Maximizing Vertical Lift: VTOL Engine Designs in Fighter Jets

In summary: I could not find how much a Harrier consumes at 100 thrust off google. Either way it would not be 1 gal/sec like some one mentioned to me would it?Well, the Harrier carries about 1000 gallons of internal fuel alone.
  • #1
chris190
2
0
Greetings!

Would anyone know about how much fuel does a Harrier aircraft (with the Pegasus Turbo fan engine) consume when taking off verticaly?
I tried searching the net with no success.

Thank You
Chris
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
A lot :biggrin: .
 
  • #3
A lot? Arent you just re-directing thrust? Seems like at the most, it would consume its normal 100% thrust requirement.
 
  • #4
Since it's non-afterburning, it's probably less than most military jets at takeoff.
 
  • #5
Saying "A lot" I am not intending to say "A lot more than other jets":biggrin: (I was just kidding).
 
  • #6
Here's some help for you. The weight of an empty Harrier is 22,950lbs and it provides 23,800 lbs of thrust from its engines Pegasus Turbofan engine. In order to find the amount of fuel needed to take off you now need to find the amount of fuel consumed in order to achieve >97% of it's maximum thrust. I think that it is correct so maybe it should help you. Now all that you need to do is find out how much this Pegasus Turbofan engine fuel consumption at 97% is to achieve liftoff.
 
  • #7
You also have to remember that as the aircraft rises it will be consuming fuel reducing the thrust that is required to maintain a constant upward acceleration. Also as you do this to maintain a steady acceleration you must reduce the thrust to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio.
 
  • #8
I think they accelerate up as fast as possible (as opposed to steady acceleration) because you can only hover for a limited time. They can (although I may very well be wrong because I remember someone saying something contrary to this idea) hover for about 45 seconds because they have a limited supply of water to cool the engine which would normally be done by the passing air in flight.
 
  • #9
...It can hover for more than 45 sec. I went to two air shows that had Harriers and one of them was still at about 100-150 feet altitude in front of the crowd for at least 1 min then it slowly turned around and after about 2-3 min of downward thrust it started slowly to move forward until it achieved the required speed to use only the back thrust.
...I could not find how much a Harrier consumes at 100 thrust off google.
Either way it would not be 1 gal/sec like some one mentioned to me would it?
 
  • #10
Well, the Harrier carries about 1000 gallons of internal fuel alone. At a gallon a second, that's more than 15 minutes. It does seem a little high for the consumption rate, but it's conceivable.
 
  • #11
chris190 said:
...It can hover for more than 45 sec. I went to two air shows that had Harriers and one of them was still at about 100-150 feet altitude in front of the crowd for at least 1 min then it slowly turned around and after about 2-3 min of downward thrust it started slowly to move forward until it achieved the required speed to use only the back thrust.
...I could not find how much a Harrier consumes at 100 thrust off google.
Either way it would not be 1 gal/sec like some one mentioned to me would it?

Well beats me, i read it a long time ago after watching True Lies. Guess hollywood screwed me again.
 
  • #12
is there anyone still interested in this question, the thread looks pretty old and i might add a little on it.
 
  • #13
Add away. The harrier has always interested me.
 
  • #15
aviation measures in weights rather then gallons and of course in the US it is in pounds, had to mention becuase there are aroung 6 countries that use the harrier. the hover limitation is not solely on a time bases but on liitations of fuel availability and temperature of the engine so as not to damage it, and there is the outside temperature that has a direct impact on engine performance, everything is based on engine performance. Water is not required but it is preferred as it does help cool the engine temperature, more on that next time true believers.
 
  • #16
The water on a Harrier doesn't diectly cool the engine.
It is injected into the exhaust after the engine - the purpose is to cool and increase the density of the output jet (a kind of anti-afterburner) it also increases the engine power by condensing the exhaust and so sucking more air out of the engine.

A lightly loaded harrier (such as at an airshow) with no external stores can hover pretty much indefinately without using cooling water, certainly in the cold wet rainy conditions that are traditional at British airshows. Although they generally try and move slowly forward while hovering for a long time, injesting hot oxygen poor exhaust back into the engine intake is a problem if hovering in still conditions.

Water cooling is needed for take off with heavy combat payloads or in desert conditions - but becauuse of the fuel required for a VTOL take off, they prefer runways (or catapults) if possible.
 
  • #17
the water is injected in three stages, the first is in the cooling air supply for some early turbines, the second is is in the combustion chamber air flow and the third is directly into the combustion chamber. it does not directly improve thrust but reduces engine temperature allowing the engine to work at higher rpms and indirectly improves thrust, i don't believe that i have ever seen a harrier use a catapult but that does not mean that it has never happened.
 
  • #18
Yes you're right, the Harrier doesn't use a catapult but does have a clever little ski jump on British carriers.
These were originally designed for helicopters only so a bit of ingenuity was required to operate aircraft from them. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0281b.shtml The US Marines don't use the ski jump - I think this is because US Navy practice is to store most aircraft on the deck and the ski jump reduces available deck area.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
your right, the navy is stingy in the space, and now that i think about it i have seen the jumps your talking about.
 
  • #20
The US Navy does have roll off takeoffs, but as mentioned, they don't use the ramps the Europeans do.
 
  • #21
Hm - can't seem to edit posts any more?
By 'these' I meant the carriers were designed for helicopters and so didn't have catapults.
When the Sea Harrier was introduced it was too expensive and heavy to fit nosegear strong enough to take a catapult launch - so the ski jump was invented.
Like most new military kit (especially Navy) it took a long time for anyone to accept it.

One big advantage of a rolling take off is the rate at which you can get planes off the deck - without having to wait for a catapult reset, the Harriers can take off almost nose-to-tail.
 
  • #22
But I had heard that the main advantage of the ski-jump was the reduced fuel consumption. Which is probably what mtivated the OP of this thread. Is thrate of consumtion for hovbering merely the same rate as traveling at full throttle? I assume that, when using the ski-jump, the planes still take off using max thrust, so the rate of fuel consumtion should be the same, yes? And yet, the AV8-B almost always uses a rolling take off, and the reason mentioned is always "to save fuel" (along with the ability to lift a heavier takeoff weight).
 
  • #23
In a regular aircraft, the specific fuel consumption (SFC or TSFC) increases with airspeed and altitude. That is because the thrust falls off faster with altitude than fuel flow does. However, I have a gut feeling that this does not cover the hover scenario. My gut tells me that the engine has got to be less efficient at a hover. I say that because I know a hover is not the same as a static engine run at sea level. I'll have to do some digging to see if I can find anything on that.
 
  • #24
The fuel consumption is a lot higher in hover than rolling take off.
The ski jump has a couple of advantages - it converts some of the forward velocity into upward velocity more quickly than the wings alone, and since you are flying nose up when you leave the deck there is more time to eject in an emergency such as an engine failure.
There is an entire site devoted to this unique plane http://www.harrier.org.uk/

In another Physics link - in 1983 a harrier got lost on an exercise and ended up landing on a Spanish container ship near Teneriffe. The big flat crate it landed on was carrying the base plate for one of the British Telescopes on La Palma. There is a photo of the landing in the tea room there.
 
  • #25
Yes, I too am certain that consumption is much greater in hover than at full throttle in forward flight. Some fo that innefficiency, I'm sure, is due to the movement of air in front of the intakes. Helicopters, for example, never take off straight up unless they have to. Once a helo starts to hover, taking in air from above itself to puch downward and create upward thrust, the collum of air above the bird begins to move. As the blades grab this air that is already moving, they get less of a bite, and less thrust. So, they always prefer to move forward slightly as they climb, so the blades are biting into stationary air. I'm sure the air in front of the intakes of a hovering Harrier must ebhave in a similar fashion.

It is odd, though, that I did a search and can't find any numbers on how much gas the AV8-B consumes during hover.
 
  • #26
LURCH said:
Yes, I too am certain that consumption is much greater in hover than at full throttle in forward flight. Some fo that innefficiency, I'm sure, is due to the movement of air in front of the intakes. Helicopters, for example, never take off straight up unless they have to. Once a helo starts to hover, taking in air from above itself to puch downward and create upward thrust, the collum of air above the bird begins to move. As the blades grab this air that is already moving, they get less of a bite, and less thrust. So, they always prefer to move forward slightly as they climb, so the blades are biting into stationary air. I'm sure the air in front of the intakes of a hovering Harrier must ebhave in a similar fashion.

It is odd, though, that I did a search and can't find any numbers on how much gas the AV8-B consumes during hover.

What you are referring to in regards to a rolling takeoff vs. a vertical is a rotor blade aerodynamic issue, not really an engine issue. By having some forward translation, the induced velocity of the rotor flow is reduced which makes the AoA increase with the same collective position, thus to maintain, the collective is lowered and reducing required power. You also have tip vorticies that reduce effectiveness in a hover. Once you add any forward speed those issues decrease.

I can not find any info either on Harrier consumption at a hover. I am still looking though.
 
  • #27
the fuel consumption at hover is higher because the aerodynamics of the aircraft are not able to work on the aircraft but the plane will limit itself in regards to temperature and engine rpm, i will work on finding some general numbers in regards to fuel consumption durring hover, that is after all what this thread is suppose to be about. at idle it consumes in the mid 200's ppm, and idles in the higher 20 range of rpm percentages depending on elevation.
 
  • #28
I've always been interested in the harrier, but don't know too much about them - I'm only 14. Does the actual aircraft fly with its 4 hover nozzles as well as vertically taking off or does it just use it jet engine on its own while flying normally?
 
  • #29
Olly Rogers said:
Does the actual aircraft fly with its 4 hover nozzles as well as vertically taking off or does it just use it jet engine on its own while flying normally?
The hover nozzles are just the exhaust from the single jet engine. It points them backwards and the thrust comes out of the back, pushing the plane forward, or you can tilt them downwards forcing the exhaust down and pushing the plane up.

A couple of conventional jet fighters can steer the output nozzles of their jet engines a few degrees to provide a little more maneuverability.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
mgb_phys said:
There hover nozzles are just the exhaust from the single jet engine. It points them backwards and the thrust comes out of the back, pushing the plane forward, or you can tilt them downwards forcing the exhaust down and pushing the plane up.

A couple of conventional jet fighters can steer the output nozzles of their jet engines a few degrees to provide a little more maneuverability.

Thanks mate :P
 
  • #31
The Harrier has less structural fuel capacity than mentioned in the forum but outboard tanks fix flight time problems as mission requirements demand. The engines are intercooled turbofans which means that air is not a problem. An internal sealed coolant system takes care of that and shuts off at preset vertical speed and altitude.
 
  • #32
mgb_phys said:
In another Physics link - in 1983 a harrier got lost on an exercise and ended up landing on a Spanish container ship near Teneriffe. The big flat crate it landed on was carrying the base plate for one of the British Telescopes on La Palma. There is a photo of the landing in the tea room there.
It's funny how one remembers things from a while back. I knew I had heard this before when I saw this picture:

8233591f6329d56e25.jpg


A good thread here:
http://rus-military.livejournal.com/51607.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
mgb_phys said:
A couple of conventional jet fighters can steer the output nozzles of their jet engines a few degrees to provide a little more maneuverability.

The F-22 has one of the most unique designs like this. There is also that "other" VTOL plane the US has been playing with for years. It has a single main engine where the output can twist 90* so it faces down twards the ground it out behind the plane. It also has the 2nd fan in the middle of the Fuelsalage (sp) to balance the vertical lift. I wish I could remember a name so I could post a picture.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Thermodynamics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
16
Views
22K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • General Engineering
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • General Engineering
Replies
4
Views
12K
  • Sticky
  • Aerospace Engineering
2
Replies
48
Views
60K
Back
Top