Making a Harrier F.5/7, could use a little input.

[kitbasher]

VERY resilient ones.

[PR19_Kit]

Squadron 617 "Manchester United" RAF?

More like 'Lincoln City' I'd have thought...........

[Sauragnmon]

The concept would work great for a number of countries, it's a theory similar to the Swedish with the Draken and others - an Asymmetrical air defense scheme.

[NARSES2]

Squadron 617 "Manchester United" RAF?

Quite possibly............but what about Milwall?  What aircraft do  we station there?

Anything with a Napier Lion - I know "hat, coat"  Whatever it would probably end up down the local scrap yard (which is conviniently only a few hundred yards down the road) in a matter of hours  Go past the ground every time I go to London Bridge

[Mossie]

now That just fuels a very interesting idea... considering how heavily built most stadiums are, in the world, you could, in theory, hide a squadron base under a footy stadium, with some hidden elevators to move them up to ground level.  A lot of stadiums like to be placed near highways, so they can be rapidly accessed by the masses, so you have an airstrip, a hangar facility, and an emergency landing position just in case somebody craters the highway.  Footy stadium, doubles as military base and emergency shelter...

There were real world plans to do just that kind of thing.  The Harrier could just about use any short stretch of road so the idea was to use any building that was large enough as a hangar, stadiums being one possibility.  Schools, even road bridges could be used to shelter the Harriers.  Bomb the 'strip'?  Just move to a new bit of road, or even a dirt strip.

[Rheged]

There were real world plans to do just that kind of thing.  The Harrier could just about use any short stretch of road so the idea was to use any building that was large enough as a hangar, stadiums being one possibility.  Schools, even road bridges could be used to shelter the Harriers.  Bomb the 'strip'?  Just move to a new bit of road, or even a dirt strip.

Somewhere on the web there is footage of a Jaguar using an unopened, newly built stretch of Motorway near Preston.
Way back in 1967, near Vasteras in Sweden, the party I was part of had to stop our minibus to allow two Lansens to taxi across the road from woodland on one side of the road to woodland on the other.  We were wondering why the road there was so wide and straight.

[PR19_Kit]

The landing gear on the JA-37 Viggen had a fatigue case test programme to ensure it could withstand taxying around on rough tracks before using those mysteriously straight Swedish roads to take-off from. It looks very fragile but it isn't really.

Yet again I installed the umpteen channel test rig for that system, back in 1979 I thin. Doesn't time fly........?

[Pellson]

The landing gear on the JA-37 Viggen had a fatigue case test programme to ensure it could withstand taxying around on rough tracks before using those mysteriously straight Swedish roads to take-off from. It looks very fragile but it isn't really.

It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.
There is an "infomercial" of how the dispersed air base system worked on Youtube. The film is produced 1980 but as this in general can be seen as on the height of the cold  war, it is reasonably accurate and way, way beyond of what the RSwAF is capable of today, unfortunately. Se film (commentary in swedish) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQtnugT6A4

[PR19_Kit]

It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.

That's interesting, I didn't know the ultimate sink rate for the JA-37, but the problem with the rough ground taxying was the expected heat build-up in the oleos apparently. As it happened the oleos coped with it very well but looking at the aircraft from the nose, with those spindly legs banging up and down, was quite a experience!

[Pellson]

It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.

That's interesting, I didn't know the ultimate sink rate for the JA-37, but the problem with the rough ground taxying was the expected heat build-up in the oleos apparently. As it happened the oleos coped with it very well but looking at the aircraft from the nose, with those spindly legs banging up and down, was quite a experience!

I just found corresponding numbers for the F-35, max sink rate carrier ops landing being 18 fps which incidentally translates to 5,5 m/s, approximately. I again can't help thinking the Viggen would have made one hell of a carrier a/c, the violently powerful engine and sturdy landing gear already being incorporated in the original design as well as pilot positioning for high AoA unobstructed forward view and rock steady landing glide path flight characteristics.. 

Another a/c coping well with uneven surface has to be the Jaguar. See from ca 1:45 into this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-uqMUA7U-k
Fieldworthy, dammit.. 

[eatthis]

It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.

That's interesting, I didn't know the ultimate sink rate for the JA-37, but the problem with the rough ground taxying was the expected heat build-up in the oleos apparently. As it happened the oleos coped with it very well but looking at the aircraft from the nose, with those spindly legs banging up and down, was quite a experience!

I just found corresponding numbers for the F-35, max sink rate carrier ops landing being 18 fps which incidentally translates to 5,5 m/s, approximately. I again can't help thinking the Viggen would have made one hell of a carrier a/c, the violently powerful engine and sturdy landing gear already being incorporated in the original design as well as pilot positioning for high AoA unobstructed forward view and rock steady landing glide path flight characteristics.. 

Another a/c coping well with uneven surface has to be the Jaguar. See from ca 1:45 into this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-uqMUA7U-k
Fieldworthy, dammit.. 

thats a good shout what was the landing speed like? deltas tend to land quick dont they?

[chrisonord]

That stretch of motorway the Jag landed on is the then new M55, just up the road from me. I bet it it did that on it now the tarmac would get blown off.
Chris

[PR19_Kit]

With a descent rate of 5.5 m/sec and that big flapped delta I bet the Viggen wasn't that fast to land.

They came in VERY nose-up, like a Vulcan, and had lots of aero braking plus reverse thrust too. IIRC they could engage reverse while airborne, maybe of our Swedish members could confirm or deny that for me please?

[Pellson]

The engine reverse system could be selected while in air but the actual function was not released until depression of the nose gear occured when the gear hit the runway. No possibility to use it in the air, accordingly. It could however be engaged selectively to reverse on ground in order to be able to quickly turn around in restricted spaces in order to faster reach the refuelling/rearming area. Turnaround time, entirely handled by one professional technician (NCO or later officer) and 6 conscripts was between 8 to 20 minutes depending on version and mission, the fighter/interceptor version/mission being the quickest.

The landing speed was 220 km/h and the HUD had a "landing guide" function, enabling the pilot to plan touchdown as close as 30 m from the threshold - without ever risking to fall short!
One of the major reasons for the reasonably low landing speed is the fact that the canard wings have large trailing edge flaps that depress 30 degrees in landing mode. As this gives more than enough nose-up attitude, the elevons also can be depressed, although only 5 degrees, effectively creating an increased lift on the main wing rather than reducing it as is the case with single delta designs such as the Mirage or the more ubiquitous design with separate rear mounted stabilators, like the Jaguar.

[PR19_Kit]

Thanks for that Pellson, it was a LONG time ago that I had anything to do with the Viggen! It certainly was one impressive aeroplane.