WHIFS found while Google-ing

[kitnut617]

Quite a smart looking aircraft in horizontal flight

http://www.unicraft.biz/germ/fw860/fw860-art2.jpg

And it seems to be able to stand itself vertical going by this diagram

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/vtol4c.files/image012.jpg

And this would suggest it's not very big

http://www.unicraft.biz/germ/fw860/fw860-2.jpg

[pirx]

https://www.behance.net/gallery/12457509/UnconventionalHeroes

[PR19_Kit]

Is a FIAT 500 large enough to carry a flux capacitor and its power supply? Not to mention being able to reach 88 mph.........

[The Rat]

Clever but difficult to engineer I expect.

No worries, I have it on good authority (Monica's uncle was a German engineer) that the Germans are quite adept at over-engineering just about anything.  He still scratches his head over a lot of stuff.

[jcf]

Is a FIAT 500 large enough to carry a flux capacitor and its power supply? Not to mention being able to reach 88 mph.........

Obviously an Abarth 595.   

[NARSES2]

Reading up on it elsewhere it seems the cockpit was intended to remain horizontal until the aircraft transitioned from the vertical, and then stayed horizontal when landing. Clever but difficult to engineer I expect.

Does look neat but being daft how did the horizontal cockpit position help the pilot in landing ? (takeoff shouldn't be a problem) He still couldn't see the ground, unless of course the canopy has some bulges so he could at least get a glimpse ?

[Snowtrooper]

Does look neat but being daft how did the horizontal cockpit position help the pilot in landing ? (takeoff shouldn't be a problem) He still couldn't see the ground, unless of course the canopy has some bulges so he could at least get a glimpse ?

Seeing at least the horizon and surrounding terrain would help in orientation. In vertical postion he would have seen mostly sky.

Also, ejecting would be less risky from a horizontal cockpit than vertical, especially that close to the ground - assuming of course you would even want to eject and not simply take your chances in the crash since the speeds would probably be negligible. There's a funny story told that when Gerhard Barkhorn, by then the commander of Luftwaffe Test Command, crashed a Kestrel (which was repaired afterwards) in a botched landing, after he walked out of the plane unhurt, he muttered "Dreihundert und zwei" ("Three hundred and two") - it was a British plane after all...

[Dizzyfugu]

Is a FIAT 500 large enough to carry a flux capacitor and its power supply? Not to mention being able to reach 88 mph.........

Free fall, maybe...? 

[Madoc]

NARSES2,

One of the primary criticisms leveled against the VTOL aircraft of the day was view problems caused by the vertical orientation of the pilot's seat.  When landing, the pilot was essentially "flat on his back" and thus had a helluva time gauging the landing as the ground was "behind" him and he was "backing up into it."

This Focke-Wulf concept got around that problem by having the entire cockpit pivot until it was at the standard "horizontal" position.  This allowed the pilot to be able to view the ground and horizon as if he was in a standard aircraft making its descent.

Note that the Harrier achieved this simply by being massively overpowered and ducting its thrust so that the entire aircraft remained in its horizontal position for take offs and landings.  This was a far less complex a solution than the FW one but the penalty was less efficient engine thrust which translated to lighter payloads and shorter range.  The pivoting cockpit would have imposed a weight penalty and a rather daunting mechanical complexity penalty as well.

During the 70s Grumman proposed a similar solution in which the entire rear fuselage would pivot downward while the forward fuselage remained horizontal.  This being the "Grumman Nutcracker" concept of 1978.  The US Navy did not support this solution either...

Popular Science Sep 1976 - Nutcracker VTOL Folds In Flight

Does look neat but being daft how did the horizontal cockpit position help the pilot in landing ? (takeoff shouldn't be a problem) He still couldn't see the ground, unless of course the canopy has some bulges so he could at least get a glimpse ?

[NARSES2]

Snowtrooper and Madoc. Thank you gentlemen for your insight. I now understand a little better 

[Caveman]

This Focke-Wulf concept got around that problem by having the entire cockpit pivot until it was at the standard "horizontal" position.  This allowed the pilot to be able to view the ground and horizon as if he was in a standard aircraft making its descent.

Note that the Harrier achieved this simply by being massively overpowered and ducting its thrust so that the entire aircraft remained in its horizontal position for take offs and landings.  This was a far less complex a solution than the FW one but the penalty was less efficient engine thrust which translated to lighter payloads and shorter range.

I think you are being rather unfair on the harrier in your comparisons here.

I refute your claim that Harrier was "massively overpowered". The FW concept is much more of a brute force design than the harrier as it has to both land and takeoff vertically. The efficient harrier on the other hand takes off horizontally and only performs vertical manoeuvres when landing at greatly reduced weights. And if it is returning at heavy weights it can choose to land conventionally - the FW design cannot.

It is probable that the FW concept is also using turbojets whilst the Pegasus is essentially a high bipass engine - so in terms of propulsive efficiency pretty good. I don't think any other fighter aircraft has such a high bipass ratio. I'm willing to bet it would have been much more efficient in hover than the multi engines, reheating FW design. Short range and small payload is the price all VTOL aircraft must pay, until you start down the helo/tilt rotor route - with their own set of compromises.

[PR19_Kit]

And all this 'cos I spotted that interesting box lid....... 

[Madoc]

Caveman,

Due to the ducting of the engine's thrust it was inherently less efficient than a "straight through" arrangement - such as the Focke-Wulf had.  That meant that for a given payload to be carried or a given speed to be attained, the Harrier had to have a much higher powered engine to make up for that lower efficiency.

[PR19_Kit]

But almost alone amongst zillions of  VTOL projects, the Harrier got built, it worked, and went into service with many air arms.

So far no other similar aircraft has done that....................

[Rheged]

But almost alone amongst zillions of  VTOL projects, the Harrier got built, it worked, and went into service with many air arms.

So far no other similar aircraft has done that....................

Do I detect a tiny echo of Raymond Baxter here?