Civil Harrier versions?

Woody

Woody

Passionate about the advancement of technology
Joined
8 March 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
43
Website
www.freewebs.com
After reading the below article a friend asked me why no civil off shoot of the Harrier concept has ever been seen.


Bell Helicopter, Boeing and Sikorsky has combined to produce only one all-new (helicopter) aircraft type in the past 30 years - the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. No new (helicopter) aircraft model is in the pipeline, so nothing new is likely to enter production within the next decade.
Click to expand...

I've seen proposals using multiple wing mounted engines but nothing using a single central Pegasus. Obviously a passenger cabin would have to go above or below the engine (where it would need to be pretty narrow and heat proof) but that's still probably less challenging than a tiltrotor (?).

I wonder how it would compare to a small tiltrotor in terms of: cost, speed, range, payload.

Any information appreciated.

Cheers, Woody
 
The only thing i know close to a Harrier is the Do-31.
en.wikipedia.org

Dornier Do 31 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

A single engined Harrier-like civil aircraft would be very expensive and very "unsafe" because if the cabin was above the engine the center of gravity would be at a very strange place causing stanility problems etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something like the DuPont DP-2 could have been the result.
But a passenger cabin wouldn't necessarily have been above the
engine. We just have to remember the first layouts for a two-seater
version of the Harrier . :D

(from F.K.Mason "Harrier", sorry for the bad quality, the scan was done
a long time ago with my very first scanner)
 

Attachments

  • Harrier-two-seater-designs.jpg
    Harrier-two-seater-designs.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 268
The Mason book also shows a version with a second cockpit at the base of the fin. This was reprised in the mid 1970's for the HS.1199 project, in which a 5 seat 'personnel transport' Harrier was looked at. This project was looked at in relation to concerns of terrorist hijackings of North Sea oil rigs - how to get a special forces squad out there ASAP?

Attempts to put all the extra people in a modified front fuselage (in tandem pairs behind the pilot) raised balance issues, so there was an idea of putting a couple of people in the tail/equipment bay. Picture of this attached. Anyone who knows about the rear fuselage vibration issues on the Harrier would realise this was a non-starter - any budding James Bond type sitting there would soon be severely shaken, if not stirred.

Of course, there was a 'civil' Harrier, G-VTOL, Hawker Siddeley's Mk.52 demonstrator. That is as close as sense would allow a civil Harrier to get.
 

Attachments

  • HS1199mod.jpg
    HS1199mod.jpg
    8.5 KB · Views: 308
?Do I recall a scheme for underwing soldier-pods, like panniers on MASH choppers?
Civil V/STOL has always faltered at the cost. Always cheaper to clear a nearby modest space for a Dash-type on a LCY strip. The reason for demise even of military interest in Br.941, Do.31, HS681 was the hefty incremental cost for modest incremental capability. C-130 could go almost as close-up to the front line - rugged, semi-prepared fields - at sensible operating pain/cost, and be more efficient on a "normal" sortie.
 
Does anyone know of a side elevation drawing of R. Cox-Abel's 1960 'tuning fork' P.1127 study ? I'm only aware of the plan view in FK. Mason's Harrier book

Cheers, Joe
 

Attachments

  • 20231204_195946.jpg
    20231204_195946.jpg
    903.3 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
Well, there was the Harrier corporate plane in the well-known documentary "Contact..."

Contact_plane2.png
 
Woody said:
After reading the below article a friend asked me why no civil off shoot of the Harrier concept has ever been seen.




I've seen proposals using multiple wing mounted engines but nothing using a single central Pegasus. Obviously a passenger cabin would have to go above or below the engine (where it would need to be pretty narrow and heat proof) but that's still probably less challenging than a tiltrotor (?).

I wonder how it would compare to a small tiltrotor in terms of: cost, speed, range, payload.

Any information appreciated.

Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...
A. Single engine would be too small.
b. Too expensive to operate. (short range and small payload).
c. Too kludgy of a configuration.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom