Whatever, they both suck to be honest.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Protip: The harrier engine lacks an afterburner entirely, a major drawback, and when dry the F135 still has a noticeable power increase. The harrier's engine was also highly temperamental, and many planes were lost due to malfunctions mostly related to its VTOL capability. Try to get accurate representations of thrust, what i posted here were the official specs. Exaggerating numbers to prove your point only makes you look stupid.ThaReaper wrote:
I guess, I don't really like it. Good for the navy I suppose, that's about it though.FatherTed wrote:
VTOL isn't pointless, it's a great assest for the Navy.ThaReaper wrote:
It can't go supersonic around sea level, vertical take off is pointless, and it's over 30 years old.FatherTed wrote:
Proved itself great enough in the Falklands, and Afghanistan.ThaReaper wrote:
They need a better jet than the harrier, it really isn't that great.
It was never needed to go Supersonic, we have other jets for that.
And its about 50 years old.That's with the afterburners lit. The F-35 doesn't continously use them because if it did then it would run out of fuel in about 10-15 minutes. The F-35's maximum thrust without afterburners is about 25,000 pounds. The Harrier's is about 24,750 pounds. So they're virtually the same.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
The P&W F135 turbfan is the single most powerful jet engine ever made. Seeing how the F35 (OR the JCA, for you crazy tea sippers) is a single engine aircraft...
Assuming you are comparing the harriers engine
Harrier: 23,800 lb maximum thrust.
F35: 39,800 lb maximum thrust.
The F135 has already proven itself more than competent enough to perform the duties the F35 requires, plus a power boost.
IIRC: F136:39,950 lb maximum thrust.
The F136 has slightly greater engine thrust and noticeably greater cold thrust. The F135 provides greater thrust in the roll posts, and in the end it's only 150 pounds difference.
Yes, the 2 most powerful jet engines in the world suck.
Now, why dont you go back to bed before your immature and irrelevant 1-sentence replies cause me to pound you into obscurity, assuming that hasnt already happened.
Now, why dont you go back to bed before your immature and irrelevant 1-sentence replies cause me to pound you into obscurity, assuming that hasnt already happened.
Last edited by N00bkilla55404 (2008-06-16 16:36:46)
Quit the flaming, this was a thread about the Harrier, not an aeronautical-knowledge dick waving contest.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Yes, the 2 most powerful jet engines in the world suck.
Now, why dont you go back to bed before your immature and irrelevant 1-sentence replies cause me to pound you into obscurity, assuming that hasnt already happened.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Was I talking about there engines? No. I know how strong the F135 engine is, it's based off of the F-22's F119-PW-100 engine. I was talking about the Harrier in general. I don't like it's concept, so can you get off of my nuts, if you like it then that's fine. Just because it has an engine with 40,000 pounds of thrust doesn't mean that it's the best plane ever.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Yes, the 2 most powerful jet engines in the world suck.
Now, why dont you go back to bed before your immature and irrelevant 1-sentence replies cause me to pound you into obscurity, assuming that hasnt already happened.