renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Can you see an A6 loaded using a ski jump?
Your top 10 modern fighters
- Thread starter Chris_G
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
.
Isn't you avartar a helicopter ?
Helicopter is not a jet....
Different mission and different capabilities.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
From what I heard the Harrier is a maintenance nightmare compared to other aircraft. An engine change involves removing the wing.
Yeah I talked to some Harrier mechanics in Iraq and they said it was a pain in the ass to work on.
I am sure though that the pilots who fly it love it.
I am sure though that the pilots who fly it love it.
I agree Joe and Chris I have heard the same things.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
One of my good buddies is a former AV-8B engine guy - he loathes the harrier! Goes on and on about how he hated working on the thing day in and out.
And Aussie - my avatar is a helo... so what?
And Aussie - my avatar is a helo... so what?
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Never mind Mkloby its an Aussie thing
all meant in good fun....
Anyway i don't know much about the engine maintainence on a harrier so i'll take your word for it. Anyway mkloby as Glider said the norm for a harrier taking off under heavy load is a ski ramp after a rolling takeoff. THe verticle feature is however extremely usefull in a number of ways as i'm sure you already know.
all meant in good fun....
Anyway i don't know much about the engine maintainence on a harrier so i'll take your word for it. Anyway mkloby as Glider said the norm for a harrier taking off under heavy load is a ski ramp after a rolling takeoff. THe verticle feature is however extremely usefull in a number of ways as i'm sure you already know.
SoD Stitch
Banned
On the topic of VTOL.
I know the project never progressed...but never understood the 'why'.
The Rockwell XFV-12A was waaaaaaaaay underpowered . . . it had a second-generation low bypass-ratio turbofan (a P&W F401) that didn't provide enough thrust to get it off the ground, even with 1/4-full fuel tanks, let alone any armament. It would be another 25+ years before we were able to develop an engine with a high enough thrust-to-weight ratio to allow vertical flight for a supersonic aircraft (the F-119 engine in the F-35 develops approx. 36,000 lbs. of thrust for takeoff).
But they still built a prototype. This is what I don't understand. The 'lab tests' revealed that there was only enough thrust to lift 75 per cent of the aircraft. Why prove the point, by building the plane?
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Harrier is designed to fly from short runways and improvised airstrips.
It can do things no other jet can do.
To compare to say a F-15E is a little misleading. If the runway has been damaged beyoynd repiar the Eagle goes nowhere.
The Sea Harrier has one of the best kill ratios of a modern jet. And against a west equipped airpower.
It can do things no other jet can do.
To compare to say a F-15E is a little misleading. If the runway has been damaged beyoynd repiar the Eagle goes nowhere.
The Sea Harrier has one of the best kill ratios of a modern jet. And against a west equipped airpower.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
I believe it also has a mishap rate about 4 times that of an F/A-18 in US service. Don't quote me on that one, though.
In a couple short years when the F-35 is out - the Harrier alone won't have that capability any longer.
Also - don't forget the pilots that US and Brit harrier drivers went up against have nowhere near their level of training.
Glider
Captain
Russians had a shot at it, aboard the Tbilisi in late 1989 with MiG-29s and Su-27s. Take-off runs, depending on weight, varied between 330-600 feet. The short run benefited from the use of deck-launch 'restrainers', which were hinged planks, raised ahead of the mainwheels to allow the engines to be run up to full thrust before the aircraft was released. Deck-end speed was 75-85 knots.
But as renrich pointed out, a loaded A6...?
SoD Stitch
Banned
The developers had originally thought they could increase the thrust by ducting part of the engines thrust at takeoff 'to "augmentor" flaps in the wings and in the oversized canard. By dragging free-stream air through the flaps and increasing the mass flow, the augmentor flaps would boost the engines thrust by 70 percent - in theory' (Quoted from Joint Strike Fighter: Boeing X-32 vs Lockheed Martin X-35, by Bill Sweetman). As static tests with the engine running at military power showed, these estimates were grossly overstated. So, it wasn't a case of "them" building an aircraft that they knew was underpowered, but one in which the theory did not live up to reality.
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
either model ???
either model ???
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
none of the above.....
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Jesus that's not exactly good on it's part oh well i guess it wasn't really designed to be a supersonic plane with all the bulky gear that gives it the ability to go VTOL
Hmm..I've been under the impression that shortcomings in the Thrust Augmented Wing (TAW) had been revealed at Rockwell's "whirly-rig" stage, but pressed on hoping the problem could be overcome by experimenting with the prototype.
Must have been a huge disappointment/embarrassment for Rockwell. In 1975 Company President Jim Tichenor told a reporter that, "It'll make the Harrier as dead as the dodo". One company history book, 'Rockwell-The Heritage of North American' (1986) makes no mention of the saga or the XFV-12A, at all.
Bill Gunston states that when Rockwell was pressed, "they explained that they failed to achieve the desired augmentation ratio, (1:6), in the ejector ducts, but there was more to it than this".
Thanks for your input SoD Stitch
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
