Yes, and is 14,000 half of 28,000? I.e half of the thrust like he said?
I mean yeah
but how?
Yes 50% of the force pushing it forward and 86 % of the force pushing it up
so now
how much thrust has it?
is it a) 100%
or b) 126%
Exactly, that is precisely what EVERYONE here has been saying. No one else has claimed anything else.
*No one else
3 Likes
I had assumed 28,000 as a total and 14,000 as a half. Made the assumption that the acceleration would be equal both forward and up
But ohh well at least I learned and remembered things again.
Thanks you all
Probably will never hear the end of this one
3 Likes
The harrier hovers above mathematics I suppose
1 Like
heres a simplified version of the problem, maybe this will help
I’ll be honest, I didn’t think you’d ever concede.
It takes a lot of strength to admit when you have been wrong and I sincerely applaud you for having the strength to publicly admit it. Sadly not a lot of people that are able to do that. Thank you.
And for everyone else here In the thread, bringing this up as a point and argument in future discussions will do nothing but harm in the long run, less people would be willing to admit fault if the end result is long term ridicule.
3 Likes
gonna be difficult for him to top this one but im sure he will
3 Likes
I really appreciate that. Also thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. Helps me feel better about having just been a complete idiot lol.
At least I understand it now
3 Likes
But the vertical component of thrust being applied isn’t though the Center of Mass, so it’s going to impart a rotation that would need to be accounted for.
And as the Wings are similarly displaced (from the CoG) there would be an impact on the Mean aerodynamic chord depending on fuel state.
In short lift generated by the Wing will have a different effect on the airframe vs that generated by the motive directional vanes, so it makes some sense that VIFF have weird characteristics that don’t quite match up cleanly with trig functions, since the horizontal component still generates lift via the wing.
Yeah that would include levels of math that would give me nightmares.
For the basic thrust vector here I just assumed that 100% was the total force
A 50/80 split makes sense for a harrier at 60 degrees nozzle down
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
I knew this was coming
2 Likes
It’s funny that this is coming from a guy who fked up right at the very beginning.
MatrixRupture is an a^2 + b^2 = c^2 victim
2 Likes
.35 Mach 60 degrees of nozzle angle would result in
(As the jet is making 18411 lbs)
9,205 forward jet propulsion
And 15,943 lift jet propulsion
COS(60 degrees) .5 * 18,411 for 9,205
9205sqrt(3)=15,943.528
So at 233 knots ish the harrier is producing its weight in jet lift and providing 9,205 lbs of forward push at the 95.5% rpm setting
If I did that right
For 20 degree nozzle angle high speed turns
33424 lbs .85 Mach
COS(20) .9396*33424 is 31,405 Thrust pushing forwards
COS(70) is .342*33424=11,431.008 thrust pushing down
Sqrt(11,431^2+31,405^2)=33,420.679 within 4 lbs of original
So 20 degrees nozzle angle provides .737 G for the given AOA while retaining 93.9% of the forward flight thrust component.
If I did that correctly
Seems to follow trend at least theoretically. Resulting in a lower sustained turn rate due to the loss of forward thrust (6%) but it would be exposing less surface area to achieve any G above the sustained G resulting in less bleed rates potentially as the pilots and people said.
Lol please keep going. Its funny.
1 Like