BAe Sea Harrier - Technical data and discussion

No response to the rest? Just a haymaker?

just calculate it yourself what angle (α) do you need that the horizontal component equals half (10k lbs) of the hypothenuse (20k lbs)
image

that way you can prove that 45° is the right awnser

Just never fly a harrier and youll be fine. Or you’ll be accelerated straight up off the ground and crash.

Okay then, do the math yourself and prove it.

You have 20k force in. At what angle does one of the components become half of that, i.e 10k? and what does the other component become?

;)

Afraid to be proven wrong? Come on, do the math, see what happens :)

Or better yet, take it to an expert and see what they say.

I'll just drop these here as well.

I hope you’re not doing this on purpose and if you are i really hope you think twice about it before doing it again.

1 Like

To achieve equal parts force and acceleration up and forwards 45 degrees of nozzle angle is needed.

No need for math, experts did it for me.

image_2026-04-20_002704872

so you dont want to do the math?

either you cant or you dont want to for some reason

just show us how right you are by doing the math
that way you can easily settle this by proving everyone wrong

omg this thread reminds me of the time learning vector addition, like head to tail method, tail to tail, components method, trig method, etc back in physics 11. takes me back

Not what i asked.

That is what is needing to be solved

and the math expers say that at 60° that the thrust has 50% a horizontal component of the thrust at 0°

this is using force

No, it isn’t. Please answer what i asked.

what is thrust?

if not a force

In feetpics assessment he used a total gross thrust of 28,000 used the COS(60 degrees) and got 14,000

sqrt(14,000^2+14,000^2) = 19,798.98

he then used half of 28,000 to calculated the Harriers horizontal thrust loading.

he came up with a .81 TWR pushing the plane forwards

The FeetPics conspiracy to keep the Harrier dog shit goes all the way to the top.

5 Likes

Why are you using 14,000 for the other component? no one has said to do that.

please answer the question exactly as i asked it.

I just did his math thats all

if you want the other component you need the tan not the cos
its COS(60) + TAN(60)