Just to confuse matters, the T.8 was the trainer for the Sea Harrier...And thus... What was the Harrier Mk.8 then ? another trainer, this time for the GR.9 ?
The Harrier entered RAF service in April 1969 and was immediately entered for the Daily Mail Air Race. The race was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 49 first crossing of the Atlantic by Alcock and Brown in a Vickers Vimy. On 5 May 1969 Sqn Ldr Tom Lecky-Thompson ran from the top of the Post Office Tower in central London to a helicopter which took him to St Pancras railway station where he took off vertically in a Harrier GR1 (XV741). He refuelled at Mach 0.88 from a Victor tanker; landed vertically at Bristol Basin in Manhattan and roared through New York on a motor bike to reach the top of the Empire State Building in the winning time of 6 hours, 11 minutes and 57.15 seconds. Sqn Ldr Graham Williams flew the return leg on 9 May in XV744 using an E-Type Jaguar in New York and landed in a cloud of coal dust at St Pancras before a helicopter and motor bike took him to the top of the Post Office Tower just 5 hours, 49 minutes and 58 second after leaving the top of the Empire State Building. This gave great publicity to the Harrier, particularly in America where it was their first real exposure to the aircraft. The Air Race was the only time I can recall that the ferry tips were used. These eighteen-inch extensions were bolted on to the wing tips – ‘cheap variable geometry’ John Fozard called them – and gave improved cruise performance at height but carried limitations that precluded their use for low level operations.
Our Chairman has reminded us that it was the aircraft’s unique flexibility that allowed it to be deployed to Belize in 1975. Indeed, the Harrier was the only combat aircraft in front-line service capable of operating from the short single runway at Belize Airport. In response to the Guatemalan threat of invasion, No 1 Sqn was placed at seven day’s notice to move on its return in October of that year from an APC at Decimomannu. Following a short period of frantic preparation, the squadron deployed six aircraft with Victor tanker support to Belize via Goose Bay and Bermuda. Of interest, because of Fidel Castro’s support for Belizean independence and his stance, therefore, against Guatemala, the squadron was denied US landing rights and facilities. In preparing for the deployment, Peter Taylor had argued strongly against the use of ferry wing tips which would delay generating the aircraft for operations on arrival. He won the debate and the first two aircraft were airborne again on CAP within twenty minutes of landing.
b/ What was the reason that they would have only been applied for ferry flight, as opposed to normal operational flights?
I believe there is an small image of a Boeing F-32 with original delta wings with these wingtip pods in a Flight article about JSF or CVF.
I'm having a bit of a brain fart and was wondering if anyone could help me? I remember reading about a British development of a twin seat harrier for night strike roles, but I can't remember what the project was called or what modifications were to be made. I think it was drafted in the early 1980's?
Thank you Chris, if you would.I recall seeing a photo of or an article about a night attack Harrier. A T10 with all sorts of kit on it. Night Owl or something.
Can't find it, but will keep looking.
Chris
I don't understand what is weird here. The article and drawing make the following argument:From Aeroplane 1961,
so weird,please read the caption.
Search this web site for 279-3 and 279-4. McDonnell designs that came after the AV-8SX. AV-8SX was an attempt to create a supersonic capable AV-8 variant. To accomplish this, after-burning (Called plenum chamber burning) in the forward pair of nozzles was devised. The concept was tested full-size at Shoeburyness, UK in 1981. Stated simply, it didn't work. Inlet location on the sides of the fuselage near the rising plume of hot gas underneath result in substantial loss of net thrust. The 279 series hoped to reduce this effect with auxiliary inlets, lower body "fences" to control upwelling flow and adjustment of the overall planform (canard vs wing/tail).Hi, While reading the posts about VFA-Fighters for Sea Control Ships, I came across the mention of the McDonnell Douglas Model 258-52. Powered by a Pegasus 15-03, a redefined fuselage and high speed wing, and F-4J intakes. Has anyone ever seen a 3 view drawing of this design? To me, it sounds similar to the AV-8SX that Mcdonnell Douglas was proposing as a supersonic demonstrator,but that was in the 1980's.
thanks for help.
I don't think anyone ever has solved the problem of hot-gas reingestion have they?
If they did that technology certainly didn't seem to find its way into the stock Harrier for example.
I suppose if you had a stream of high-pressure bleed air you might be able to lessen the effect but once you get deeper into ground effect I can't see an easy way to stop the hot air rebounding off the ground.
I suspect it would have worked fine onboard ship, where the ship can put 30 knots of wind over the deck. But they always tested things over land first...Boeing's JSF had that sort of a jet screen to reduce reingestion. It doesn't seem like it worked well enough.
I recall seeing a photo of or an article about a night attack Harrier. A T10 with all sorts of kit on it. Night Owl or something.
Can't find it, but will keep looking.
Chris
Of course most of the Harrier trainers were combat capable anyway.
If it was early 1980s it sounds like early thoughts connected with the GR.5/T.10.
Unless we can convince someone to play with a P1214 or P1216 PCB triple nozzle...
The concept was tested full-size at Shoeburyness, UK in 1981. Stated simply, it didn't work. Inlet location on the sides of the fuselage near the rising plume of hot gas underneath result in substantial loss of net thrust.
The 279 series hoped to reduce this effect with auxiliary inlets, lower body "fences" to control upwelling flow and adjustment of the overall planform (canard vs wing/tail).
I'm assuming that a P1214/1216 would have either LIDS strakes or gun pods like the AV8B to help trap hot gasses.So PCB could be made to work, but only through a very radical design of the airframes around it ? classic Harrier, supersonic would NOT work (hello, P.1154 !)
P1214! forward swept wings makes for a smaller footprint onboard ship, even if you don't get any maneuverability bonuses.And the 279 was the American try, when the P.1216 was the British taking their chance ?
Which design would be best ? the 279 or the P.1216 ?
Feb '65 P1154 is cancelled with prototype 33% complete.Regarding the P.1154, it never even got off the drawing boards Archibald. The RAF and RN were not interested at the time because of the F-4 Phantom.
Ships could conceivably launch and recover a PCB VTOL airplane without wind over the deck if they had a perforated launch and landing platform or grid that folded out over the water.I suspect it would have worked fine onboard ship, where the ship can put 30 knots of wind over the deck. But they always tested things over land first...
In the end, as much as I hate the extra complexity (and chance of failure, seen at least one F-35 have a liftfan failure on camera), the Liftfan was the way to go. Unless we can convince someone to play with a P1214 or P1216 PCB triple nozzle...
Now…if you had a saucer like craft with a big central impeller…might that also cool the exhaust if it gets caught up in an inner doughnut with the outermost blades in clean-free air?Boeing's JSF had that sort of a jet screen to reduce reingestion. It doesn't seem like it worked well enough.
In 1981 BAe and McAir were working on a joint ASTOVL project combining features of both for a USN Request for Proposals, which came to an end when the USN withdrew the request. We called it the P.1218, can't recall the McAir designation.And the 279 was the American try, when the P.1216 was the British taking their chance ?
Which design would be best ? the 279 or the P.1216 ?
Was it the AV-16? I get rather confused about all the advanced Harrier project designations.
Perhaps it was the Model 279?Nope, AV-16 was much earlier: 1974-76 (from memory)