Harrier undercarriage pitch

[Gingerbread Man]

Looking at the development of the Harrier in a powered lift lecture, the question was asked why the harrier sits at such an angle to the ground. The lecturer admitted that he didn't know, and I was curious if anyone was aware of the reason. I wondered if it was anything to do with visibility behind when landing/taking off, simply because I couldn't see any other obvious explanation.

Cheers

Ginger ;)

[NoHoverstop]

The undercarriage layout isn't all that co-operative in regard to pitch rotation prior to take-off. The built-in pitch angle is therefore there to get the wing to somewhere around a useful AoA at take-off without having to rotate first. Not perhaps an issue for a pure VTOL-only machine, but the Harrier was designed from the outset with a wide range of take-off and landing options in mind.

[John Farley]

Thanks NHS. Absolutely correct. The wing has an AOA of approx 8 on the ground.

[Gingerbread Man]

Many thanks - I really should have thought of that :ugh:

[BOAC]

...and how would we have flown it without those '8 units'?:)

Purely to settle a long-standing query, John, when I asked what the units were at the OCU, Bill Brewer I recall told me to "think of them as bananas - just ***** fly 8 of them" :) since it did not matter, which, is of course, absolutely right. But......... were they degrees?

[Double Zero]

The www.harrier.org.uk (http://www.harrier.org.uk)

site has a LOT of info'...

[John Farley]

BOAC
The units in which the rotation of the ADD (Airstream Direction Dectector) probe was measured were as near as dammit degrees. Hence 8 ADD was (allegedly) pretty close to 8 AOA at the wing. As Bill said it mattered not to us whether they were actually degrees of (wing) AOA. What mattered (as I know you realised) was that you flew the right number in order to give a sensible margin from the ADD value at which the wing stalled. For flight test analysis purposes there were charts that corrected ADD readings to AOA values where the aircraft did not have a typical flight test vane on the end of a boom sticking out in front of all the local effects caused by intake flows and so on.
John

[BOAC]

Thanks - always wondered! ''Old Bill' was usually right.:)

[christn]

Apologies for a 'bus driver' poking his nose into your forum but I wondered whether John Farley had any plans to write and publish his memories of developing the Harrier? If not may I urge you to do so - I will be at the front of the queue for the book signing !

Best regards

[B Fraser]

Nope, you will be second in the queue at the very best !

A book, now there's a thought ;)

[christn]

How about equal first?

[John Farley]

Thanks but don't hold your breath. I have done 9 chapters but am loosing the will to live with about another 6 still to do.

[Proof Reader]

Please forgive the temerity of a mere Proof Reader, John. I do admire those who have the skill to write. However, could I point out that, according to your maths, you have more than broken the back of it. I am sure that you have an idea of the remaining chapter headings/subjects and therefore perhaps instead of launching into another chapter straight off, you could pen some general content lines for each which would give you outline structure and could even give you the urge to get going again.

Can I be third in the queue?

[john_tullamarine]

... only if I may be fourth ...

[John Farley]

Proof Reader

Thank you for your constructive comments.

You are probably very old to be so wise. Alternatively should you still be young please put yourself up as an alternative to our next PM as we all need someone with your attributes. Badly.

JF

[Yarpy]

I will be fifth. We need a book to inspire the next generation of aviation professionals. I still remember Nevil Dukes book of flying with stories of 'slides' in a Dagling and basic vector triangles. I'm sure I was better off with that sort of stuff than the current young generation with IPODS, PC's and all the rubbish. Dammit, I even had a Jetex powered KielKraft Gloster Javelin . . .

[Proof Reader]

Only five of us then!

Sorry, John. I KNOW there will be a lot more.

I am not about to be drawn about whether I am "very old" or "young" but I AM female and we all know what happened when we had a female PM. I think I might be even more unpopular. However, you never know!

[Milt]

John Farley

Would like to say you owe it to other aviators, especially the TPs, to finish your collection of experiences. My own is near to completion with a title something like "From Tiger Moth to F-111" as a result of my kids relentlessly asking - what did you do dad? Mine includes 2 years at BD in the hey day of the Vs and as a long term TP and CTP RAAF and then five years managing the acquisition of the F-111C.

Now, as historian for the Flight Test Society of Australia, I/we are recording the experiences of old and bold TPs for posterity. Our Secretary is Mark Boast ,ex BD and shipboard with Harrier. Am sure he could be convinced to offer you a chapter as a follow on to yours on VTOL flight testing.

Tony Blackman is publishing his on Vulcan etc and I hope Jimmy Harrison, who left us recently, put down some memoirs.

[John Farley]

Ta all. But please no more - you will get me banned for thread creep.

[Gingerbread Man]

Well the thread was pretty much answered, so I wouldn't take offence! I could even change the title if desired. I won't go as far as pressuring a book out of someone, but I would find such a volume fascinating. I was lucky enough to see you give a talk at Southampton Uni (just after you flew our virtual aircraft on a sim, which were decidedly shaky in some cases!), and if your story telling is always that good it would be a cracking read :) .

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ta all. But please no more - you will get me banned for thread creep.

Well, speaking as the person with moderator privileges - I'm with all of the posts above. Get writing John, I'd also very much enjoy reading your autobiography - and you'll certainly not get banned from PPrune for talking about the book.

G