Vertical takeoff with Harrier - is it possible?

[+guyran 13]

Is it possible to takeoff vertically in wings over Europe using the thrust vectors of AV-8 Harrier? I had tried the VTO few times without success. There is no stability after vertical takeoff, and the Harrier eventually crushes.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Try doing it on an clean plane with no extra weight

[Slartibartfast 153]

As in real life the Harrier very rarely did a VTOL apart from under certain circumstances. I tried it last night with 50% fuel and a light weapons load on the GR3 and it took off okay you need to be very delicate on the controls as any hamfistedness will lead to it overcontrol and the jet crashing.

 

Weapons where 2 Sneb rocket pods and 2 Sidewinders

[+Muesli 2,158]

When you use the "Shift-A" option of the automatic-horizontal-pilot thins get a lot easier!

[Slartibartfast 153]

When you use the "Shift-A" option of the automatic-horizontal-pilot thins get a lot easier!

 

True but isnt it more fun to do it all for yourself... :yes:

Edited March 3, 2009 by PACMAN

[+ST0RM 145]

As was said, vertical take-offs are a rarity for Harriers due to the heavy fuel load and the limitation of cooling water carried onboard.

 

A Short-Takeoff is more likely starting with the nozzle full aft to get rolling, then dropping them to 60 degrees-ish to pop up.

 

Vertical landings are the toughest of all.

 

-S

[mppd 16]

Not meaning to hijack this thread (well, I guess I do..), but this airplane has to be my least favorite of all time - it should NEVER have been purchased by the U.S. Marine Corps - it's vertical ability is zero with any type of reasonable weapons loadout, it blows out a HUGE plume of exhaust which is a magnet to anything IR-guided (check out losses during Desert Storm - it had to be withdrawn to behind the lines to keep every one from getting shot down), it's slow, carries next to nothing for ordnance, it's accident rate has been horrendous since it's difficult and dangerous to fly low and slow - and on and on.

 

It's great to amuse the kiddies at airshows, but the Marine Corps should have kept the Phantom to drop iron and fire on the bad guys when it was really needed. I actually know someone who was on the development team for the AV-8 for the Marine Corps, and we don't get along well.

 

I have never even flown it in the TW series....

 

Mike D.

[Slartibartfast 153]

Try throwing a Phantom of the end of a Tarawa or Wasp class...

 

Also the jet can carry a good amount of weapons on a Short-take off which is still shorter than most aircraft. Okay it has its problems so does the F-4 but if we all wanted the perfect plane then no-one would fly.

 

Personally I love the Harrier as it's got me out of trouble a couple of times... but the US Marines purchased it in the 1970's because there was nothing out there that they could use. They then spent time money and effort to make it what it is today.

 

Sorry I get vexxed that people say we shouldn't have bought that or that or done that... The Harrier as it stands is a a technical marvel of aviation in my humble opinion and a great warplane.

 

Rant over...

[mppd 16]

Can't begin to try to figure why this airplane was purchased in any numbers by Britain - the idea of supporting and actually using such an airplane from an FOB like a road or schoolyard is someone's fantasy... but my guess is that it has lots to do with politics rather than informed reason.

 

A technical marvel it may be, but so is the B-2 and B-1 for that matter, and they should have never have been built or purchased in any number either. The USAF should have kept F-111s...

 

Mike

[+SkippyBing 8]

Interesting. So the fact that the AV-8B/GR.5,7,9 can carry the same load the same distance off the deck as a classic F/A-18 says what....

And you'd be pretty stupid to limit yourself to only doing vertical take-offs when you can carry more with a rolling one, which will always be the case it's a matter of physics.

If you haven't noticed the USMC game plane is to have a force that can co-locate with the men on the ground, hence AV-8B -> F-35B and the Osprey. The Harrier allowed them to implement their doctrine more effectively than an aircraft based on a carrier 50+ miles from the battle could.

Not sure about the IR missile problem in the Gulf, after all the plume from a Harrier should be more dispersed than other single engine types, and it didn't seem to be a problem in the Falklands. How do the profiles they were flying compare to other aircraft?

[MigBuster 2,884]

Yeah unfortunately though the F-4 doesnt have the stovl capability that they probably sought

 

What version are you talking about above all of them? do you have any actual figures?

 

Its low speed capability was supposed to be flippin excellent considering it has no afterburner - and its probably one of the few jets that could actually hide its heat sig in A-A to some degree - although i suspect you are talking about MANPAD exposure - is there evidence the heat sig is more than the A-10s for example?

 

Think we can conclude that the Harrier was a very difficult jet to fly - let alone landing it vertically on a ship - I suspect with fly by wire earlier in its career may have helped a few things - and I suspect the F-35B will be a lot safer from the get go - however something had to pioneer the way and respect to the brave blokes who have had the guts to fly it over the years.

[+SkippyBing 8]

the idea of supporting and actually using such an airplane from an FOB like a road or schoolyard is someone's fantasy..

 

Yeah, I guess RAFG were doing a role playing game when they deployed to the field.......

[MigBuster 2,884]

Can't begin to try to figure why this airplane was purchased in any numbers by Britain.

Mike

 

Glad we did tbh - in 1982 it was proven to be lethal - there was no other jet on the planet that could have carried out that mission - Considering the only other thing we could fit on those tiny through deck cruisers we had were Helicopters!!. The Argentinian pilots knew what they were up against and respected and feared it from the start. Yeah a few crashed unfortunately but all jets do.

 

 

 

Also any fixed runways would be taken out easily in any cold war strike scenario - thought that was the idea of having FOBs tbh

Edited March 3, 2009 by MigBuster

[+Gunrunner 314]

Apart from some alarmist anti-militarist Pulitzer-winning crap (http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722), I never saw anything with hard data on the IR problem.

 

The same paper make "interesting" arguments on reliability and accidents rates, but never seems to try to explain the reasons of these discrepancies, instead concluding the plane is just a flying widow-maker...

 

It's the F-104 all over again, blaming the plane instead of the circumstances...

 

Pathetic...

 

What puzzles me is to see mppd, usually one to research meticulously (at least when it comes to F-4s) to buy wholesale into that pile of b*******... Maybe the fact it replaced the Phantom explains the bias

[+331Killerbee 840]

Not meaning to hijack this thread (well, I guess I do..), but this airplane has to be my least favorite of all time - it should NEVER have been purchased by the U.S. Marine Corps - it's vertical ability is zero with any type of reasonable weapons loadout, it blows out a HUGE plume of exhaust which is a magnet to anything IR-guided (check out losses during Desert Storm - it had to be withdrawn to behind the lines to keep every one from getting shot down), it's slow, carries next to nothing for ordnance, it's accident rate has been horrendous since it's difficult and dangerous to fly low and slow - and on and on.

 

It's great to amuse the kiddies at airshows, but the Marine Corps should have kept the Phantom to drop iron and fire on the bad guys when it was really needed. I actually know someone who was on the development team for the AV-8 for the Marine Corps, and we don't get along well.

 

I have never even flown it in the TW series....

 

Mike D.

 

 

Mike,

I do respect Your opinion. It's a matter of taste. But as a CAS Platform, If You were a Grunt on the Ground, You'd love this Bird. I was an Ordnanceman on AV-8A/C's, TAV-8A's and AV-8B's from 1980 until 1992. The "Original" Harrier, The AV-8A/C was a "Concept" Aircraft until the Marine Corps decided to make three Squadrons Combat Operational and one Trainning Squadron by 1974. True, The A-C Harrier had it's shortcommings, But one would have to consider that it was the worlds first V/STOL Aircraft. In 1980, I was in VMA-231 when they set the World Record in "Turn Around" Time. One fully loaded, (Guns too) and fueled in just four and three quaters Minutes. For the Grunts on the ground, Time is lives.

The second generation, The AV-8B, Was a marked inprovment over the "A-C's". More Weapons, more effective Gun, Better Avonics to take some of the workload off the Pilots. Upgraded engine. Easier to maintain. But still used the British Aerospace Airframe Concept.

All this leads to this.......If this wasn't done, Then the V/STOL version of the F-35 would never come to light.....It's the Learning Curve.

 

As for V/STOL Landings and Takeoffs, VMAT-203 Eagles based at MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina, Is the Marine Corps Transistion Tranning Squadron for all Harrier Pilots. They require that Pilots do a (one) Vertical Takeoff and Landing every Day. The rerason is it keeps the Pilots sharp as to the Cockpit workload in doing such Manuvers. Also, the Pilots will need to preform these tasks while aboard LHA-LPH Type Carriers.

Granted, under "Full Load" Conditions, VTOL is not the prefered method. STOL is more preferred. Many of the Members here have touched on the reasons why. But "Full Load" VTOL is still practiced. Workload on Pilots durning this is intencive. Many, I recall, returned dripping with sweat from such Takeoffs and Landings.

 

Just My two Pennys.....

 

Semper Fi,

 

331KillerBee

[+SkippyBing 8]

I'm trying to find the figures referenced on a post on Pprune, but the GR.5 allegedly had an accident rate only slightly worse than the Jaguar in RAF service. Considering they were both in the low level attack role the difference can easily be explained by the extra engine in the Jag.

Also worth considering the GR.7/9 was the only aircraft in the UK inventory that could deploy to Kandahar for operations in Afghanistan initially due to the length of available runway (you know without mines and big holes) because of it's STOVL ability.

[mppd 16]

O.K. I admit is is a bias - would really like to read more real from Harrier drivers about what they really think about the plane and the occasions it was used in combat.

 

It is always easy to find a pro and con opinion about an airplane. But also be careful about saying that "no other airplane could have done a particular job"...there are any number of possible airplanes who could do a particular job.

 

Want to fly off a short deck, stay on station for a long time, and haul a bunch of iron while doing that...the survivors of ejections in NVN/Laos were glad to have Skyraiders on station! Maybe the Marines should have bought A-10s for CAS...carry 16,000 lbs a lot further....

 

Not meaning that we should reopen the Douglas Skyraider production line, but just using an example of capabilities and possibilities. Sorry I stepped on Harrier fan's toes...my apologies.

 

Me

[zmatt 2]

Try throwing a Phantom of the end of a Tarawa or Wasp class...

 

Also the jet can carry a good amount of weapons on a Short-take off which is still shorter than most aircraft. Okay it has its problems so does the F-4 but if we all wanted the perfect plane then no-one would fly.

 

Personally I love the Harrier as it's got me out of trouble a couple of times... but the US Marines purchased it in the 1970's because there was nothing out there that they could use. They then spent time money and effort to make it what it is today.

 

Sorry I get vexxed that people say we shouldn't have bought that or that or done that... The Harrier as it stands is a a technical marvel of aviation in my humble opinion and a great warplane.

 

Rant over...

 

I understand where he is coming from, but imma have to agree with you. The harrier has saved my tail in game a few times. It's survivability compared to other jets I have is pretty good. There are quite a few high tech fighters in game that seem to be IR magnets, as for the AV-8B, I once had an su-27 let loose all of its armament on me and not a scrtch, he tried for a guns but I put him in a tight turn and jammed his gun. It is not fun to land VTOL and vertical take-off on a real mission is a pipe dream, but it gets the job done. It's job is a particular one and there are missions that I would not want to use it on (fleet air arm take note) But I have had a lot of fun with it, and I rarely get shot down in the harrier.

[+331Killerbee 840]

Mike,

No offence taken....All is good on a healthy Opinion. For the Marines, One can take the Harrier straight to the Battlefield. That was the most important factor. Remember, In the Marines, It's the Grunts first, then everything else.

 

BTW, I was TAD to the Brittish Navy to help install SEAM Boxes on there Harriers prior to the Falklands. The Brittish where 28-0 Air to Air with them....

[zmatt 2]

They did well in the Falklands, but I think that can be attributed to pilot skill and training. The harrier is not an air superiority fighter, and after the war the Brits seemed to have realized it.

[the norm 0]

Not meaning to hijack this thread (well, I guess I do..), but this airplane has to be my least favorite of all time - it should NEVER have been purchased by the U.S. Marine Corps - it's vertical ability is zero with any type of reasonable weapons loadout, it blows out a HUGE plume of exhaust which is a magnet to anything IR-guided (check out losses during Desert Storm - it had to be withdrawn to behind the lines to keep every one from getting shot down), it's slow, carries next to nothing for ordnance, it's accident rate has been horrendous since it's difficult and dangerous to fly low and slow - and on and on.

 

It's great to amuse the kiddies at airshows, but the Marine Corps should have kept the Phantom to drop iron and fire on the bad guys when it was really needed. I actually know someone who was on the development team for the AV-8 for the Marine Corps, and we don't get along well.

 

I have never even flown it in the TW series....

 

Mike D.

 

 

sound of tong being blown across between lips.

 

also, any tips for vertical landings?

Edited March 3, 2009 by the norm

[MigBuster 2,884]

They did well in the Falklands, but I think that can be attributed to pilot skill and training. The harrier is not an air superiority fighter, and after the war the Brits seemed to have realized it.

 

 

It was for the Royal Navy - we are talking about Sea Harriers - and the FRS2 was Armed with AMRAAMs and a look down radar as our main fleet defence system after lessons learnt in the falklands: - those being that the original Sea Harrier only had Sidewinders and a radar that couldnt "look down" - also the Ship SAM systems were unreliable - so thus the Sea Harrier 2 was put into service.

 

Pilot skill and training were a few of the factors - having AIM-9Ls against limited range A-4s and Mirages without countermeasures were too.

[Gr.Viper 131]

any tips for vertical landings?

Don't.

 

Or approach as you would for a normal landing trying to go into hover a couple of meters above the runway, then descend. No sharp turns, no hard banking or pitching.

[Anthony W. 0]

Is it possible to takeoff vertically in wings over Europe using the thrust vectors of AV-8 Harrier? I had tried the VTO few times without success. There is no stability after vertical takeoff, and the Harrier eventually crushes.

Your trying to fly it like a regular plane. You have to ease the nozzles forward extremely slowly and hold steady on controls.

[+331Killerbee 840]

Deacon211 was a member here and was a AV-8B Pilot in VMA-211. He and Kreelin came up with the Original FM for the AV-8C Add-on. He once told Me that Vertical Landing was like balancing an Elephant on the end of an Needle.....