Harrier and Sea Harrier

kitnut617 · April 23, 2015, 02:22:04 AM

I was thinking one time of grafting a Jaguar exhaust nozzle area and lower rear fuselage into a GR.5 ------ but I was also thinking of Tornado type air intakes for twin engines (smaller ones that is)

Captain Canada · April 23, 2015, 03:50:50 AM

Now there's an idea Robert !

DarrenP2 · April 23, 2015, 06:21:52 AM

keeping the high mounted wing or going low mounted?

kitnut617 · April 23, 2015, 06:11:07 PM

do away with the nozzles as they are but then everything else would be like a Harrier

PR19_Kit · April 23, 2015, 09:51:48 PM

There'd be more complications if you fitted a straight through jet pipe like a Hunter. The Harrier has most of its avionics in the tail to counteract the weight of the engine which is right forward to ensure the CG coincides with the CL.

Dizzyfugu · April 24, 2015, 12:51:33 AM

That's an idea I also had some time ago - de VTOLize a Harrier; I did a conversion with a tail exhaust many years ago (as an afterburner option, plus the standard side nozzles), but converting a Harrier into a "normal" aircraft would be another step. Would be a similar modification, though: new, bigger exhaust (the twin jet idea is nice

), fair over the side nozzle openings/create an even flank, and also mount different (less wide!) intakes - I thought about boxy parts, e .g. from a Su-15 or MiG-23? They should fit in size? The landing gear is also an issue, I'd like to get rid of the tandem/outrigger arrangement for something more conservative - the Jaguar design would make sense, but needs new wells... Wings would have to be modified, too. Big surgery, but could look pretty cool afterwards?

Gondor · April 24, 2015, 01:57:54 AM

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on April 24, 2015, 12:51:33 AM
That's an idea I also had some time ago - de VTOLize a Harrier; I did a conversion with a tail exhaust many years ago (as an afterburner option, plus the standard side nozzles), but converting a Harrier into a "normal" aircraft would be another step. Would be a similar modification, though: new, bigger exhaust (the twin jet idea is nice ), fair over the side nozzle openings/create an even flank, and also mount different (less wide!) intakes - I thought about boxy parts, e .g. from a Su-15 or MiG-23? They should fit in size? The landing gear is also an issue, I'd like to get rid of the tandem/outrigger arrangement for something more conservative - the Jaguar design would make sense, but needs new wells... Wings would have to be modified, too. Big surgery, but could look pretty cool afterwards?

And of course the end result is not a Harrier as its been so modified and changed to not be anything like the VTOL aircraft.

Gondor

zenrat · April 24, 2015, 02:08:33 AM

So the trick would be to de-VTOL it while retaining it's essential Harrierness.

Captain Canada · April 24, 2015, 04:31:19 AM

Essential Harrierness. Now there's an expression we can all use !

zenrat · April 24, 2015, 04:42:02 AM

Dizzyfugu · April 24, 2015, 05:50:13 AM

Or "Harrier-esque", maybe?

kitnut617 · April 24, 2015, 06:13:11 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 23, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
There'd be more complications if you fitted a straight through jet pipe like a Hunter. The Harrier has most of its avionics in the tail to counteract the weight of the engine which is right forward to ensure the CG coincides with the CL.

Not straight through like a Hunter Kit, think Jaguar ----- or mini F-4. Upper rear fuselage, fin/rudder, tail plane would all remain just like a Harrier.

The idea came about because I was trying to think how we could make a Harrier super-sonic without going the P1154 route. At first I had the two rear nozzles swiveling like on the F-35 (the idea has been around for much longer than the F-35 BTW) and retaining the front nozzles.

Of course the idea progressed and ended up like this

Captain Canada · May 09, 2015, 12:46:47 PM

Lots of different bits there....sure doesn't look much like a Harrier anymore eh ?

Not sure if this has been covered, but why don't the Marines use the Sidewinder station or whatever they call it on the outrigger ? And furthermore, Susan, I wouldn't be the last bit surprised to learn that they are now, what with all of the GR.9 bits they have lying around......

Gondor · May 09, 2015, 02:21:17 PM

Quote from: Captain Canada on May 09, 2015, 12:46:47 PM
Lots of different bits there....sure doesn't look much like a Harrier anymore eh ?

Not sure if this has been covered, but why don't the Marines use the Sidewinder station or whatever they call it on the outrigger ? And furthermore, Susan, I wouldn't be the last bit surprised to learn that they are now, what with all of the GR.9 bits they have lying around......

See my answer here

Gondor

kitnut617 · May 09, 2015, 04:44:04 PM

Quote from: Captain Canada on May 09, 2015, 12:46:47 PM
Lots of different bits there....sure doesn't look much like a Harrier anymore eh ?

Apart from the cockpit, canopy and fin/rudders, no. But then that's what it evolved into Todd. Still the heart of it is that the engine works the same way as the Pegasus, cold front nozzles and hot rear one, which was what I was trying to maintain because I don't really like the PBC the P-1154 was planned to use (even though I love the look of the aircraft)