After reading this thread -
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179290
-it got me thinking about some early experimental VTOL aircraft on this page -
http://208.56.150.96/wheel/wheel.htm
-and I have to wonder if the tail-sitter concept could be made practical now with modern computers and instruments to eliminate the landing difficulties that caused the idea to be scrapped.
We get to do one kick for the threads we start right?
I think the tail sitter concept as a whole was a waste. Landing and taking of vertically will eat through fuel, which is as much if not more expensive than back in the 60’s/70’s. Theres really no reason to. The Navy sponsored most of those projects IIRC to save space on carrier decks, modern carriers can be/are so massively large its not an issue. Planes now can fly around the world so the carrier and small foreign bases where these VTOL aircraft would be useful for short range missions have been obsoleted by longer running birds.
If VTOL is no longer needed the JSF would not have been built with that ability.
Carriers obsolete? Hmmm…that’ll be news to the Navy…I wonder what factual sources NevarMore has to back up his/her statements?
Kilt-wearin’ man:
I read NevarMore’s argument was more along the lines of:
“We don’t need small bases, and small carriers. A few large carriers can do the job.”
To expound on my feelings on this, think of the stupid little carriers the UK has, with their stupid little Harriers… I mean those things don’t exactly project whole lots of force in all directions the same way that let’s say… the USS Ronald Reagan does.
What’s the range on a Harrier again?
I was referring purely to the tailsitters in my response, shoulda said so. My sources are anectodtal, I don’t see the US Navy investing in smaller carriers, just maintaining its existing larger fleet. I shouldnt have stated that or added an IMHO. Mr. Woodall misinterpreted my observations as a statement of opinion, it wasn’t intended to be. Now that I’m done covering my ass, back on topic.
The whole idea behind VTOL aircraft is to save space, shorter or no runways, (for the Navy) no catapaults. Presently the American Navy and Airforce are set up to launch and support larger, non-VTOL, aircraft so there is little need to pursue VTOL technology. The British on the other hand lack the landmass, large carriers, and acess to other countries runways, thus they invested in the Harrier and thier ski-jump carrier decks.
Tying all this into the OP, experience from the failure of the Osprey (google: Osprey crash) project and the success of the Harrier combined with the new computer simulations as well as the more advanced control technology would most certainly allow a working tailsitter and improvements on current VTOL designs.
For some reason the systems that were used to correct the instabilities in the X-29 aircraft come to mind.
Space is always at a premium on an aircraft carier no matter how big it is, but saving space isn’t the only reason to use VTOL. Bases with runways are more difficult to defend.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, in its USMC/RAF variant the F-35B, is a supersonic V/STOL attack fighter. The Marines will fly them from carriers just as they currently do with F/A-18s and AV-8B Harriers. Marine Harrier squadrons fly from smaller carriers and amphibious assault ships because those resources fit the USMC and its missions - they like to keep their ground troops and close air support assets as integrated as possible.
Current Harriers are quite capable as close air support and strike aircraft - otherwise they would’ve been replaced by more capable aircraft in the mid-'80s instead of being redesigned and improved as they were.