No shit? Can't win 'em all. That's pretty cool. I figured it would work like a minigun.
I'll sit over here and color now.
I'll sit over here and color now.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
V/STOL Hover question(s)
- Thread starter JTB7
- Start date
Much balley-hoo was made about VIFFing when the Harrier arrived on the scene. I got to talk to a Falklands Sea Harrier driver in mid 80s right afterwards. He said that VIFFing was something blown out of proportion in BAE brochures and rarely used other than a last ditch maneuver in training. Furthermore, nobody flying either Royal Navy Sea Harriers or the RAF Harriers that joined them at sea had occasion to use it as a tactic against the Argentines. I also met an Argentine Skyhawk pilot who was initally at sea aboard their carrier and then shorebased after it pulled into port. He said their mission was to get the Royal Ships and they did not have time to "play with the Harriers". They used low level approach and a single pass in target area to minimize their exposure to the ship's defenses and threat of inerception by Harriers*.
*The Brit pilots were very offensive (albeit for a short period of time) in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict due to superior EW/C2 that allowed them to vector their Sea Harriers into advantageous positions against the attacking A-4 Skyhawks and Daggers. Initally, 2 Argentine Mirages got the worst of it when tangled with a section of Sea Harriers so they resorted to low level hit and run attacks thereafter. The Mirages could have contested the Sea Harrier CAP posture considerably more if they had aerial refueling capability, but both side suffered from very short time over the islands so contest for air superiority was a challenge. If the islands had been a bit closer to Argentine mainland thereby allowing the Skyhawks and Daggers to remain in area for more than a single bombing pass and the Mirages to challenge the Sea Harriers with more on station time.
Aren't you on for SDO today?
longshot07
New Member
Will the F-35 be able to hover longer then the Harrier? I heard (Military Channel) that the Harrier can only hover for 3 minutes or so because of the fact that it has a water based cooling system for the engine and would overheat otherwise. I'm by no means an engineering major but the large fan in the center of the airframe of the F-35 looks like it would not be susceptible to the same problem. Any thoughts from someone with more knowledge or experience in that area?
You left out options to use hydraulic or ram air turbine power.
The F-4 Phantom was designed without a gun and when aerial combat enused over Vietnam, it was readily apparent that the faith in then still new air-to-air missiles alone to attain and maintain air superiority was misplaced. Until an internal gun could be integrated into the F-4 (USAF ultimate response as well as most other operators including USN), 2 gun pods were developed using the M61 Vulcan cannon.
SUU-16/A
Developed specially for the F-4C/D Phantom II variants and powered by a ram air turbine. It carried 1,200 rounds of 20mm for its M61A1 cannon and fired at a fixed rate of 6,000 rpm. Main limitation was requirement to be above300 mph to provide enough turbine power (400 was optimum) Army had a similar variant designated XM12.
SUU-23/A
Similar to the SUU-16/A, This modification allowed its carriage on aircraft that could not meet the speed requirement of the SUU-16/A and was powered by an electric inertia starter to get cannon up to speed and sustained by hydraulic power. Although heavier, it reduced drag by eliminating the ram air turbine. The F-4C and F-4D Phantom used this pod extensively in Vietnam for strafing and on occasion in aerial combat. Phantom FG.1/FGR.2 varaints in service with Royal Navy/Air Force also used it.
i thought harriers had to use water when they put their nozzles down. Is that a limitation?
Big discussion of the AV-8 and the Mysterious Water Switch:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132680
Even has answers from guys who actually fly them.
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132680
Even has answers from guys who actually fly them.
You don't necessarily have to use water to land, unless your desired landing weight necessitates the extra performance/thrust that it provides. If water is required then it can become a limitation since you only have 90 seconds of it on board. Of course water doesn't begin to flow immediately in the decel and you may be light enough to hover without it by the time it's exhausted, so that doesn't mean you can only hover for 90 seconds. Ultimately NATOPS limits you to 5 minutes of continuous hover followed by an equal cooling period.
I've seen the Harrier fly at the EAA Oshkosh fly-in a few times. The announcer always said the engine needed to cool down after the aircraft had hovered. This discussion has shed the light on why now. Thanks to all!
Not VIFFing, but case of hazards (to your career and aircraft) of Hovering near a beach
And for my next magical trick....
I think he broke a leg or something like that because he landed right on the wreckage, you can see he is going to do that at the end of the clip.
Uh, what the hell happened there?
Brit Harrier doing a hover stunt for an airshow circa 2002. Ejection was not part of the planned stunt.
Bet it impressed the hell out of the Citizenry, though.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, at show center: the Martin-Baker Mk. 9 ejection seat!"
*BOOM* "Ooooooh!"