Debates
27 Dec 07
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAn osprey is used for troop transport. The harrier is an attack aircraft. They serve two different purposes.
Is one design superior to the other? What are the relative advantages and disadvantages? I imagine the Harrier is faster in airplane mode. Does it eat more fuel or something?
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by usmc7257I know. I'm wondering why the one technology is used for one and the other for the other. Would a cannon armed Osprey be more efficient than a Harrier? Would a transport with tilt jets be better than the Osprey?
An osprey is used for troop transport. The harrier is an attack aircraft. They serve two different purposes.
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyou can't compare the two.
Is one design superior to the other? What are the relative advantages and disadvantages? I imagine the Harrier is faster in airplane mode. Does it eat more fuel or something?
Go to this site and see the F35 that will replace the Harrier...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2007/1218ae_f35b_rollout.html
It will be STOVL , supercruise and stealthy with force vectoring... very cool airplane. I want one for my birthday.
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyMake sure you can afford the ammo.
you can't compare the two.
Go to this site and see the F35 that will replace the Harrier...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2007/1218ae_f35b_rollout.html
It will be STOVL , supercruise and stealthy with force vectoring... very cool airplane. I want one for my birthday.
Granny.
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm actually not interested in a model-to-model comparison. I'm interested in a comparison of propeller driven vs. jet driven VTOL aircraft.
you can't compare the two.
Go to this site and see the F35 that will replace the Harrier...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2007/1218ae_f35b_rollout.html
It will be STOVL , supercruise and stealthy with force vectoring... very cool airplane. I want one for my birthday.
Why can't you compare the two?
28 Dec 07
well, you can compare them but not to say one is better, because each is better at its particular role than the other is.
maybe you can carry one extra person in a harrier. not a bunch, like the osprey can.
the harrier should be much faster than the osprey at max speed.
i don't think any competitive air force still uses props on attack planes or fighters.
but a lot of the heavy bombers still do. maybe it would be too expensive to just trash the whole b-52 fleet. the wikipedia article says it has low operating costs:
"Superior performance at high subsonic speeds and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in service despite proposals to replace it with the Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie, supersonic B-1B Lancer and stealthy B-2 Spirit. In January 2005, the B-52 became the second aircraft, after the English Electric Canberra, to mark 50 years of continuous service with its original primary operator."
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotB-52s have jet engines.
well, you can compare them but not to say one is better, because each is better at its particular role than the other is.
maybe you can carry one extra person in a harrier. not a bunch, like the osprey can.
the harrier should be much faster than the osprey at max speed.
i don't think any competitive air force still uses props on attack planes or ...[text shortened]... lectric Canberra, to mark 50 years of continuous service with its original primary operator."
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot having the data its hard to say what the design constraints are, but it would be a good guess that the efficiency of the osprey's rotors mean that it can take a much greater payload for a given airframe size for a given mission profile. The downside of the prop aircraft is that you are always looking at a subsonic transport. Why you would probably not use the osprey in attack is that in having VTOL/STVOL capability it is very overweight when compared to a craft that can fly a similar payload/crew-personnel/mission profile. Those tilt rotors add weight and with weight comes decreased in flight maneuverability which means that once the osprey slows down to hover its a massive sitting duck.
I know. I'm wondering why the one technology is used for one and the other for the other. Would a cannon armed Osprey be more efficient than a Harrier? Would a transport with tilt jets be better than the Osprey?
On the other hand the harrier and especially the US Navy's B variant with its short ski jump take off launch is a very good attack craft in certain well defined environments. Try to make it into a carrier transport and you would find that the increase in airframe size to house that crew would lead you in a circular iteration of incremental weight increases (larger turbofans/jets, larger fuel supply, larger wings, larger fuselage etc etc)that by the time you found your optimal weight sizing you would probably not be able to afford to operate the beast.
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwell, I'll try to compare for ya I suppose. Have you ever seen an osprey? They are very quiet in the air (once in plane mode). For the VTOL part, harriers are required to dump alot of fuel before it lands vertically. They always wanted to climb to 6,500 feet in order to adjust gross weight before landing. Going up to this altitude and dumping is said to make the fuel evaporate before it hits the ground. I guess you could say that the Osprey is more effecient in this way. There is no ejecting from an Osprey though. Harriers are going to be discontinued soon to make room for a new VSTOL a/c called the joint strikefighter. The air force, navy, and marines will each get a different version or it if I remember correctly. Sorry, I rambled.
I'm actually not interested in a model-to-model comparison. I'm interested in a comparison of propeller driven vs. jet driven VTOL aircraft.
Why can't you compare the two?
prop VSTOL = quiter, slower
jet VSTOL= louder, faster😉
28 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziIn fairness to Thousand, he was inquiring about the possible advantages/disadvantages of the method for VTOL, that is the Osprey's wings actually shifting from helicopter type flight to airplane flight versus the downward porting of thrust in the Harrier. He wasn't implying the applications of the two aircraft could be compared.
comparing the two is like comparing a car with a cargo truck
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Osprey is a lot easier to fly and transition between VTOL and regular flight, but I'm basing that on nothing but a gut instinct. Any VTOL fans out there that know what they're talking about?