BAe Sea Harrier - Technical data and discussion

[Flogger_cbs]

@Nowel

To it is added to the lift of the aircraft, but you esencially reduce the foward thrust of the plane, his point is about this foward motion

@FeetPics

In this configuration we have a plane with a thrust loading of 0.81lbs and a wing loading of 85lbs per square foot.

So wing loading and its induced drag are quantities we can just neglect? Because the vector of the vertical thrust component is close to the lift vector, meaning that deflecting the nozzle downward will also start to unload the wing.

[Necronomica]

@MatrixRupture

A 60 degrees nozzle angle does not equate to a 50/50 split in the total power output acting on both the horizontal and vertical vectors

a 45 degree nozzle angle does…

Correct, but that’s not what he or i have been saying. At 45 deg both of the vectors will be 70% the length of the resultant thus be of equal length and have a 50/50 split. At 60 degrees one of the vectors will be 50% the length of the resultant and the other will be 86,6% the length of the resultant. The split at 60 degrees will be approximately 58/42 .

Do you see how “split” and “percent of the resultant” are two different things ?

@MatrixRupture

He said before that at 60 degrees of nozzle 50% of the power would be applied horizontally

This is correct.

@MatrixRupture

so naturally the other 50 is vertical. That’s just wrong.

Correct, that statement is wrong, there is no “other 50%” because that’s not how you calculate that, it’s not a+b. I also have not seen him claim this.

I’m starting to wonder if this is a language barrier thing.

[Nowel]

@MatrixRupture

Its throwing thrust down pushing the aircraft up

Thrust is a reactive force, you “throw” air back which generate trust fowards

[MatrixRupture]

Here you go if you have a right angle with equal sides and you lay it down and apply force where does that force go

@Necronomica

it doesn’t end up like this

[ron_23]

@Necronomica

I’m starting to wonder if this is a language barrier thing.

its not, english is his first language

[MatrixRupture]

@Necronomica

This is correct.

no

[ron_23]

notice how it dosent add up to 20k lbs

almost as if thats what @Necronomica has been saying

[MatrixRupture]

congratulations, at 45 degrees nozzle angle the two forces are equal

[ron_23]

this is exactly what you have called @Necronomica a troll for

exactly what he has been saying

@Necronomica

A 45 degree offset produces a thrust vector 0.707 timers that of the total thrust.

the horizontal will be 70% of the total and the vertical will also be 70% of the total.

@MatrixRupture

great buddy you are a troll.

[Necronomica]

They are yes, but are they 50% of the total? no. they are about 70% of the total, both of them.

[MatrixRupture]

making them equal

[Morvran]

Anyway, back to watching this thread rather than taking part:

I dont have the energy at the moment

[ron_23]

like even his doc has been saying that

[ron_23]

@Necronomica

the horizontal will be 70% of the total and the vertical will also be 70% of the total.

thats what he has been saying

hello reading comprhension?

[Necronomica]

Yes, i have not claimed otherwise. No one here has. you just thing we have because you’re reading the things we are saying wrong

[MatrixRupture]

Mate for a given 28,000 pounds of gross thrust feet pics thinks that 50% of that will go backwards if the nozzles are 60 degrees biased forwards

[Necronomica]

That is correct.

50% of the input will be diverted to horizontal.

It will NOT be a 50% split between the two vectors.

Split VS percentage of input

[ron_23]

your chart only gives 20k lbs thrust
if the harrier has 28k lbs thrust why dosent it produce those when the nozzle is at 0°?

maybe its becasue you dont understand vectors and their components

[MatrixRupture]

The relationship does not correlate along the flightpath of the aircraft

I know that its correct for that given vector but the aircraft doesn’t exist on that plane.

[Flogger_cbs]

@Necronomica

Correct, that statement is wrong, there is no “other 50%” because that’s not how you calculate that, it’s not a+b. I also have not seen him claim this.

Then calculate the “other xx%” using the same method, what’s the problem? I feel like I’m also starting to lose track of what’s going on.