NASA F-18 HARV is dead, long live the HARV...
Al Bowers
I learned that the NASA F-18 HARV (NASA tail number N840NA, or simply
840) has been deemed unsuitable for further flight research
operations. It seems that a crack in one of the vertical tails (the
HARV team knew of this for a long time, and simply spliced a doubler
over it and monitored it) has put the aircraft out of comission. The
airframe was to be used for the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) project
and the wings had been removed and sent to St Louis for modification.
As it is, the AAW will move to a different airframe (a modern
production F/A-18 and not old "Ship 6" 840) and the wings will be
placed on the new AAW airframe.
We may take the wings off the AAW, paint them up in the old HARV paint
scheme, put them on 840, "restore" the HARV to it's thrust vectoring
configuration, and place it on display. It would be a fitting tribute
(IMHO) to the first maneuvering thrust vectored aircraft...
Al Bowers ...former HARV team member...
Tarver Engineering
Al Bowers wrote in message ...
>
>I learned that the NASA F-18 HARV (NASA tail number N840NA, or simply
>840) has been deemed unsuitable for further flight research
>operations. It seems that a crack in one of the vertical tails (the
>HARV team knew of this for a long time, and simply spliced a doubler
>over it and monitored it) has put the aircraft out of comission. The
>airframe was to be used for the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) project
>and the wings had been removed and sent to St Louis for modification.
>As it is, the AAW will move to a different airframe (a modern
>production F/A-18 and not old "Ship 6" 840) and the wings will be
>placed on the new AAW airframe.
The airframe only had 400 hours on it when Dryden got it. Kind of like
saying "he's just 18, but went 14 rounds with the champ".
Must have been Douglas' spin tests that did it.
>We may take the wings off the AAW, paint them up in the old HARV paint
>scheme, put them on 840, "restore" the HARV to it's thrust vectoring
>configuration, and place it on display. It would be a fitting tribute
>(IMHO) to the first maneuvering thrust vectored aircraft...
Put it on a display like the X-1, I like those displays where it looks like
the airplane is flying. Maybe I'll come look at it and let you buy me a cup
of coffee.
John
HARV's daddy.
Alex Stoll
--
Alex Stoll
N2...@hotmail.com
http://www.robotgroup.org/lubbock/futureframe.htm
AIM - N22YF
Al Bowers
"Alex Stoll" <st...@ttu.edu> writes:
> Was the HARV the 1st TVC aircraft?
Alex,
I had to include the "maneuvering" part to make it clear. The first
vectored aircraft was the Brit Kestral, but that was for lift and not
specifically maneuvering. HARV and X-31 were in a pretty
"nip-and-tuck" race to be the first. I have to admit, the HARV had a
HUGE advantage, we didn't have an all new airframe that needed
envelope expansion. X-31 started vectoring first, but it was done
with a "thumb-wheel" controlled by the pilot (the pilot would slowly
dial-in the desired vane deflection). HARV was the first to couple
the stick (or pilot) to the vanes; IIRC we beat the X-31 folks to this
milestone by about a month. Considering that both aircraft and their
respective support organizations were housed in the SAME building
(separated by a long hallway down the middle), it was a lot of fun (in
retrospect) competeing against them.
HARV was the first to achieve controlled 70 deg AOA, the first to
perform controlled rolls beyond stall, and first to perform the
"Herbst" maneuver (or the first to fail at it, dependent on who's
definition you use). Again, HARV was ahead of X-31 in this regard by
only weeks in nearly every case. If viewed in the context of the time
line that is the history of aviation, HARV and X-31 were simultaneous
developments. The two programs were very synergetic in helping each
other out...
HARV "factoids" (courtesy Brad Flick, HARV Ops Engineer):
385 total flights as HARV (plus a few in transition to AAW, I think it
was 402 total, of which 383 were research flights).
101 flights in phase 1 (std F-18 config)
176 flts in phase 2 (thrust vectoring)
108 flights in phase 3 (nose strakes for high AOA maneuvering)
Project managers: 3
Don Gatlin
Jenny Baer-Reidhart
Denis Bessette
Chief Engineers: 7
Bruce Powers
Dave Fisher
John Del Frate
Bob Meyer
Neil Matheny
Vicki Regenie
Al Bowers
Ops Engineers: 3
Art Tanaka
Dick Klein
Brad Flick
Crew Chiefs: 3
Al Greishaber
John MacKay
Darryl Townsend
FTEs: 2
Jim Cooper
Mike Muratore
Pilots: 20 (6 project pilots, 14 guests)
Einar Enevoldson DFRC NASA
Ed Schneider DFRC NASA
Bill Dana DFRC NASA
Jim Smolka DFRC NASA
Mark Stucky DFRC NASA
Phil Brown LaRC NASA
Dave Prather Patxuent River USN
Chuck Sternberg Patxuent River USN
Ric Traven Patxuent River CAF, Canada
Billie Flynn F-16 MATV CAF, Canada
C J Loria Patxuent River USMC
Dan Griffith DRA UK
Larry Walker McAir McDonnell-Douglas
Jeff Peer F-16 VISTA CalSpan
Rogers Smith DFRC NASA
Greg Fenton Patxuent River USN
Bob Roth Patxuent River USN
Tom McMurtry DFRC NASA
Gordon Fullerton DFRC NASA
Dana Purifoy DFRC NASA
A final note, four people were on the HARV project from beginning to end:
Brad Flick (attended at least 350 flights)
R Joe Wilson (attended about 320 flights)
Joe Pahle (attended about 300 flights)
Al Bowers (attended about 300 flights)
Honorable mention: Vicki Regenie (attended about 280 flights, there at
the beginning and end, but missed a bit in the middle).
Sim time awards:
R Joe Wilson: probably 1200+ hours
Jim Cooper: probably 800 hours
Martha Evans: probably 600 hours
Marlin Picket: probably 400 hours
Joe Pahle: probably 400 hours
vicxki Regenie: probably 400 hours
Brad Flick: probably 400 hours
Mike Muratore: probably 250 hours
Al Bowers: probably 200 hours
Most abused pilot: Ed Schneider (when everyone else would give up;
Eddie would keep slogging away at trying to get the data).
Most maligned pilot: Bill Dana (canopy jettison incident, tie) and
Mark Forger Stucky (low man on the totem pole, all the "trash" points)
Most heavily used "target"/chase: Tom McMurty (Tom always seemed to
draw the short straw, he'd be the "target" for ACM and was chase the
day we lost 844 whne ISmael ejected)
70 spins attempted, 63 fully developed spins (under NASA)...
Al Bowers
Mary Shafer
> I learned that the NASA F-18 HARV (NASA tail number N840NA, or simply
> 840) has been deemed unsuitable for further flight research
> operations. It seems that a crack in one of the vertical tails (the
> HARV team knew of this for a long time, and simply spliced a doubler
> over it and monitored it) has put the aircraft out of comission. The
> airframe was to be used for the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) project
> and the wings had been removed and sent to St Louis for modification.
> As it is, the AAW will move to a different airframe (a modern
> production F/A-18 and not old "Ship 6" 840) and the wings will be
> placed on the new AAW airframe.
It's going to be a lot of work moving the instrumentation system. On
the other hand, they'll save some time and effort by not having to
ferret out and remove all the remnants of various instruments, etc,
that weren't removed when they stopped being used.
Back when I worked at McAir on the first F-15s, we had an F-4 that had
been bailed to the company ages ago as a testbed aircraft. It was to
chase the F-15 during the initial acceptance testing, so it had to be
fast. The usual practice on such testbeds is to install components
correctly, with the wiring added to bundles and so on. When it comes
time to remove the components after the tests are done, the technique
usually employed is to snip the wires, removing the connectors and
devices, and leave the wire that's been snaked through the structure
in place. Well, to speed up this F-4, all the leftover wires and
other additions no longer in use were stripped out. The crew
delighted in heaping up all the stuff they got out of the plane; it
was a most impressive heap, quite awesome in its size. It really
lightened the airplane, too. There were a lot of jokes about funding
the testing by selling the copper from the wires.
> We may take the wings off the AAW, paint them up in the old HARV paint
> scheme, put them on 840, "restore" the HARV to it's thrust vectoring
> configuration, and place it on display. It would be a fitting tribute
> (IMHO) to the first maneuvering thrust vectored aircraft...
Oh, good. More concrete pads! Maybe they'll put in one for HIDEC,
too, as long as they're at it. That airframe was one of the
pre-production F-15s, the spin plane, and still has the spin chute
structure and attach points. The HIDEC, DEEC, FADEC research they did
with the plane was a major contribution to propulsion technology and
the plane should be on display.
I can see the area where they park these display aircraft from my
cubicle if I stretch and lean, but Al's tucked in an office in the
heart of the main building and can't see outside without walking down
to the Director's office.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
Wingedhoof
>Oh, good. More concrete pads! Maybe they'll put in one for HIDEC,
>too, as long as they're at it. That airframe was one of the
>pre-production F-15s, the spin plane, and still has the spin chute
>structure and attach points. The HIDEC, DEEC, FADEC research they did
>with the plane was a major contribution to propulsion technology and
>the plane should be on display.
I'll second that motion. No one would consider any new engine without digital
controls, and that aircraft was the first to fly with full authority digital
controls -- around 1981 IIRC. Great and historic airplane. They ought to
put the PW1128s on display next to it.