Harriers can't really do this........... Can they?
Discussion
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 recently came out, the previous versions have claimed to (at least on the weapon front) be fairly true to life.
In this one though you can call in a Harrier attack were a Harrier 'hovers' overhead with a minigun turret under the nose that has full multi axis rotation (like the guns in the noses of attack helicopters, see below)
Anyway I was under the impression that A) Harriers only really hover during take-off and landing and B) Don't have a fully moveable gun turret under their nose.
Am I right here? Have Infinity Ward invented a new plane?
In this one though you can call in a Harrier attack were a Harrier 'hovers' overhead with a minigun turret under the nose that has full multi axis rotation (like the guns in the noses of attack helicopters, see below)
Anyway I was under the impression that A) Harriers only really hover during take-off and landing and B) Don't have a fully moveable gun turret under their nose.
Am I right here? Have Infinity Ward invented a new plane?
Buggles said:
I seem to remember one of the engineers here telling me they had about 11/12 seconds worth of hovering before it would overheat.
Think it depends on payload. The water injection system lowers the turbine entry temperature allowing them to run the engine at a slightly higher thrust setting, with a light enough load, or in low enough temperatures, they can hover without the water, but otherwise you're limited by how long the water lasts.RizzoTheRat said:
Buggles said:
I seem to remember one of the engineers here telling me they had about 11/12 seconds worth of hovering before it would overheat.
Think it depends on payload. The water injection system lowers the turbine entry temperature allowing them to run the engine at a slightly higher thrust setting, with a light enough load, or in low enough temperatures, they can hover without the water, but otherwise you're limited by how long the water lasts.RizzoTheRat said:
Buggles said:
I seem to remember one of the engineers here telling me they had about 11/12 seconds worth of hovering before it would overheat.
Think it depends on payload. The water injection system lowers the turbine entry temperature allowing them to run the engine at a slightly higher thrust setting, with a light enough load, or in low enough temperatures, they can hover without the water, but otherwise you're limited by how long the water lasts.Eric Mc said:
Didn't the Harrier GR1/GR3 and AV-8A also have a cannon buried in the port wing root?
No Eric only in the underslung Aden packs on the GR1/3s AV-8A as far as I rememberMuch of the upper skin panelling has to be removed to access and service the Pegasus doesn't it, hardly any room for a cannon too
I seem to recall a lot of air bleed holes around the fuselage and inner wing leading edge that could look as if they were gun ports though, might have confused you.
aeropilot said:
tegwin said:
As far as I am aware the harrier doesnt have any kind of canon onboard...
Current in service versions don't, but the original GR.1/GR.3 and Sea Harrier FRS.1 versions had 2 x 30mm cannon pods fitted to the underside of the fuselage either side of the centre line pylon.perdu said:
Eric Mc said:
Didn't the Harrier GR1/GR3 and AV-8A also have a cannon buried in the port wing root?
No Eric only in the underslung Aden packs on the GR1/3s AV-8A as far as I rememberMuch of the upper skin panelling has to be removed to access and service the Pegasus doesn't it, hardly any room for a cannon too
I seem to recall a lot of air bleed holes around the fuselage and inner wing leading edge that could look as if they were gun ports though, might have confused you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxvpfKT2qY
Skip to 4:30
That Harrier hovers for over 30 seconds.
It was travelling at speeds less than 20mph beforehand, forwards AND backwards.
Superb machines.
Can't comment on the weaponry, sorry.
Skip to 4:30
That Harrier hovers for over 30 seconds.
It was travelling at speeds less than 20mph beforehand, forwards AND backwards.
Superb machines.
Can't comment on the weaponry, sorry.
They can only take off vertically if the weapon and fuel load are less than the thrust of the engine, and even then it wouldn't be preferable to do it if there was runway space available because it uses a lot of fuel. Fully loaded, a GR9 can't take off vertically but it can do a shorter take off run by partially angling the nozzles.
The ski-ramp on the carriers allows a larger load to be carried with no increase in take off run required.
The ski-ramp on the carriers allows a larger load to be carried with no increase in take off run required.
tank slapper said:
The ski-ramp on the carriers allows a larger load to be carried with no increase in take off run required.
Which is a good job beacuse after that it's the end of the ship!Those early transatlantic flyers would have benefitted from a ski-jump too, I guess. Several of them crashed on take-off from being overloaded with fuel.
As a quick aside the Harrier's Thrust is many times that of "normal" engines. In Theory it could easily go supersonic. It;s the way that thrust is delivered that causes the problem. Hawker had plans for Plenum "afterburners" for a Supersonic Harrier in the later 60's early seventies however it was never taken up. There are if you look plans for several "Super-Harriers" None of which use what is to be frank the crappy "lift fan" of the F-35.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff