BAe/Boeing GR.5 / AV-8B wings-span 'What If' question????

[MAD]

Ok gents, please forgive my rough drawing, but this is roughly what I am trying to obtain!!
Where appropriate, I would like to incorporate storage and facilities in the well of the flatcar, to support the AV-8B's

M.A.D

[PR19_Kit]

In the US the railroads use a container carrying 'flat' car called a Gunderson which has a centre well deep enough so that two standard ISO 40 ft containers can be stacked on top of each other, see piccie below. To get round the problem of losing length to accomodate the bogies ('trucks' in the US....) the cars are articulated in sets of 3, 4 or 5.

You could do that and use the end cars for storage as well as lowering the aircraft into the well.

Weight/axle loading shouldn't be a problem as the aircraft is only about 14 tons fully loaded for STO, and most Class 1 railroads are cleared for 25 ton axle loads these days, and you'll be spreading the load across at least two axles, maybe all four of you use load compensating bogies.

[Ed S]

One thing to consider is if you build a 1/48 scale Harrier, then "O" gauge model railroad is the same scale.  Convenient!

Ed

[kitnut617]

In the US the railroads use a container carrying 'flat' car called a Gunderson which has a centre well deep enough so that two standard ISO 40 ft containers can be stacked on top of each other, see piccie below.

Not just in the US Kit, Canada as well, I get to see those quite often out here.  The most I've ever counted in one train was 180 cars with 9 engines (three in front, three about 1/3rd down and another three 2/3rds down).  150 in one train is more common though.  When they get to the Rockies though the train is split in two before it continues down to Vancouver

[Taiidantomcat]

Brilliant idea  As a Harrier fan it just makes me 

[rallymodeller]

No, that's pretty much it. The only caveat is that you'd probably have to have a folding vertical tail as well unless you use some sort of lowboy flatcar, like this one but with a dropped center section:



...or possibly a cradle that lowers the plane to the flatcar after landing (retract the gear and it drops down).

[PR19_Kit]

Not just in the US Kit, Canada as well, I get to see those quite often out here.  The most I've ever counted in one train was 180 cars with 9 engines (three in front, three about 1/3rd down and another three 2/3rds down).  150 in one train is more common though.  When they get to the Rockies though the train is split in two before it continues down to Vancouver

I tend to lump US railroads in with Canadian ones Robert. 

Having been up to the 48th parallel in North Minnesota there's hardly any indication when the tracks cross from one country to another and the trains don't even slow down! 

[rallymodeller]

In the US the railroads use a container carrying 'flat' car called a Gunderson which has a centre well deep enough so that two standard ISO 40 ft containers can be stacked on top of each other, see piccie below. To get round the problem of losing length to accomodate the bogies ('trucks' in the US....) the cars are articulated in sets of 3, 4 or 5.

You could do that and use the end cars for storage as well as lowering the aircraft into the well.

Weight/axle loading shouldn't be a problem as the aircraft is only about 14 tons fully loaded for STO, and most Class 1 railroads are cleared for 25 ton axle loads these days, and you'll be spreading the load across at least two axles, maybe all four of you use load compensating bogies.

Gunderson cars (as well as Thrall ones) come in solo units as well -- it all depends on what the customer wants. But just for reference's sake, about the longest "conventional" cars out there are a little less than 90' long (89' 4" auto-racks).

However, you're gonna want to protect that Harrier from the elements, right? So use a modified version of one of these:



It's an 89' 4" Bethlehem/Thrall Tri-level Low-Deck Auto-Rack. How to use a standard-width car? Use the idea I mentioned earlier of a "cradle" that supports the fuselage, make the wings fold at the roots. In stowed position, it looks like a normal auto-rack (albeit with solid sides instead of perforated). When it's time to fly, the train stops, the sides of the car fold down; the wings unfold. the landing gear extends and the cradle retracts, and you're good to go. A 90' long car would be able to hold the Harrier and all the necessary support equipment in a single unit, sort of a self-contained rail-borne aircraft carrier.

[rallymodeller]

Not just in the US Kit, Canada as well, I get to see those quite often out here.  The most I've ever counted in one train was 180 cars with 9 engines (three in front, three about 1/3rd down and another three 2/3rds down).  150 in one train is more common though.  When they get to the Rockies though the train is split in two before it continues down to Vancouver

I tend to lump US railroads in with Canadian ones Robert. 

Having been up to the 48th parallel in North Minnesota there's hardly any indication when the tracks cross from one country to another and the trains don't even slow down! 

Especially true since the second-largest railway in the US is Canadian National.

[rickshaw]

90 foot long rail cars might present a bit of a problem in the UK or Europe, I think you'll find.

The loading gauge (particularly on curves) wouldn't allow their use.

Further, why complicate things with "cradles" and such like?

Why not have the Harrier land, as per normal on top of the car and the wings fold outside the riggers and have the top lower itself into the car on a scissor jack and doors roll over the opening?

When he wants to take off, the doors roll back, the floor raises, he lowers the wings, starts his engines and he's away.

[The Big Gimper]

This is not a train solution but it does appear to have the surface area and lots of wheels.

http://cgi.ebay.com/DOUGRAM-1-72-EYEVAN-DT-2-BROMRY-TRAILER-TRUCK-TAKARA-/230602411473?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b0f98dd1

[Captain Canada]

Especially true since the second-largest railway in the US is Canadian National.

Wrong.....it's CN. Employees actually get in trouble if they call it Canadian anymore !

[Weaver]

Especially true since the second-largest railway in the US is Canadian National.

Wrong.....it's CN. Employees actually get in trouble if they call it Canadian anymore !

Likewise the "BAE" in BAE Systems doesn't offically stand for anything, according to the company. Certainly nothing British....

(note that they dropped the small "e" a few years ago - you get in trouble for using that too.... )

[Weaver]

Ok gents, please forgive my rough drawing, but this is roughly what I am trying to obtain!!
Where appropriate, I would like to incorporate storage and facilities in the well of the flatcar, to support the AV-8B's

M.A.D

The problem there is that Harrier landings arn't that precise: I'd say you need a platform at least as wide as the unfolded wingspan just in case he bounces it or there are cross-winds (you can't exactly turn a train into wind for launch and recovery can you.... )

Using a standard Harrier, you're going to have to put jacks under the fuselage to hold it up when you fold the wings, taking the outriggers with them, which is going to take quite a bit of time. Since you're modifying the wing anyway, why not go for a P.1154-style tricycle undercarriage with the main wheels retracting into trailing edge fairings in line with the inboard pylons and no outriggers?

Another alternative, if you only want one or two aircraft, might be to use the Skyhook system, which gets over the precision landing problem. The downside would be that each Skyhook could only serve two landing pads: one  in front of it and one behind.

I can already see the scene from the next James Bond movie where he's trying to get his Harrier onto a Skyhook on a moving train (in glorious scenery, of course), before the next tunnel......

[Weaver]

Another idea: the gun pods on RAF Harriers are, sorry were  ,  redundant, so I wonder if you could engineer an outrigger wheel that retracted into one, thus giving you a narrower landing gear track? It wouldn't be a bundle of fun to fly, but it might be feasible.