The F-35 vs. The Harrier Jump-Jets

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Yellow13

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 14:40
  • Location: Columbus, Ohio

Unread post03 Jun 2005, 14:29

Maybe we've already talked about this but I was watching something on TV about the Harriers and how much they suck last night...

Does the F-35 have the same VTOL and flight problems that the Harriers do? Along with the tech and cockpit problems?
"Hellooo, sky! I'm comin' home!" -HeartbreakOne
Offline

mcashe

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 22:29

Unread post03 Jun 2005, 19:09

If they were the same, that would mean our government is wasting money on the F-35. The F-35 is completely different from the Harrier. Its biggest difference is that the Harrier uses direct-lift whereas the F-35 uses a shaft-driven lift fan system. Here's a link.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca.htm#top
Offline

Happy_Gilmore

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 295
  • Joined: 15 May 2004, 00:57

Unread post03 Jun 2005, 19:46

Only one X-35 STOVL version has flown so far and it was pretty flawless during flight test, first airplane to ever take off in STOVL mode then transition to supersonic flight, not bad for a first attempt.
I would bet if any harrier pilots were to read your post they would fire back and say what a bad a$$ jet the Harrier actually is. Besides I saw the same show and it doesn't say the Harrier sucks, it said early Harriers had a bad problem with their flight control system, but later versions AV-8B's were great jets.
Offline

falconfixer860261

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 17 May 2005, 15:21

Unread post03 Jun 2005, 19:49

USAF version doesn't have any vertical lift problems. :salute: :wink:
Offline

swanee

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2005, 23:08

Unread post03 Jun 2005, 19:58

They have a STOVL F-35 in the Dulles part of the Air and Space Museum.
Life is too short for ugly sailboats, fat women and bad beer!
Offline

falconfixer860261

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 17 May 2005, 15:21

Unread post03 Jun 2005, 20:06

swanee wrote:They have a STOVL F-35 in the Dulles part of the Air and Space Museum.


And boy did that one have problems....
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77006

Unread post03 Jun 2005, 22:10

The differences are many and huge. Imagine the Viper with STOVL, update all the Vipers basic design technology by 40 years and then make the comparison and you ought to be close.

One of the X-35C test pilots was a RAF Harrier pilot. I heard him say (on TV) that the X-35C was much better during vertical take-off and landing because it did not suffer from the sudden and critical power loss the Harrier does close to the ground. My understanding is that this power loss is dues to the engine sucking in hot air from its own engine exhaust; while the X-32C (if that is what it was called) had the same problem as the Harrier, as the vertical lift principal were the same direct-lift as the Harrier.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

VPRGUY

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2005, 18:03

Unread post04 Jun 2005, 01:03

Close, but the VTOL version is the B model. Good info in there though :)
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Offline

Yellow13

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 14:40
  • Location: Columbus, Ohio

Unread post04 Jun 2005, 16:20

So ok, that answers my questions about the VTOL, but what about the cockpit lay-out? and besides the F-35's supersonic cap.s which would win in a fullball?
"Hellooo, sky! I'm comin' home!" -HeartbreakOne
Offline

Polaris

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2005, 01:03

Unread post04 Jun 2005, 19:39

F-35's cockpit is far more sophistocated than the Harrier's. This only makes sense when you consider the time periods from which the two fighters originate. The F-35 is a new 5th generation fighter, so obviously, it's displays are going to be more advanced. In a fight, the F-35 would dominate the Harrier hands down. Again, there's the time difference in technology. The main advantage the F-35 has, in my opinion, is a much higher thrust to weight ratio and the ability to escape from battle should it become necessary, as the F-35 can go supersonic.
Offline

Viperalltheway

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post06 Jun 2005, 14:53

The F-35 doesn't have a much better t/w ratio:

From toan's numbers:

T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):
  • F-35B: 0.923~0.992 / 0.603 (F-135, 40,000 ~ 43,000 Ib / 26,100 Ib *1): Score: 0.726~0.781 / 0.703
For the AV-8B:
  • Power Plant: TAV-8B/AV-8B Day Attack (DA): One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-406 turbofan engine with approximately 20,280 pounds of thrust
    AV-8B Night Attack (NA)/AV-8B
  • Radar: One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408A turbofan engine with approximately 22,200 pounds of thrust
  • Empty weight: AV-8B 6,336 kg / TAV-8B 6,451kg
Source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/av-8.htm

However, the F-35 obviously has a better range, better loadout and better speed, given the fact that it is about twice as big, carries much more fuel and is designed for supersonic speed.
Offline

trailmix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2004, 16:39

Unread post06 Jun 2005, 19:30

lamoey wrote:My understanding is that this power loss is dues to the engine sucking in hot air from its own engine exhaust


Yeah exactly, its the same reason you get a power loss when you apply carb heat. Hotter air f*cks the fuel mixture and you get a performance/power reduction.
Squawk 1-2-0-0, resume own navigation~
Offline

Polaris

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2005, 01:03

Unread post06 Jun 2005, 20:25

The F-35 doesn't have a much better t/w ratio:


Seeing your evidence, I stand corrected. I guess the Harrier can't do supersonic because of its draggy airframe then.
Offline

VPRGUY

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2005, 18:03

Unread post06 Jun 2005, 21:03

That, and the engine design. Think of it like a car; you can take a powerful motor and set up the gearing to go stupid fast, or set it up to have incredible low-end torque. Of course you can't 'gear' a motor but I imagine you can manufacture it to develope most of its power at lower speeds, like the harrier, or for higher speeds (like the F-35), which may also be why they went with the lift fan idea.
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Offline

Yellow13

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 14:40
  • Location: Columbus, Ohio

Unread post07 Jun 2005, 00:25

So, it's the fan that's the diff.? It takes care of the "intakes sucking back in hot air" problem?
"Hellooo, sky! I'm comin' home!" -HeartbreakOne
Next

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests