VTOL engine out

K

Kim Margosein

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
9 February 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
13
In Buttler's new book on circular wing aircraft, he writes several times of the military's concern about engine-out performance and landing.

Well, what about the Harrier engine-out performance, especially the first generation small wing versions? That barn door engine fan must do wonders for the l/d ratio, and with the tiny wings I would imagine the glide speed somewhat below the rather high stall speed, The landing gear doesn't seem to be able to handle much more than 50 mph. Comments please?

Kim M
 
In that particular case, I gather procedure is to eject as soon as possible if re-light can't be achieved fairly quickly; it has to be worse on more modern FBW aircraft since you run a real risk of losing flight control power.
 
There's the story of the pilot, who ejected from his Harrier GR.3 after
engine out. The blast of the ejection re-lit the engine and the Harrier
flew away, without the burden of a pilot .... ;D
 
Jemiba said:
There's the story of the pilot, who ejected from his Harrier GR.3 after
engine out. The blast of the ejection re-lit the engine and the Harrier
flew away, without the burden of a pilot .... ;D
Click to expand...
I know that it has happened with a Hunter, never heard of a Harrier though.
 
Having had opportunity to talk with USMC Harrier pilots a few years back, there is no such thing as a dead stick landing for them. I do not know the cycle time to go through a restart, but with the l/d of the Harrier I assume you had to be at a pretty decent altitude. Any power failure low and slow was grounds for "hitting the silk". Unpowered flight in a helicopter is bad enough, but at least if you react right you might have the means to arrest your fall at the bottom of the descent.
 
"I know that it has happened with a Hunter, never heard of a Harrier though."

It was told in one of the very good columns by Roy Braybrook in Air International,
that I'm really missing today (AI July 1997). The Hunter is renowned for making a
very smooth wheels-up landing and being back in service afterwards. The Harrier
wasn't that lucky, I think ..
 
The Harrier incident was quite widely reported at the time. The machine crashed in the Irish Sea, IIRC.

As opposed to the Yak-38, where the auto-ejection system once removed the pilot from the aircraft for no good reason...

RP1
 
"but at least if you react right you might have the means to arrest your fall at the bottom of the descent."

Isn't the fall ALWAYS arrested at the bottom of the descent?

Kim M
 
Jemiba said:
"I know that it has happened with a Hunter, never heard of a Harrier though."

It was told in one of the very good columns by Roy Braybrook in Air International,
that I'm really missing today (AI July 1997). The Hunter is renowned for making a
very smooth wheels-up landing and being back in service afterwards. The Harrier
wasn't that lucky, I think ..
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to an F-106. Pilot punched out, the aircraft righted itself, and ended up gliding into a snow covered field. Must have been an interesting sight to see a fighter come in with no noise, no canopy, and gear up. ;D
 
Kim Margosein said:
"but at least if you react right you might have the means to arrest your fall at the bottom of the descent."

Isn't the fall ALWAYS arrested at the bottom of the descent?

Kim M
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Through autorotation on hopes the arresting at the bottom is not so dramatic as it would be without it. Any "arrested stop" you can walk away from is a good one, to paraphrase the old adage.
 
RP1 said:
As opposed to the Yak-38, where the auto-ejection system once removed the pilot from the aircraft for no good reason...
Click to expand...

Saab and Martin-Baker appear to have come up with a design that does not require an auto-ejection system for this ;)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom