VTOL question
 

This is probably a bit silly and obvious why it never got developed, but a comment from uxb99 on the Ukraine thread got me thinking

Was that because of the extraordinary amount of fuel it probably needed to rise vertically, or just the penalty of lifting excessive weight during that phase, or more likely bot? But here's my question: Was there ever any investigation into a method of providing fuel via a ground connection until it was ready for the transition to level flight?

It'd be a bit like AAR in a way and would overcome much of the initial fuel use during the VTOL phase of the flight. I can see many reasons why you wouldn't want to do this, but was it ever even considered?

It's a simple thrust v weight issue. The thrust of the engine is limited, so if you want to lift more, you need to add a bit of aerodynamic lift to the equation, or in other words: forward speed so that the wing starts working. You wouldn't be able to wind out the fuelling hose at that rate.

Ship wise they looked at the skyhook, the concept was to reduce the required size of the ship operating them and also allow them to bin items not needed such as the under carriage thus allowing more fuel / armaments,

read

Skyhook

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thr...-carrier.2372/

Skyhook was a mammoth brain-fart from a team who should have known better. It would have been the grandson of the CAM ships of WW2; short range intercept with a cold bath for a debrief. Mad!

Mog

Mog - was the reality that it would have been too difficult to return and dock with the Skyhook due to pitching/rolling of the ship?
Out of interest, why was it thought of as a crazy idea?

Rather like the rubber deck, where you 'flopped on' (sans u/c) still using the arrestor gear.!!!!

The concrete base built for the rubber landing deck is still in situ at Farnborough.
I was told years ago by one of the early 'radio operators' at Farnborough that it took many tries for Winkle to get it just right before he actually put it down. By this time it was realised that all this effort landing the Vampire would come to nothing because the boffins had yet to devise a method of getting it off the rubber deck to tow it clear.

Absolutely agree Mog - I worked at Dunsfold for 16 years and it was the most bizarre Trial I ever saw there :)

For a deep, if slightly techie, dive into the design of the Harrier, and in particular the Pegasus engine that it was built around, look no further than this excellent book:
Edit: Looks like it may be out of print, but the Kindle edition is available.

There are other options if you want to get airborne carrying more fuel without a runway….

Zero length launch
 

The zero length launch -- USAF did quite a lot of work on this in 1950's.

Was thought to be a way of dispersing aircraft away from airfields.

For example fire the aircraft out of a barn on a farm!

Yes, RTB to be speared by a Leading Hand in a rough sea was not a good option. In a lot of ways, it was a solution looking for a problem. To send small detachments of SHARs without undercarriage to operate from specially-built motherships up-threat of the main force just didn’t make any sense. There would have been no way to divert without damaging the aircraft and becoming a right operational PITA.

Atlantic Conveyor proved the concept of vertical-only ops from a small deck and that would have been enough for short-range intercepts. Intrepid and Fearless both acted as temporary homes for a SHAR during the hectic days post D-Day.

Mog

This.

It almost had a second coming in the early noughties when someone at BAES tried to push the idea as a means of transferring large loads - container-sized - between ships at sea for RAS. It would have needed two systems, one on each ship (!!!!) and some intricate/comical means of handover.

Thankfully, common sense broke out fairly early on and it quietly disappeared. Hopefully never to be seen again, although someone will probably disinter it for "drones" in the next few years.

Already done.

There was an articulated gyro-stabilised UAV launch and recovery arm at Aero Friedrichshafen last year on the stand for WTD61 Manching.

You make a good point. I don't really subscribe to this fashion for ridiculing ideas and inventions from the past that didn't work out. In some cases it was simply because the technology needed to make them work did not exist at the time, but may do now. Unless somebody is willing to try revolutionary ideas nothing new would ever emerge.

And the Orpheous the Pegasus was built around ;)

Even then, the alert Sea Harrier on Conveyor operated without underwing tanks to minimise weight on take off, hopefully with a nearby Victor to top up from.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d86a4d56fe.jpg

Dave/Mog, any idea on how much fuel the alert SHAR had on deck on the CONVEYOR or the Amphibs? Perhaps a 25 minute sortie? less? more? (without air refueling of course).

Very dependant upon density altitude. I can’t remember the basic weight of a SHAR with tanks and winders but I guess it would be c14,000lbs. If that is correct, a standard day (+15/1013) would give you c3,300 of fuel for a wet VTO, according to my ancient whizz-wheel. This equates to 25-30 mins cruise at medium level, with a small recovery margin. On a harry-redders day, that would be more like 2,300.

Mog

If the main reason for the Harrier was dispersal just make jets that can take off from grass?