PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Harrier transition to and from hover (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/414038-harrier-transition-hover.html)

tartare 2nd May 2010 20:55

Harrier transition to and from hover
 
Question for any Harrier drivers out there.
Was asked by number one son about Harrier hovering... and realised I didn't know the answer myself.
When transitioning to the hover, are nozzles rotated to vertical and then airspeed left to wash off, while engine rpm is gradually increased to counter the effect of the unloading of the wings?
Similarly, when transitioning out of hover, increase power and rotate nozzles slowly back as wings develop lift?
Obviously it's not like a helicopter - you couldn't just slam the nozzles back and apply full power - it'd drop out of the sky...
How are you taught to fly the transition to and from hover?

LateArmLive 2nd May 2010 21:50


When transitioning to the hover, are nozzles rotated to vertical and then airspeed left to wash off, while engine rpm is gradually increased to counter the effect of the unloading of the wings?
Yes, that's right. Nozzles are usually rotated in 2 chunks - 40 degrees selected downwind, then hover-stop (approx 80 deg as the jet sits 8 or 9 deg nose up in the landing attitude) at the deceleration point which is about half a mile from the desired landing spot. The pilot will be flying 10 alpha until the hover-stop is selected; he will then keep the jet level with increasing power as the wing lift gradually reduces. Below about 45kts the aircraft will be pretty much wholly jet-borne.

Fore and aft speed can be controlled in the deceleration and hover by pitch, although nozzle movements are generally used if more than 5 deg NU/ND is required.


Similarly, when transitioning out of hover, increase power and rotate nozzles slowly back as wings develop lift?
Exactly that. From the hover, add some power, pitch up a couple of degrees then nozzle out. The rate of nozzle movement depends on how much excess power is available.

Getting in and out of the hover is the trickiest part of VSTOL ops. In a steady hover the jet is pretty well balanced and flies like a sluggish helicopter. The transition can be tricky as all the variables are constantly changing. Keeping the aircraft in balance is of paramount importance, as Intake Momentum Drag can flip a jet over in fairly short order. I'll let a QFI explain that one........;)

Hope this helps

tartare 2nd May 2010 22:36

Tks for that!
R/e water injection - I had heard about this - I assume water is sprayed into the compressor to increase the effective volume of air moving through the engine and also cool the engine ( I understand the Pegasus can only be run at full hover thrust for around a minute at any one time?)
Also, I note there's a yaw vane in front of the cockpit.
I assume this is to ensure that hover transitions take place into the wind to prevent the jet weathercocking - rolling over - seem to remember some film of a spectacular GR3 ejection at low level when the jet yawed unexpectedly..

Trim Stab 3rd May 2010 08:22

How is the vertical landing carried out? It looks rather crude from the outside, as if the pilot just chops the power at about 30ft. But presumably you try to make the drop as smooth as possible? Or is the seemingly brutal drop deliberate in order to lessen the chance of instability in ground effect, or FOD ingestion?

NigelOnDraft 3rd May 2010 08:37


I assume water is sprayed into the compressor to increase the effective volume of air moving through the engine and also cool the engine
Direct into the turnine area IIRC... Basically reduces JPT, allowing more fuel / thrust / RPM keeping within the (now higher) JPT limits.


I understand the Pegasus can only be run at full hover thrust for around a minute at any one time?)
There's a big table of limits... but the top rating is for 15s only :eek: (and flashing lights to warn you!)


Also, I note there's a yaw vane in front of the cockpit.
I assume this is to ensure that hover transitions take place into the wind to prevent the jet weathercocking - rolling over
Yes - not necessarily "into wind", you just keep it straight with rudder so the relative wind is fore/aft. If you don't the rudder pedals start shaking, the QFI in the back/on the radio shouts "Vane", and if you ignore all that :{ Critical period is 30K-120K - again IIRC. Below 30K no probs :ok:


How is the vertical landing carried out? It looks rather crude from the outside, as if the pilot just chops the power at about 30ft.
Not really "chop" the power, but you do not "cushion" the landing - just keep the RoD on until impact :ooh: then idle straight away, and nozzles aft. It has been known at this point for people to do this in the wrong order (no names ;) ) which is great fun for any observers...:D


Or is the seemingly brutal drop deliberate in order to lessen the chance of instability in ground effect, or FOD ingestion?
Spot on :D

NoD

BOAC 3rd May 2010 10:50

To amplify NoD's coverage:

My QFI used to shout 'Vane ****'

This thread is bound to send a call to John F who will no doubt remind you all that the
Intake Momentum Drag mentioned by LAL is effectively a function of a mathematical product of engine power x yaw angle x angle of attack, and that by keeping ANY one of those at zero, it is avoided (engine power - yes, that was a problem....:))

The ejection Tartare mentions is most probably the unfortunate US Marine who fatally forgot 'the rule'.

VinRouge 3rd May 2010 13:51

To answer all these questions and more, I strongly reccommend JF's book "A view from the hover". Simple laymans explainations of lots of phenomena.

"intake momentum drag" sounds hideous but is relatively simple to understand. A jet engines thrust is actually a NET value, a summation of all the forces in the engine. The front fan creates significant drag, as the airflow entering the fan has to slow down considerably. This creates a force ahead of the centre of gravity, which, if the aircraft is allowed to yaw, will create an unstable situation whereby the force creates more yaw, which generates more force.

Of course, this yaw at slow speeds is combatted in the harrier using jets of bleed air, if the yaw force exceeds the reaction jet force, you are outside of restoring control to the Aircraft.

Thats how I understand it anyways!

BOAC 3rd May 2010 15:27

'IMD' occurs on ALL jet engined aircraft with any angle of sideslip. It is the lack of directional stability from the fin at low IAS that causes VSTOL a/c to have this problem, and of course the Harrier experiences this 'force' much further forward on the fuselage than other a/c.

BrakingStop 3rd May 2010 15:48

IMD
 
Intake Momentum Drag happens to all jet aircraft. If an ac is experiencing sideslip then the air being drawn into the intakes changes direction from the original relative airflow in order for it to pass directly into the intakes. This change of direction is a change of momentum and exerts a yawing moment on the side of the fuselage forward of the intakes. This yawing moment is IMD. At normal speeds (>120 kts) the tail has enough aerodynamic stability to overcome this yawing moment and so most normal ac don't observe any IMD. At slower speeds (30 - 120 kts) IMD can be a huge factor because the tail has little aerodynamic stability at these speeds. Once the yawing starts the pilot, if they catch it, is unlikely to have enough rudder authority (either aerodynamic or reaction control power) to stop the yaw from building and the ac will depart. IMD is avoided in the Harrier by keeping the vane straight (using rudder) and hence sideslip at zero. Alternatively, keep the AOA at zero, as has already been mentioned.

Standing-by to be corrected by JF.

BS

Trim Stab 3rd May 2010 16:11


Critical period is 30K-120K
How does that effect carrier landings? Does the carrier have to sail at a speed and heading to keep the over-deck wind within certain limits?

Madbob 4th May 2010 08:01

Tatare

NOD should also have mentioned FUEL, or more importantly the lack of it when down to hover weight.

On cool/cold day it is less of a problem but a hot one a VL might not even be possible but whatever the situation the trick is to keep the decel period to a minimum, establish over the pad, get into a stable descent and land without running out of fuel first!

Flashing lights certainly concentrate the mind.....

MB

lifts a gift 4th May 2010 08:07

IMD
 
IMD, well explained by BS is not in itself a problem. It just makes the jet go sideways. The problem is that swept wings producing lift do not like to go sideways. The into wind wing loses sweep and Cl increases. The downwind wing has its effective sweep increased (and is shielded somewhat by the fuselage) and therefore loses lift. Result mega, rapid, uncontrollabe rolling moment. Not good during VSTOL.

The rolling moment depends on a) IAS b)alpha c) sideslip. Any one of these zero - no probs (no lift). Either b or c large and the other two small big probs.

Given that one must accel/decel through the 30-90 kt band where the jet is directionally unstable, and that to lift a war load wing lift is needed at these speeds b and or c must be minimised.

In my day in the GR1-3 8 to 10 units of alpha was reasonable 12 a bit gamey.

Sideslip is minimised by 1) Yaw autostabs 2)Rudder pedal shakers 3) HUD sideforce symbology and 4) THE VANE

Early signs of things going wrong are a lateral stick displacement to keep wings level. This is quite attention grabbing and the recovery actions are simultaneously 1. Rudder to get the vane straight. 2.Full pwr through the limiters to increase pwr of the 'puffers' and inc vertical lift thereby reducing AoA. 3. Stick fwd to reduce AoA. 4.Change trousers.

Hope this is of use. For all a/c but particularly the Bona-Jet

Lifts a Gift. But thrusts a MUST

Spon Clayton 4th May 2010 10:02

Assymetric lift is the problem, as described above. Below about 30 KIAS there is no lift and assymetric zero is zero, thus no uncontrollable rolling moment. Zero alpha achieves the same effect-hence it is in the recovery drill.

Pontius 4th May 2010 13:29


How does that effect carrier landings? Does the carrier have to sail at a speed and heading to keep the over-deck wind within certain limits?
Not a snag mate 'cos you're pointing into relative wind, so you don't get any of the nastiness described above. For instance, if the boat is sailing at 20kts into a 20kt wind then you'd have 40kts over the pad (I think the fisheads called it a deck). Now, this would take you into that dreaded band of IAS but it didn't matter because the wind would be aligned with the runway, your vane would be straight and your feet would be shaker-free.

Sometimes the cod faces enjoyed doing things which didn't involve the airfield being driven into wind and it could make things more interesting than your every day arrival. For instance, if you've got a tailwind on the boat from 45 degrees off the right side, then you'd come into the hover on relative bearing of 135, off the boat's front and vertically land facing that direction (and then have fun with the yellow shirts trying to park you).

Finally, IF it was all going for a can of worms and the boat HAD to face a particular direction AND you had to land from straight up the back of it, then the fisheads had a little spin-wheel where they could adjust their speed so the relative wind was within limits.

The real fun was when you were accelling and decelling during a display, with a 'challenging' on or off crowd wind. You obviously wanted to keep everything looking bona, so had to keep pointing down the crowd line but with the vane at 90 degrees and, if you hadn't already turned it off, the shakers going ten to the dozen. Quickest accells and decells I ever did (to get through the 'nasty' 30-120 regime).

Doesn't happen on a Boeing :)

Double Zero 4th May 2010 13:46

On an unpleasant note for a minute, isn't 30 - 120kts pretty much the same regime as the AV-8A Stencel seat is regarded as extremely dodgy ?

You know, the Stencel which Art Nalls was forced to fit to Sea Harrier XZ439 after Martin Baker, in an inspired move, refused support ?! :ugh:

John Farley 5th May 2010 09:43

A quote from page 80

The other problem stemmed from the intakes and meant that, if left to its own devices, a P1127 (or early Harriers) flying slower than about 100 kt wanted to go tail first. The pilot literally had to use his feet to keep the aircraft pointing into the airflow. This was directly analogous with the need for the pilot of a tail-dragger aeroplane to use his feet to stop it swinging and ground looping when landing, especially in a crosswind.

The reason for this was that the aerodynamic stabilising effects of the P1127 fin were no different from any other aircraft so faded away as one got slower. Unfortunately there was a destabilising force that increased as flying speed reduced and so defeated the residual efforts of the fin. This force was called intake momentum drag. It exists on all jet engine intakes and gets greater as rpm are increased. Thus whenever you were flying slowly and necessarily using jet lift not wing lift, up went your rpm and up went the intake momentum drag.

To understand why this destabilised the aircraft directionally we need to look at the airflow round the aircraft when viewed from above. In Fig 3 I have tried to indicate that everything is fine when the aircraft is pointing directly into the airflow.

Fig 3

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...rley/CH4F3.jpg

However, what happens if the aircraft starts travelling slightly sideways through the air because of a cross wind or a deliberate move by the pilot is shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...rley/CH4F4.jpg

With the total airflow - represented by the blue arrow - now coming at an angle to the nose, we must think about its two components as shown. The green being that part which is straight on the nose and the red that part which is blowing directly across the nose.

The red arrow is of course the troublemaker because its effect is felt at the intake which is well ahead of the centre of gravity and so opposes the fin. Should the pilot allow the aircraft to swap ends and fly tail first you might think it would just be embarrassing for him because in his debrief he will be told to try harder on the rudder. Sadly he is unlikely to make the debrief because, at speeds greater than about 70 kt as the aircraft goes seriously sideways, the leading wing will generate much more lift than the other and the aircraft will roll out of control, thanks to what is termed ‘rolling moment due to sideslip’. Such asymmetric lift can easily swamp the aerodynamic and reaction controls.

Clearly some exotic technology was called for to help the pilot keep the aircraft pointing into the airflow. In fact all that was needed was a simple wind vane as seen on any church steeple. It is mounted in front of the pilot and always shows him where the airflow is coming from.

Later on Harriers were fitted with an artificial directional stability autostab (mid 70s) that helped keep the vane in the middle at mid transition speeds.

Re the Stencil seat this had an outstanding performance at low speeds because it used an explosive canopy spreading device which inflated the canopy quicker than the airflow could. The changeover speed between slow and highspeed modes was about 210 to 230 kts. The bad news was that if you got the low speed mode (with explosive spreading) at the top of the changeover band it might (might) break your neck. So either punch out above 250 kts or below 180 kts for a gentler ride. Not hard to organise as even gliding at 210 kts you could pull the nose up before ejecting.

Double Zero 5th May 2010 13:23

Mr. Farley,

Please excuse me asking stupid questions; after all I usually do !

I take the hint that Art Nalls' seat may not be so dodgy after all, but can't help thinking Martin Baker scored a huge own goal for UK Ltd PR...

What's this 'canopy spreading' lark then, some sort of coaming level MDC ?

Thanks for the diagrams, most instructive for a pleb' like me ( who's only going to get near flying a Harrier via a simulator ).

Ta,

DZ

BOAC 5th May 2010 15:58

How re-assuring and unusual to find so many people agreeing on something on PPRune:)

00 - John refers to parachute canopy, not a/c. The MDC was, I think unchanged from the (one that didn't quite work for me) GR3

A 1(spit) Sqn friend told me how rapidly they learnt when coming alongside Ark to use only bank to manoeuvre over the deck, and not to be tempted to turn the bona-jet 90 degrees across the 40kt wind to hover-taxy onto the spot...............................

Old-Duffer 5th May 2010 16:19

The Accident.....
 
....... to which BOAC and tartare refer was a development aircraft being flown by a Major Rosberg and it happened at a Brit Aerospace airfield (Dunsfold - I think).

All the test flights were filmed at the time, hence the loss of the pilot was clear for all to see. A few years later, the RAF sought permission to use the film as part of a flight safety film they were putting together and BAe refused. However, they relented subsequently.

The film 'starred' the actor Richard O'Sullivan as a pilot and one of the scenes included a chap called Chris Humphrey, who was unfortunately killed before the film's release, demonstrating a Harrier to iirc the Swiss.

BOAC 5th May 2010 16:47

O-D - I don't think I saw the film with 'Huggy Bear' in it, but the 'raw' footage was certainly shown on the OCU in the late 70's as a firm reminder.

NoHoverstop 5th May 2010 18:03

try teaching a computer all of that
 
Well of course with our HS 1174 we 'ad it tough...

Firstly, 'the book' says helpful things like "minimise sideslip when the ASI registers" (i.e. at all speeds above 'hover'). So as a boffin trying to turn that into something a computer can understand it helped to know the science behind an appropriate, formal, interpretation of 'minimise' and what sorts of min IAS the ASI would actually stir into life at (bearing in mind that the air data computer used real gears and cams to do its sums). Some helpful chaps had left a nice folder (marked "John Farley's Rolling Moments") of plots in an acquired filing cabinet and and summarised the worst cases into 1/2 roll-stick boundaries as functions of sideslip and incidence for different speeds from 30 kts upwards. We also put in a 'don't be silly' limit on the rudder, to limit the amount of 'you're only making it worse' rudder (and hence yaw puffer) that could be demanded by our whizzy flexible experimental flight control system in the worst bit of the transition region. Of course, it was allowed to do some of that in the name of flexibility; no point in paying good money for a high-authority FCS only to cut out massive chunks of that capability with over-cautious lines on graphs coded into software.

Testing it all was of course great fun. Having learned the lesson from the initial phase over Bedfordshire (debrief: "no, we don't know what sideslip you got to, the sensors were off-scale, why didn't you stop sooner?") we switched to the skies of Wiltshire; obviously one doesn't want to do this sort of testing near one's own house. Once sorted with a 'complete' clearance, it was then a case of sticking to one's guns when the control law designers complained that the software limits prevented their wonderful stuff from freely expressing itself. Well, mostly anyway. Again, going back to earlier experiences in Bedfordshire skies, it was apparent that having got safe limits to let us begin to see what we could really get computers to do for the next generation, we would then learn where it was useful to relax those limits. Sometimes this required the safety pilot to take the boffin for a hover and say "look, your limits are here...., but actually you can get away with THIS...". Discussions were kept short, mindful that over-prolonged debate would be terminated, permanently, by lack of fuel (so discussions in the hover over how much nozzling-out to allow were very brief indeed). All straightforward really. Then we had to extend the FCS clearance for take-offs and rolling landings. And ski-jumps (the aircraft isn't even properly flying when it leaves the ramp), and real shipboard ops etc etc. So really we were very fortunate that JF and his colleagues had done such a good job in understanding (and explaining) the nature of V/STOL and designing such a good jet in the first place :ok:

noprobs 5th May 2010 20:01

To get back to the original question, it is important not to try to descend too slowly when near the ground. One major problem is hot air reingestion, which can lead to an engine surge. There is also some handling instability as all that thrust (which is a must) comes back up and hits the airframe. As the mainwheel touches down and starts to upset the weight/thrust balance, you then need to get rid of the thrust quickly, which jet engine fuel control systems generally don't cope with too well. The Pegasus therefore, even with the current twin, dual-channel digital system, needs a rapid-acting mechanical fuel flow relief system to make it happen.

IMD is a whole other area that has been discussed at length on this forum, but JF's diagram does help to simplify the root cause. The resultant roll is the real killer. If by skill or luck you avoid it, the outcome may be acceptable. I have seen Harriers doing inadvertent 360 degree (or in one case 450 degree) yawing turns during a decell and then land safely. Incidentally, IMD can also occur in pitch, as other jet pilots have found out to their cost, specifically with over-enthusiastic take-offs. As to JF's backwards formation lead, as a Harrier pilot, I found it a little less amazing than his continuous yawing flight along the line of the runway. One thing to beware of in rearward flight is the reversed action of the tailplane (elevator). While the reaction controls continue to work in the natural sense, a high reversing speed can lead to the canard-like tailplane acting such that rearward control column movement (relative to the pilot) produces a nose-down pitching moment.

Rudder pedal shakers and yaw stabs do help to keep you out of trouble, but few mechanical devices are trouble-free. When yaw stabs were still a novelty, I well remember taking off from a narrow strip that had very tall jungle close to each side of it. Shortly after lift-off, the system decided that it needed to demand maximum yaw, giving me a very impressive view of the trees before I booted the rudder back the other way!

But at least life in that cramped cockpit was never boring.

jimgriff 6th May 2010 08:02

Double Zero- Ballistic canopy spreaders are a pyrotechnic device where the base of the canopy is "shot" out in all directions (360*) by small "bullets" attatched to the shroud lines /canopy base by a "gun" which is timed to fire when the chute has reached full stretch but not yet full of air.
Normal parachutes use airflow to "inflate" the chute but sometimes this can prove too slow when there is insufficient airflow going into the chute to inflate it as happens with very slow speed ejections.
The balistic spreader "forces" the mouth of the chute open to catch any availible air in the chute at low speed.
Can be a complicated proceedure and yet another "widget" to worry about when you need a system to work flawlessly 100% of the time.

Helmut Mann 4th Mar 2014 13:02

Hi All,


My apologies for digging up an old thread.


I am beginning a scratch build scale AV8B and I have a question which research on the web hasn't answered for me. If anyone can assist I'd be grateful:


I understand there are puffer jets on the wingtips of the Harrier for roll control during the hover. My guess is there are also jets on the nose and/or tail for pitch. Is this correct?


Is there also a puffer jet or pair of jets for yaw?

LowObservable 4th Mar 2014 13:26

I recall reading a Raymond Baxter account of a sortie in G-VTOL that started with JF's famous/infamous takeoff, and JF's safety brief, which included a warning that Baxter would not hear EJECT more than once...

cornish-stormrider 4th Mar 2014 13:44

Harrier transition to and from hover
 
Kudos to digging up this thread
I never realised how much of a handful the harrier was, and why the jockeys regarded themselves as the creme de menthe,

A heartfelt RIP to all those it bit, and congrats to all who made it safely to the end of their time on the jet

Moreover I do declare this thread to be fascinating and such deserves the accolade of
"Science, bitch "

KG86 4th Mar 2014 14:52

Mention of the various fatals above reminds me of a rumour that was rife in RAFG in the 80s.

The German F104 had so many fatal accidents that it was nicknamed the 'widow maker'. But I was led to believe that the accident 'rate' for the Harrier GR1/3 was, percentage-wise, worse than the F104.

BOAC 4th Mar 2014 15:46

Helmut - you have been ignored!!

Yes, nose and tail for pitch and 2xtail for yaw.

thing 4th Mar 2014 15:53


But I was led to believe that the accident 'rate' for the Harrier GR1/3 was, percentage-wise, worse than the F104.
Percentage losses for all RAF Harriers was much higher than the F104, I seem to remember a figure of over a half were lost although I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Interestingly the Luftwaffe F104 percentage loss rate was around 30%, around the same as the Lightning and only slightly more than the RAF Phantom which panned out at around 28%.

Having said that the Luftwaffe had I think nearly 900 F104's so 30% of that is a lot of tin.

John Farley 4th Mar 2014 16:04

Helmut

Yep, there are puffers for all three axes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ps6a9e7390.jpg

The shutters are mechanically connected to the relevant aerodynamic surface so the effect is that the aircraft responds to stick and rudder in the hover as if it was flying conventioally. Magic. The front puffer is connected to the stick and opens if you pull back.

The air to the puffer system is turned off mecanically with nozzle angles less than 20 deg. So the pilot does not have to do anything - like remember to turn it on when slowing down.

kg86.

One can be led to believe all sorts of things in this life......

While here may I say that the Harrier has many unsung advantages. To name but three you can aim weapons very accurately in the hover (although best limited to targets such as hospitals or women and children queuing for soup) if the taget does fire back you can of course retreat while still facing the enemy (useful for some nations) but propbably best of all leading a display team by flying backwards means you can see just how well they are doing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...psdc3d5e92.jpg

Wander00 4th Mar 2014 16:12

ISTR Gnat attrition was pretty high, and may have been at least part of the reason for re-introducing the Hunter at Valley, unfortunately about 3 or 4 courses after I had left.

dctyke 4th Mar 2014 17:01


The film 'starred' the actor Richard O'Sullivan as a pilot and one of the scenes included a chap called Chris Humphrey, who was unfortunately killed before the film's release, demonstrating a Harrier to iirc the Swiss.

Anyone recall the title of this film, it had a very young air traffic controller (Mrs dctyke) in it.

bonajet 5th Mar 2014 03:35

You are correct "thing" - of the first 110 ordered up to XZ445 in 1979, I think 60 were lost, or 54%. By XZ999 at the end of 82 it was 67 out of 134 or 50%. The F104 has always got a bad press due to the large number in service.

Wholigan 5th Mar 2014 06:39

You may perhaps be interested in this discussion of the F104 accidents back in 2005.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...accidents.html

bonajet 5th Mar 2014 07:53

Thanks RW, I hadn't read that thread. Lots of good stuff. The Aug 79 F104 crash at Yeovilton was, rumour has it, because the Display Control asked the pilot to complete his display quickly. He did.

Helmut Mann 5th Mar 2014 09:44

Thank you BOAC and John, that is what I hoped to see. Good work! It shouldn't be too hard from here..... ;)


Does anyone know what the two ventral strakes are for as shown in this image? Sorry I can't link to the image itself. Some sort of tech issue.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ge_section.jpg

John Farley 5th Mar 2014 09:56

Helmut

As easy one. They are called LIDS (lift improvement devices) and are fitted to all Harrier II aircraft if the guns are not being carried. They give about 1400 lb more VTO lift capability by trapping the so called 'fountain' of exhaust air that bounces back off the ground and goes up towards the fuselage. If in your pic the gear had been down you would have also seen the cross dam that comes down in front of the stakes making a three sided box to contain the fountain. The LIDS work well to about 8ft wheel height by which time you have upwards momentum and can corry on with the lift and into the transition. The other postive effect once you have started to go up from the ground is that the temp of the air finding its way into the intakes reduces with corresponding increase in thrust (some 100lb per deg C).

Dan Gerous 5th Mar 2014 09:57

I'm sure someone will be along to answer it correctly Helmut, but as I had it explained to me once, it is an air dam. When the wheels are down, they, along with the strakes, make an enclosed area, which provides an air cushion, which helps with vertical landing. They either had to have these, or the gun packs fitted permanently.


Thanks to all who provided techy explanations in this thread, it was very interesting and easily understood.


(John beat me to it, and explains it better.)

Trim Stab 5th Mar 2014 09:59


Thanks RW, I hadn't read that thread. Lots of good stuff. The Aug 79 F104 crash at Yeovilton was, rumour has it, because the Display Control asked the pilot to complete his display quickly. He did.
Wasn't the Harrier crash at Kandahar also allegedly partly because the controller asked him to "expedite" on finals?

Fox3WheresMyBanana 5th Mar 2014 10:22


The shutters are mechanically connected to the relevant aerodynamic surface
But if one of those mechanical connections becomes disconnected, life in the transition gets quite interesting.....:ooh:


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:30.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.