but I never realized it had this reputation of being a death trap.

 

 

 

Thankfully, it appears it has become a much safer, more reliable aircraft, and seems to have finally delivered in its promises during Inherent Resolve. Unfortunately, it appears it came at the cost of many airframes and lives.

 

Usually the "Widowmaker" moniker is earned when the aircraft is undergoing flight tests, which is when everybody is learning how to fly the aircraft.

 

If you can recall the V-22 Osprey has also been called "Widowmaker". I know that the F-4 Phantom II got the moniker while undergoing tests due to the number of test pilots fatalities.

 

The AV-8B NA is a difficult and unforgiving aircraft, you make a mistake and it will do its darned best to kill you.

 

AFAIK "Flying Coffin" is a tag reserved for outdated aircraft that are hopelessly outmatched against modern ones, so any pilot flying into combat in it is actually committing suicide. The Brewster Buffalo was called "Flying Coffin" because it has no chance whatsoever of defeating the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero, with the most famous defeat being of the VMF-221 at Midway where 13 out of 20 aircraft were shot down for one enemy fighter downed.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Zeus67

In the

(Around 19:30) on the AV-8B I was watching, Deputy chief of Staff for Aviation in the USMC was talking about with the adoption of the AV-8A by the Marines, that they were only putting experienced pilots into the training program for it. With very low rates of losses in training, the Marines training didn't think it was hard to fly and decided to place new pilots (Nuggets) with low hours into the training program. The rate of deaths and accidents sky rocketed.

In my opinion that agrees perfectly with the notion that the problem isn't with the aircraft but with an operating organisation that is not well prepared for it. Most 'widowmaker' craft suffered from that exact problem.

 

The P 1127, Harrier GR.1 and AV-8A had no SAAHS to alleviate work load. Now add to that untrained pilots, and test pilots who had to help tweak the response of the controls and learn to fly a totally new aircraft concept altogether. No wonder it got that nickname.

 

The margin for error is absolutely tiny.

In my opinion that agrees perfectly with the notion that the problem isn't with the aircraft but with an operating organisation that is not well prepared for it. Most 'widowmaker' craft suffered from that exact problem.

 

 

 

Agreed. Flying a fast jet isn't necessarily dangerous... until you do so flying 500kts 100ft off the ground, or similarly demanding scenario.

 

 

Just look at these Tornado losses. A quick tally, it looks like it's averaging 3 lost per year, and I'm not aware of the Tornado having a bad reputation.

 

 

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/tornado.htm

The Sea Harrier was nicknamed the Black Death by the Argentines during the falklands war. It had a reputation as a widowmaker but in a different way there both feared and respected.

In my opinion that agrees perfectly with the notion that the problem isn't with the aircraft but with an operating organisation that is not well prepared for it. Most 'widowmaker' craft suffered from that exact problem.

 

You can say that to a point, but sometimes the problem is a lack of properly articulated requirements in the development phase. This can allow an expensive aircraft to make it through initial production with "features" that are liabilities in their target operating environment. These sort of errors are even more evident in carrier aviation, where the margin for error is minimal. Case in point: the F-8 Crusader was designed for carrier operations, yet had a free-castoring nosewheel which made it difficult to turn and point the nose in tight spaces. In cases like this, the services usually have to "suck it up" and implement training and procedures as a workaround to design defects. While this helps, all it can hope to do is mitigate the risk to an acceptable level.

 

Another example: the Vought F7U Cutlass had no business ever being a fleet aircraft.

What makes widows is insufficient training, pilot error, or complacency. The AV-8B is of course a handful, as were loads of other airframes, but when you stay within the regulation flight envelope it is an effective weapon. Outside the envelope - good luck!

I think the nickname was mostly for the A model, I read in one of the books that the pilots that previously flew on As looked down on those flying Bs as having an easy job.

'We' lost 'quite a few' frames and sadly one pilot in the six years I was on the Harrier force.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/harrier/harrier.htm

Edited November 13, 2017 by Harry.R

Well, didn't we get the latest Harrier II there was from 90's? So it should have plenty of the automatic stabilization systems to make it easier. Comparing it to what Harrier was at the start (deathtrap really).

 

And this is why I think specific F-35 version is a great aircraft

 

as it can replace the A-10 and Harrier by being able to VTOL as to fly slow when required (just being vulnerable to small calibers). Question just is can a F-35 use nozzles like Harrier in a dog fight to give more maneuverability with tighter turn rate....

 

That will be interesting thing to learn with Harrier.

'We' lost 'quite a few' frames and sadly one pilot in the six years I was on the Harrier force.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/harrier/harrier.htm

 

 

 

Without asking you to go in much detail (I wouldn’t want to dredge up painful memories), May I ask what the most common accident/fatality cause was?

I’m hoping for something a bit more detailed than “pilot error/inexperience” - just want to avoid making similar mistakes in the sim.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without asking you to go in much detail (I wouldn’t want to dredge up painful memories), May I ask what the most common accident/fatality cause was?

I’m hoping for something a bit more detailed than “pilot error/inexperience” - just want to avoid making similar mistakes in the sim.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I believe most losses were due to the engine stopping, the aircraft operating down to 100 feet which was bird strike territory...thankfully Martin-Baker provided a great ejection seat! We had a few different aircraft losses that weren’t engine related, one chap flew into the ground at night and got ejected, one where the flaps stayed down as the nozzles move back after take off, pitching the aircraft forward onto its back, the pilot ejected and is still the sole survivor of this type of event..

Edited November 15, 2017 by Harry.R

My dad resigned his commission from the Marine Corps in the early ‘80s because he saw the writing on the wall for his squadron (VMA-211) to transition to the AV-8A. He lost a few friends in the introduction of the Harrier to the Corps and decided a new family would be more important than a new airframe.

 

It certainly had a reputation as an unforgiving aircraft.

Looking at the US vs UK losses I see a trend for more fatal incidents on USMC harriers in comparable gen aircraft to the British. . Was there a reason for this?

Looking at the US vs UK losses I see a trend for more fatal incidents on USMC harriers in comparable gen aircraft to the British. . Was there a reason for this?

 

In the early days training and experience, the aircraft and VTOL was new, the UK put fairly experienced pilots on the aircraft, the US didn't. For second generation Harrier I'd say training, tactics and operation deployment losses.

In the early days training and experience, the aircraft and VTOL was new, the UK put fairly experienced pilots on the aircraft, the US didn't. For second generation Harrier I'd say training, tactics and operation deployment losses.

 

The USMC put its most experienced pilots on the aircraft at first. But when they came out saying how easy it was, they started putting newly minted pilots on it and the fatalities skyrocketed.

Retired USMC Colonel and former Harrier pilot speaking about the Widowmaker reputation: