Replies

Presuming that there is a real need for a fast VTOL transport, tell me again why Harrier technology won't work....

It was not my intent to badmouth the Harrier. But I will anyway. The Harrier is the Marines CAS (Close Air Support aircraft. It cost about $30 million a copy vs the A-10s $3 million a copy. The Harrier has short legs and short loiter time. About 1/3rd that of A-10. It is not a robust aircraft. It has fuel over, under and around the intake. It is full of high temperature tubing to provide Vstol control. It does not have a the mighty 30-mm armored killer. It has maybe 4 munitions passes per sortie. The A-10 has maybe 20 if you count the cannon which I do.

Even though investment cost of the Harrier is 10 fold greater than the A-10 it generates about .5 sorties per day. The A-10 generates 1.5 sorties per day. You get the equivalent of 3 fleets of fighters per airframe.

It can not take off loaded in VSTOL. When loaded out it needs a runway albeit a shorter one. It has the worst accident record of any jet fighter by far.

There is a technology called Short take off and land.(STOAL) It consists of bush pilot type technology. Lots of low speed wing, low wing loading, lots of flaps and a big engine putting air across the wing. It would cost about 10% of the the Harrier approach. It would be extremely robust easy to maintain and we could get many times more for the same investment.

The Harrier approach for a troop carrier /transport is a non sequeter. Once loaded it is no longer VSTOL. It does fine empty.

Godspeed, The Dilg

And you told me again! That's why I include the Harrier on my "solution in search of a problem" list. A complex AC like the Harrier cannot "live" in forward areas despite it being "designed" to.

The fallacy in the whole V-22 concept is that VTOL is needed or has ever been practical.

Hueys were theoretically capable of hovering out of ground effect at a significant altitude on a standard day. In Vietnam's Central Highlands where they had to operate tactically, the typical ground level density altitude precluded hovering out of ground effect at all. The routine was to fly them like STOL aircraft -- fly into the LZ on a final approach, enter ground effect, flare, touch down. Taking off was coming to a hover in ground effect, accelerating while staying in it until enough airspeed was obtained to climb and fly out. What made it all work was that improved surfaces and complex landing gear weren't necessary.

The Army had a twin transport built by DeHavilland designated a C7 Caribou, which was taken over by the USAF in the late '60s. I once saw about 30 ARVN soldiers board one along with a jeep and other equipment to take off from An Khe one summer. I was convinced it had to be overloaded, but it was at about a thousand feet above the runway end as it passed overhead.

STOL works, it's well proven, and it's cheap. One of the best examples I'm familiar with is the Helio Courier, a turboprop tail dragger that basically only needs a short area without too many tree stumps or large rocks.

A significant percentage of the world has a brushy ground cover and terrain that's unsuitable for any aircraft. It's also nearly impossible for a human to traverse without the use of a machete. Once troops are inserted, two problems remain: they have to be supported, and they have to be extracted. There are simply a bunch of acres of briar patches and mountain sides where that's not going to be possible via aircraft. There will always be some degree of humping that troops will need to do.