Harrier Gas Mileage (vs A-10C)

[The AMRAAMer]

The A-10C is extremely fuel efficient with a fuel capacity of 11,000 lbs, it uses about 20 pounds of gas per nautical mile at military power, max weight, low altitude. This fuel mileage is increased even more if you cruise at around angels 15, where fuel mileage is better.

 

So:

 

1. How does the Harrier compare in terms of fuel efficiency?

 

2. Is it able to loiter for extended periods of time like the Hog? Or is it more like the F-18 where you strike a target or two and then egress?

 

3. Are fuel tanks always necessary?

 

Thanks

[Mad Dog 7.62]

I have spent limited time in the Harrier so far, but it does suck gas!! I ran out of fuel trying to hurry up and land after I noticed the fuel warning lights. I don't think loitering much is going to be a thing in the Harrier. I never really worry much about fuel in the Hawg, in the Harrier I think its going to be an issue. Tanks, and fuel management will be important.

[Deezle]

Nothing beats the hog for loiter time.

 

At low level in the AV8B you're easily going to use 10-12,000 PPH with a combat load and decent speed, and if you like throttle it'll drink 18,000 PPH+ at sea level. Compared to the A-10C which maxes out at less than 7,000 PPH IIRC. You can get the AV8B down around 6,000PPH at angels 30 with a good cruising speed.

 

You drink a lot more fuel in the AV8B but you also spend half the time transiting to and from the AO.

 

For a more practical example, I can take off from Batumi with a 4 Mavericks, a gun, two AIM9s, and a full internal load of fuel (~7,800LBS IIRC). I can fly all the way to Sokhumi, shack four tanks, and return to Batumi with 4,000LBS of fuel upon touchdown.

[The AMRAAMer]

I can take off from Batumi with a 4 Mavericks, a gun, two AIM9s, and a full internal load of fuel (~7,800LBS IIRC)

 

And I'm assuming that even though other weapons can be loaded on the outer pylons, AIM-9s are always taken? Much like how bombs never make it to the outer pylons of a Hog, which are almost always taken up by Sidewinders and ECM?

[Kayos]

And I'm assuming that even though other weapons can be loaded on the outer pylons, AIM-9s are always taken? Much like how bombs never make it to the outer pylons of a Hog, which are almost always taken up by Sidewinders and ECM?

 

You can take the Sidearm on the outer pylons too for some SEAD.

[JackHammer89]

A few of the "standard" set ups have one sidearm and one sidewinder on the other side.

[Knock-Knock]

Look at it this way. The Harrier has 23K thrust, while the Mirage has 14K without afterburner. All that thrust is gonna require a lot of fuel, but also means you can run quite low RPM in cruise, and get a decent milage out of it.

[Kelevra9987]

You can get a decent distance out of her, if flown right.

The old Pegasus engine is one hell of a hot-gas-exhaust-fan with it's 23.500lbf of thrust.

You don't have to slam the throttle all the time. I fly my Maverick Runs with 55-60% RPM wich is more than enough. Also, for increased efficiency you can swith the Flaps to off so they retract completely.

[1stBEAST]

a german saying in regards of motors and engines in general is "kraft kommt von kraftstoff" losely translated it means "power/performance comes from fuel" so the engine has more thrust, the thing is faster. so you are paying this better speed and engine power with fuel^^ this is normal

i had also to get used to the "fly there, drop bombs, go home". its a differnt air plane with a different set of tactics, skills and other advantages/disadvantages.

 

but as other already stated. go up higher, retract flaps, reduce engine power abit for flights to the AO

[airdog]

Quote from a real Marine infantryman I was drinking with the other day. "Harriers show up for battle just in time to RTB for fuel"

[Freeroamer]

I've had to take Fuel Tanks at times due to the long distance to a target.

[Eddie]

It’s not that the Harrier has especially high fuel consumption, rather that many are used to the A-10 which has exceptionally low fuel consumption. The Harrier is like most “fighter” and attack aircraft in that accounting and planning for fuel requirements and the use of drop tanks and/or in flight refuelling are an essential part of flying the aircraft.

 

If you don’t fly efficient mission profiles you very easily find he aircraft flying half as far/as long as if you do. There’s a reason carriage of drop tanks is common on most aircraft, especially on air to surface missions.

 

I think many people, coming from the A-10 in particular, will also need to get used to the fact that they can’t spend all day flying around in circles looking through a targeting pod for specific vehicles, or messing about dropping one bomb on one truck at a time. Youlll need to get in, drop your ordnance on target, and get out (and then perhaps repeat).

 

I’m looking forward to it.

[AMEDooley]

I’m with you Eddie! Yet another challenge one has to deal with while flying.

[exray]

Personally I kind of like it - it brings AAR into the realm of actually possibly being required for some missions.

[MadDog08]

Quote from a real Marine infantryman I was drinking with the other day. "Harriers show up for battle just in time to RTB for fuel"

 

I am also a former US Marine Infantryman, and although we do joke about the statement regarding Harriers showing up just in time to RTB, there does need to be some clarification on this statement. Yes, Harriers cannot loiter for days like an A10, but I can tell you that Harrier pilots are VERY efficient when coming in and taking out targets. They are a sight for sore eyes and those guys will remain on station and return on fumes if they have to.

 

As far as flying it, as others have stated, you can extend you available flight time just by flying it right. You don't need to be at 80 or 90% the whole time. Dropping down to 55 or 60% will increase "fuel mileage" quite a bit. Just my two cents.

Edited December 12, 2017 by MadDog08

[airdog]

I am also a former US Marine Infantryman, and although we do joke about the statement regarding Harriers showing up just in time to RTB, there does need to be some clarification on this statement. Yes, Harriers cannot loiter for days like an A10, but I can tell you that Harrier pilots are VERY efficient when coming in and taking out targets. They are a sight for sore eyes and those guys will remain on station and return on fumes if they have to.

 

As far as flying it, as others have stated, you can extend you available flight time just by flying it right. You don't need to be at 80 or 90% the whole time. Dropping down to 55 or 60% will increase "fuel mileage" quite a bit. Just my two cents.

 

That's pretty much how the rest of our conversation went. I just was adding "fuel" to the fire on this topic. I was in aviation (military and civilian) as a mechanic for 20 years...i know all to much about about fuel consumption...its the driving factor behind everything at the airlines.

[jojo]

Quote from a real Marine infantryman I was drinking with the other day. "Harriers show up for battle just in time to RTB for fuel"

 

That's true for any single engine fast jet. :thumbup:

[Britchot]

It may be humorous to hear an A-10C, F/A-18C/E, F-15E check in with 15-30 minute playtimes before needing to AAR and return. However, they carry a whole lot more options for the customer to use to engage targets and provide a much higher situational awareness of the area than other, long endurance assets could provide.

[Realizm]

The A-10C is extremely fuel efficient with a fuel capacity of 11,000 lbs, it uses about 20 pounds of gas per nautical mile at military power, max weight, low altitude. This fuel mileage is increased even more if you cruise at around angels 15, where fuel mileage is better.

 

So:

 

1. How does the Harrier compare in terms of fuel efficiency?

 

2. Is it able to loiter for extended periods of time like the Hog? Or is it more like the F-18 where you strike a target or two and then egress?

 

3. Are fuel tanks always necessary?

 

Thanks

 

I was able to get the AV-8B down to about 10-12 lbs/nm, ~32-34,000ft, ~80 PPM and ~450 kts ground speed. Just don't go above 37,000, your engine will lose power permanently. [Edit: Is that a bug? Seems so. It runs as usual, just NO power.]

 

I don't recall what my load out at the time was to get 10-12lbs/nm, I think four AIM-9's and I just ditched my tanks so I was slightly heavy with fuel. I didn't learn about turning off your flaps at that time so I was still cruising with 5 degrees instead of 0. I can try again with 0, may get a little bit more out of it. Would be nice to get below 10.

 

Flying with a full bomb load however, it may be more beneficial to run the 5 degrees of flaps to drop your AoA enough to be more effective than running no flaps and a higher AoA. Again, something I need to test (too much work and dealing with kids, ahh!!).

 

I mainly try to keep it under 200 PPM. Once you get over 80-90% throttle the fuel flow goes through the roof (300 PPM+). It seems like it's a good engine though, thrust-wise at lower rpms so I typically fly 120-100 PPM and it does well. 120-150 PPM in climbs, 80-100 PPM in cruise works for me.

 

It will be helpful once our VREST page is active so we can see optimal speed to get the best range at the current alt and the optimal alt/speed. For some general range calculations, 80 ppm, 450 knots, ~11 lbs/nm with 7700lbs of fuel should get you 700nm of range and an endurance of about an hour and a half. You'll use a bit more on takeoff/climb but a bit less on glide down to landing.

 

I'd say the realistic one way trip is probably closer to 600nm, 300nm combat radius which is I believe what the real jet is quoted at. Until the VREST page is active I think I'll continue working on this one small command line program to calculate all my fuel, range, endurance times, etc. Same could be done in Excel as well if you guys want to bother with it.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Realizm

[Kev2go]

to put it like this

 

Harrier is like a Honda Civic with Gas mileage of a Chevy Silverado, and the A10C is a Chevy Silverado with the Gas mileage of a Honda Civic. :lol:

[RED]

Looking at the syllabus of vmat 203

Cruising is done at 60 ppm without any stores. Cruising with a usual loadout gets you up to 90-120 ppm. Climb to your cruising altitude and then throttle back to your desired ppm or up to 6.5 AOA to be most fuel efficient! Flaps at 0 helps a lot.

[WildBillKelsoe]

the A-10 is designed to sleep over friendlies, the Harrier is designed to pop in, create a mess, and egress, pretty much like the Viggen.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kang]

the A-10 is designed to sleep over friendlies, the Harrier is designed to pop in, create a mess, and egress, pretty much like the Viggen.

 

That, pretty much. It is important to understand while both were originally conceived for CAS, their approaches are almost contrary. The A-10 flies from a regular base and stays on station until it is needed, more or less derived from how the A-1 Skyraiders were often used over Vietnam. The Harrier only does quick jumps in comparison, but its STOL abilities mean its base can be almost anything, so it can fly from just a few miles behind the battle lines if needed.

 

The British actually had people drive by car out west of their bases in West Germany in regular intervals to check out places like motorway straights, larger wood clearings or supermarket parking lots which they intended to use as makeshift bases during the inevitable retreat from the Soviets.