PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Why Does the RAF have the Harrier today?
View Single Post
Old 29th Sep 2005, 21:57
  #24 (permalink)  
flipflopman RB199
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As for the FOD issue, pah. All engines suffer roughly the same amount of 'erosion/impact damage', it's only because the mighty pegasus is so visable to even the daftest of monkeys that it gets picked up on servicings. Just because t'other Jets ecu's are so far down the arse end doesn't mean that FOD evaporates once it enters the intake.
That's not strictly though true is it? As someboby else alluded to in this thread, The Tornados apparently had 19 engine changes during Telic whilst the Harriers had none? A questionable claim, but a claim none the less.

If FOD damage is only easy for "monkeys" to spot when it is as visible as the Pegasus is on the Harrier, then how did the "monkeys" spot the FOD damage on the deeply buried engines of the Tornados?

"All engines suffer roughly the same amount of 'erosion/impact damage"

What a complete and utter load of Ar$e!!

All Engines are subject to strict limits and tolerances regarding FOD damage, and that doesn't matter whether it is a Pegasus, or RB199. If the engine is damaged beyond limits, it is changed.

Surroundings will have an impact on the extend of erosion/impact damage. Are you suggesting that an engine from the Gulf will have a comparable amount of impact/erosion damage as an engine that has spent the last few years punching holes around Norfolk?

Harriers ARE susceptible to FOD, the major reason being the same as you imply it is spotted. There is an enormous fan not 4 feet above the ground, powerfully sucking in a huge amount of air. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a large amount of crap is going to be picked up by this swirling mass of air, and passed through the compressor?

Tornados are also affected by FOD, however, this would be vastly reduced if Thrust Reverse wasn't regularly employed below the 60kt minumum. Instead of being used as an alternative to the footbrakes!

Jacko,

But we ought to be keeping Jag, too. Cheaper to run than a Tornado or a Harrier, more deployable than a Harrier, more versatile than either. So what if the payload/range equation is a bit poor?
If only you had a more up to date vision of the Jaguar, with it's multitude of sporadic leaks, numerous wiring problems, and labyrinth of age related cracks, perhaps you too would see it with Clear Tinted Spectacles


And that will do for this evening........



climbs off Sunlight soap box
flipflopman RB199 is offline