Began this build over 40 years ago! Returned to it and reworked it a few times. Now in its final final final form, honest!
The idea is to remedy the showstoppers which killed a supersonic derivative of the Harrier, notably the high intake area and short length, and the low cold nozzle exhaust velocity. At the same time I tried to wage a war on cost, complexity and weight.

Here's a trial assembly of the main bits:



Main intake is in the nose, with movable central cone/radome and a massive single blow-in door on either size. Made a wooden pattern for the forward fuselage and plunge-moulded upper and lower halves.

Central+rear fuselage from an Airfix P.1127. Plug to move rear nozzles aft to make room for afterburner. Additional aft plug and fin extension to further improve fineness ratio and give the fin a decent moment arm. Upper fuselage filler to improve area ruling. 40 thou (1 mm) planking under belly to enlarge fan diameter and locate wells for the retractable air dams. Side ducting containing burners to accelerate the forward nozzle exhaust, because R-R couldn't make PCB work. These exhaust past the main nozzles when in use, and are bypassed in VTOL mode.

Tailless delta wings are the classic low-cost lightweight wing. They do not need high-manoeuvrability features because viffing. From an Airfix Mirage III, as is the much-modded fin. Main u/c housings based on the P.1127 outriggers, but bigger inside.





Will leave the various gunks to dry for a good while. Next step will be a coat of primer to show up the thousand-and-one blemishes. I do hope you don't have to wait another 40 years!

Looks Yak-36ish.

Quote from: McColm on May 24, 2024, 09:41:16 AMLooks Yak-36ish.

Yeah, been wondering about a backstory. Very Soviet, except they always put tailplanes on. French maybe? After all, they invented the engine.

OMG , that look's good 

Very ingenious. 

This is great!  Sortie duration might be a tad limited dumping fuel into the afterburners!  Looking forward to this

WOW, now that's different!!
Keep at it!

I have to agree with the above statements..this is a brilliant idea 💡 😀

Boeing in 1972. Later replaced by F-32.

Can we have our Harriers back?

You keep your Harriers. USMC uses the original. This beats Rockwell's proposal.

That's looking good and very Soviet, too. 
I am just not certain about the (so far) tailless design - for a delta aircraft the wings appear a bit (too) small. How about a T-tail?

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on May 25, 2024, 06:39:15 AMThat's looking good and very Soviet, too. 
I am just not certain about the (so far) tailless design - for a delta aircraft the wings appear a bit (too) small. How about a T-tail?

Tailless is definitely not Soviet. The original Harrier had a small and highly-loaded wing because that helps the ride at low level and it didn't need more. This delta is actually quite a bit bigger. Weight of T-tail definitely not practicable for a VTOL of the day loaded down with fuselage stretch, extra burners and wing internal tankage.
(As an illustration, it is said that the Saab 35D Draken and English Electric lightning F.1 carried much the same payload and fuel, and had much the same performance - delivered by the same engine. However the tailless delta type needed only one of them, and so was smaller, cheaper, more reliable and had far better range.)

Quote from: steelpillow on May 25, 2024, 08:48:58 AM...... and had far better range.)

My pedal bike has a greater range than a Lightning! 

Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 25, 2024, 09:22:13 AM

Quote from: steelpillow on May 25, 2024, 08:48:58 AM...... and had far better range.)

My pedal bike has a greater range than a Lightning! 

When calculating the range of a Lightning you have to consider the vertical as well as horizontal distance!