Harrier developments

[PMN1]

Could the Harrier GR1 have been developed from the start with the larger wingspan of the Big Wing Harrier, the AV-16 or the AV-8B - presumably you would need the P.1127 to have an extended wingspan as well??

Does the engine power available at that time make it useful?

[Ricky]

From what I have read, the current Harriers struggle with low engine power, so adding the 'big wing' to the prototype would probably have killed the project.

[Groggy]

Hi PMN1 , Ricky
Probably marginal but not impossible, but strictly STOVL?

Just a thought, there was a study published about a “submarine/VTOL Harrier” in I think it was the Engineer circa 1970, it is a long time ago and have not heard of it since but it might be an avenue worth pursuing?

[Ricky]

You mean a Harrier launched from a sub?

[Groggy]

Hi Ricky,

It was about forty years ago and I read it in a library - but it was a submersible vehicle – it struck me as far fetched crazy scheme but fun if it worked just on the edge of brilliant if it could have been made to work. I will try and Find it at Colindale just hope it was the Engineer!

[Nick Sumner]

I seem to recall it was a proposal for a submarine aircraft carrier that could launch and recover Harriers, the recovery was accomplished by something called a 'skyhook' which worked a bit like the 'trapeze' thing that launched and recovered Goblin fighters from B36s.

Or I could have just dreamed the whole thing...

[Red Admiral]

http://www.combatreform2.com/skyhookinaction.jpg

Skyhook was pretty much a crane which caught the Harrier when hovering though I can't remember any submarine based applications. There's a lot more information over on the secretprojects forum.

[Ricky]

Why would you need a crane when it can land on any flat space that is roughly the same size as it?

[Red Admiral]

Why would you need a crane when it can land on any flat space that is roughly the same size as it?

Its easier to hover and be grabbed by a crane than land on the very small and rapidly pitching deck of a small ship or submarine.

[Ricky]

But if the deck pitches, so does the crane. It would be like swatting a fly...

[PMN1]

But if the deck pitches, so does the crane. It would be like swatting a fly...

It was stabilised.

Found a piccie of the original concept here, they are on the Secret Projcts site as well but can only be viewed by members.

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/3939/t/SKYHOOK-Harrier-Carrier.html

[Red Admiral]

But if the deck pitches, so does the crane. It would be like swatting a fly...

You stabilise the crane...


The Harrier story' P. Davies & S. Thornborough:

"An even more radical proposal to estab*lish the need for a dedicated flight deck was proposed by BAe/Dowty Boulton-Paul in the late 1980s. SkyHook's origins apparently lay in a conversation between two BAe test pilots and a designer. John Farley had just returned to Dunsfold from an unpleasant deck landing on the French carrier Foch. The rolling motion of her slip*pery deck had almost caused his Harrier to slip overboard after the landing was completed. Farley expressed rather strongly to designer John Fozard his feel*ing that there should be some means of 'grabbing' a V/STOL aircraft once it had made deck contact and securing it imme*diately in heavy seas and bad-weather landings. Test pilot Heinz Frick said, 'Why not grab it while it's still in the hover?'. He worked on the notion and formulated a shipborne crane device which could swing out over a ship's side. Its 'hook' end was stabilized over the sea bed and a Harrier simply had to be hovered in its usual pre-deck landing position, but immediately beneath the end of the gantry. Frick de*signed a simple visual aid, giving the same visual cues that all pilots use in close-for*mation flying, for the pilot to position his aircraft within a couple of feet of the 'hook-on' location. The crane then low*ered and locked on to the Harrier using similar space-stabilizing principles to the Boeing 'Flying Boom' aerial refuelling sys*tem.
Having securely 'caught' the Harrier, using sensors which extended a jack-rod
to lock into a fixed pick-up probe built into the aircraft's spine, the crane then swung it inboard and placed it, either on its un*dercarriage or 'wheels up', on a tresde which could be pre-loaded with weapons or fuel tanks ready for immediate attach*ment to its pylons. Once the aircraft had been swung over the deck the SkyHook's robotics switched from 'space stabilisation' (over the sea bed) to stabilisation relative to the ship. Mobile trestles with aircraft aboard could be moved easily to hangar spaces, on or below decks, and 'parked' more tightly than conventionally stowed aircraft.
'Take-off' from the SkyHook was ac*complished by swinging the aircraft over the side, starting up and running cockpit checks. With nozzles pointing down, the pilot then signalled for the central jack-rod of the supporting gantry, connected to his aircraft's pylon, to extend the sus*pended Harrier downwards and away from the four sway-brace pads which steadied it on the gantry. At full power, the Harrier was gently 'pushed up' a little. The crane, sensing an up-load, unlocked and withdrew its extending jack-rod upwards, leaving the aircraft in the hover and free to move away. Two SkyHook assemblies could be installed on larger ships to in*crease the sortie rate. The technology used to stabilize and operate SkyHook was well established—essentially a flight simulator motion base (upside down), and a veloc*ity sensor. Land-based trials with G-VTOL and other Harriers, conducted by Heinz Frick and two other pilots, with the hover 'visual aid' device mounted on a fire service hydraulic turntable, showed that it was quite easy to position a Harrier in the correct 'grab' situation, even in gusty con*ditions."

[Ricky]

It was stabilised.


You stabilise the crane...

Now why didn't I think of that?

Actually, don't answer that one...:D


Any idea why the crane did not make it to production, even as just an alternative landing method in poor conditions?

[Red Admiral]

Any idea why the crane did not make it to production, even as just an alternative landing method in poor conditions?

I think because the only ships to operate Harriers were quite large and the motions were much less. Its not quite as useful for operations over ground.

[Groggy]

Hi Red Admiral, Folks,

I have a hazy recollection that from a hover the Harrier had a greater payload when using the hook?