AV-8B Harrier Thread

[609_Relentov]

Thanks Zeus, makes sense - I think I was reading the Pegasus engine that the AV8B uses can generate 22,000 lb of thrust, if so that's what you have to work with.

 

The Harrier is really a STOVL aircraft, rather than a VTOVL :)

 

We should be able to do the ST part from FARPS, especially if placed on roads.

 

Good point, however since half the FARP is flat and empty (i.e. no heli pad), you can probably place two or three+ side by side and create a makeshift short runway - in any case just speculating and thinking ahead :)

 

Cunctator that sounds promising re:placeable airfield (runway?) objects, looking forward to seeing more news on that at some point.

Edited March 13, 2017 by 609_Relentov

[Buzzles]

Good point, however since half the FARP is flat and empty (i.e. no heli pad), you can probably place two or three+ side by side and create a makeshift short runway - in any case just speculating and thinking ahead :)

 

You've not watched SFCTako's Jets + Farp Videos? You should :)

[jojo]

Thanks for the further clarification Zeus. I've just been thinking of the DCS ramifications with respect to the AV8B and FARPs. Clearly, an AV8B with it's weapons discharged (pylons empty) and less than 50% fuel should have no problem landing at a FARP, without having to use the water injection. I was more curious of the VTOL capability at a FARP fully loaded with fuel and weapons on all pylons, attempting to lift off vertically. Sounds like it's doable with the over-revved engine/water injection, but I'm sure it depends on the types of loadout's/overall weight.

 

Should be fun to experiment when the time comes :). Should make FARPs much more important tactically in the future!

 

There is no use to keep 50% of fuel to land with the Harrier.

During Falklands/ Malvinas war the Sea Harrier used to land with very low fuel on their aircraft carrier (from memory down to 800lbs).

I know it was Harrier FRS 1 and not AV-8B, but it gives an idea.

 

The point was that, even with terrible weather, there was no "bolter" with vertical landing.

 

Like Zeus said, with 7000lbs to play, you can bring back some weapons.

You can also use rolling landing, to keep lift on the wing and increase bring back capacities and/ or hot & high performance.

 

https://youtu.be/yu0TJ9NMDgA

[MBot]

This might be a stupid question, but how will AI handle STOVL for the Harrier? Is this something RAZBAM can program themselves or will this depend on ED's implementation?

[QuiGon]

This might be a stupid question, but how will AI handle STOVL for the Harrier? Is this something RAZBAM can program themselves or will this depend on ED's implementation?

 

That's actually a pretty good question. I'm suprised it hasn't come up already :thumbup:

[QuiGon]

There is no use to keep 50% of fuel to land with the Harrier.

During Falklands/ Malvinas war the Sea Harrier used to land with very low fuel on their aircraft carrier (from memory down to 800lbs).

I know it was Harrier FRS 1 and not AV-8B, but it gives an idea.

 

Speaking about the Harrier in the Falkland campaign, they also used one of the

Harriers (not sure if it was a Sea Harrier or Air Force GR.1) in the interceptor role from the Atlantic Conveyor, a container ship. The Harrier had to takeoff vertically for its missions. So it is possible, but as has been said by Zeus, with heavy restrictions. The loadout used for the interceptions was pretty light.

[Zeus67]

This might be a stupid question, but how will AI handle STOVL for the Harrier? Is this something RAZBAM can program themselves or will this depend on ED's implementation?

 

AI behavior is ED's responsibility. They are the ones who have to implement VTOL for AI aircraft.

[QuiGon]

AI behavior is ED's responsibility. They are the ones who have to implement VTOL for AI aircraft.

 

Thanks, that's interesting.

[robmlufc]

Sounds great- that said, I've seen additional documentary and air show video footage where the Marine AV8B's were in a hover for several minutes. So there is likely only a certain type of scenario where the water injection comes into play - such as when the engine is at full throttle for a fully loaded and fueled aircraft and in a hovering state. When observing air show footage the Harrier has no weapons loaded and is thus much lighter, requiring less thrust. You can then observe and hear when the pilot uses full throttle and the jet literally jumps upward from the more stationary hover.

 

So looking forward to flying this module.

 

The engine modes 'wet' and 'dry' were governed but the water switch position, gear selector and possibly nozzle position, my memory fades a little there. It's perfectly possible to demand water flow from an empty tank, which is never good.

 

Zeus, I seem to remember the limit of short lift wet being 107%? I'll have a dig around in my old notes later.

[Vitormouraa]

Here's some information about water injection.

 

[whiteladder]

Speaking about the Harrier in the Falkland campaign, they also used one of the

Harriers (not sure if it was a Sea Harrier or Air Force GR.1) in the interceptor role from the Atlantic Conveyor, a container ship. The Harrier had to takeoff vertically for its missions. So it is possible, but as has been said by Zeus, with heavy restrictions. The loadout used for the interceptions was pretty light.

 

 

 

This is kinds true, the Atlantic Conveyor sailed to the South Atlantic with replacement Sea Harriers and most of the GR1. They used empty containers to provide protection to the aircraft and had a spot at the front to fly the aircraft from. The Gr1 were wrapped to protect them from corrosion. Because the Argentine Air Force had demonstrated the ability to intercept ships head South it was decided to have one Sea Harrier Armed and ready to go on the Spot. No missions were flown and when the were in range of the task force the Harriers departed. Tragically the ship was hit by 2 missiles on the 25th of May and lost a couple of days later.

 

 

[QuiGon]

This is kinds true, the Atlantic Conveyor sailed to the South Atlantic with replacement Sea Harriers and most of the GR1. They used empty containers to provide protection to the aircraft and had a spot at the front to fly the aircraft from. The Gr1 were wrapped to protect them from corrosion. Because the Argentine Air Force had demonstrated the ability to intercept ships head South it was decided to have one Sea Harrier Armed and ready to go on the Spot. No missions were flown and when the were in range of the task force the Harriers departed. Tragically the ship was hit by 2 missiles on the 25th of May and lost a couple of days later.

 

Are you sure that no missions were flown? I thought there was at least one unsuccessful attempt to down the argentine MPA that was shadowing them.

 

That's a nice picture btw :thumbup:

[whiteladder]

Are you sure that no missions were flown? I thought there was at least one unsuccessful attempt to down the argentine MPA that was shadowing them.

 

That's a nice picture btw :thumbup:

 

 

There were a few interceptions when the main task force had sailed South in April, a Argentine 707 in civilian markings approached on a number occasions, but because they were not military aircraft no actions was taken. When it became clear that a peaceful solution wasn`t going to happen it was made clear through diplomatic channels that any further approaches would be shot down.

No more were sent.

 

 

 

 

 

The picture below is from the side camera of Lt Simon Hargreaves Sea Harrier, taken prior to this warning on the 21st of April.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by whiteladder

[QuiGon]

There were a few interceptions when the main task force had sailed South in April, a Argentine 707 in civilian markings approached on a number occasions, but because they were not military aircraft no actions was taken. When it became clear that a peaceful solution wasn`t going to happen it was made clear through diplomatic channels that any further approaches would be shot down.

No more were sent.

 

 

 

 

 

The picture below is from the side camera of Lt Simon Hargreaves Sea Harrier, taken prior to this warning on the 21st of April.

*pic*

 

Ah, yeah, that's what I had in my mind, but as you said, it was with the main task force, not with the Atlantic Conveyeur :doh:

Thanks :)

Edited November 24, 2017 by QuiGon

[Cunctator]

As a side note: The RAF Harriers in the Falklands War were GR.3s not GR.1s. The GR.3 has a more powerful engine and a laser rangefinder installed in the elongated nose.

[Zeus67]

Two days into the LITENING pod development and all I have been doing is MPCD pages. There are five of them (actually seven if you count the two service ones). Well, it seems that tomorrow will be the last day I spend with MPCD pages and their navigation, so I can go to the core of the matter: managing the LITENING pod and getting video. Here is one of the MPCD pages, the others are similar.

 

[sniperwolfpk5]

gr8 to see things are shaping nicely

[609_Relentov]

Looks great Zeus! Just watched True Lies and enjoyed the Harrier scenes a little more than usual this time lol :D.

 

Keep 'em coming!

[Gunny Highway]

question here. Is there any carry over from ED's A-10C LITENING pod, or are you left creating your own version? I always wondered how much of ED's systems was shared between the modules considering how many of them shared the same NATO technology.

[blksolo]

I was in the Marines at a FARP during Desert Storm at a place called Tanajib Airport which was mostly AH-1W Cobras and Harriers. We had to build a runway with these giant aluminum rectangles that locked together because apparently a Harrier cant land or take off on just an everyday runway, it will blow away the concrete, or at least thats what we were told. In the beginning the Cobras and Harriers would go out with insane loadouts and come back with nothing all day every day 24/7 for like a month, it was insane the amount of ordinance they dropped. I was in the chow line one day and listened as one pilot was talking to another pilot about how he dropped cluster bombs on an Iraqi unit that was out in the open, he inverted to see the bombs hit and then came around again to strafe. As the war wound down the Harriers would come back with ordinance, although they rarely did any vertical takeoffs or landings.

Edited March 15, 2017 by blksolo

[Cunctator]

A Harrier can indeed literally blow away the runway with its vectored thrust under unlucky circumstances:

 

 

 

The video shows an GR.3 doing that at some airshow in Switzerland in 1980.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Cunctator

[drPhibes]

That's what happens when someone decides to partially pave a grass strip without building a proper foundation. Asphalt doesn't stick particularly well to grass.

 

Edit: Oh, and a hot tip: when using the [ youtube] [/ youtube] tag, just post the video ID (the part after "watch?v=" ) and not the complete URL.

[Harry.R]

When our jets left Edmonton after a Maple flag ex, one of them lifted a section of runway and blew it away. Previous to that we'd managed the same trick with some German F-4F tanks at Goose bay..our expected invite to the German bar was slightly delayed :music_whistling: :lol:

[Zeus67]

Initial LITENING pod video test.

 

 

[Vitormouraa]

Nice job Larry,

 

Will this crosshair always be displayed on the screen?