AV-8A Harrier Gr.1: History, performance, and discussion

[MatrixRupture]

In Thrust We Trust

The AV-8A Harrier is the USMC variant of the Hawker Harrier Gr. mk.1. Originally this aircraft was known at the Harrier Mk.50. The AV-8A when it entered service in 1970 was near identical to the British Harrier Gr.1. However the final AV-8A had the INS nav/attack system removed and new, American VOR and TACAN style navigation was added.

The AV-8C is a mid lift update of the AV-8A. The AV-8C added the AN/ALR-45F RWR, AN/ALE-39(AN/APR-43 receiving set) with AN/ALE-29 dispenser units. The instillation of LIDS to the forward fuselage were added to greatly improve vertical landing performance. A DI/WAC (Digital Interface Weapons Aiming Computer) replaced the old Smiths IWAC (Interface Weapons Aiming computer). Newer radios and secure speech units where replaced and added. Finally the last change was a duel combiner HUD with a wider FOV and better display clarity.

The AV-8C removed the standby sight and recce camera. After adding all these updates, the AV-8C only increased in gross weight by 186 lbs. The AV-8C was, by far, the best Ground attack variant of the Harrier 1 family.

Performance (clean aircraft):

Spoiler

Maximum speed at sea level: 620 knots (640 at the war rating)

Operating altitude: Sea Level - 45,000 feet

Turn capabilities (Wingborne): Sustained Turn rate 14.5 D/S - Instantaneous 20 D/S

Rate of climb: 122 M/S (24,000 feet per minute)

Mach number limit: 1.25

IAS limit: none self limiting

Gear extension speed: 250 knots

Flap extension speed: Variable depending on airspeed

Major Modeling errors:

Spoiler

Too many to list all of them here, I do really want to point out these however. In the Datamined files the Harrier 1 has a very incorrect wing profile.

Sweep 35 in game vs 40 IRL

Taper ratio 2.7 vs 3.175 (This is significant as it greatly alters the way the aircraft makes lift.)

The Coefficient of lift values are approximately .1 below the IRL figures for any given AOA and Mach number.

Weapons:

Spoiler

Cockpit (AV-8A and AV-8C)

Spoiler

This is the IRL cockpit for the AV-8C. All of the added systems can be seen scattered throughout.

This if for the AV-8A, its easy to see the minor changes from the Gr.1

WIP

[exeisdefeatable]

Nice

[MatrixRupture]

Yes

Gaijin messing up the wing aspect ratio and sweep is unacceptable.

Aspect ratio defines how efficient a wing is and how it produces lift a higher number is usually better.

3.175 irl vs 2.7 in game ???

@Smin1080p_WT

I have heard that bug reports are not allowed to be made based on the data mine.

How would a mistake this significant be reported then?

[Alpharius11348]

it helps if you actually know what you want to bug report

and that it is actually wrong

because taper ratio =/= aspect ratio, they are very different numbers and measure very different things

but clearly you cant even make a simple google search and see how absurdly wrong you are, if you could you would make less than half the posts you do

Spoiler

@MatrixRupture

Yes

Gaijin messing up the wing aspect ratio and sweep is unacceptable.

Aspect ratio defines how efficient a wing is and how it produces lift a higher number is usually better.

3.175 irl vs 2.7 in game ???

@Smin1080p_WT

I have heard that bug reports are not allowed to be made based on the data mine.

How would a mistake this significant be reported then?

[MatrixRupture]

Maybe have you considered gaijin labels taper ratio as aspect ratio and taper ratio is undefined.

Taper ratio would be the variance of the thickness of the wing from the root to the tip.

That value doesn’t affect nearly as much. The value is from 0-1.

If you look at gaijins number it’s 2.7 they are almost certainly referring to the aspect ratio.

Taper ratio can only fall between 0 and 1 in most aerodynamic profiles anyways.

Even if gaijin used wing taper ratio and not aspect ratio it’s still incorrect.

[YEARoftheEAGLE]

didn’t you get told off about this stuff already? you don’t even understand how this variable is used in the game engine man

[MatrixRupture]

No I’ve never brought this up before.

But it’s literally just incorrect. The Harrier 1 has a 40 degree sweet wing designed for high transonic speeds.

[Alpharius11348]

@MatrixRupture

Maybe have you considered gaijin labels taper ratio as aspect ratio and taper ratio is undefined.

Taper ratio would be the variance of the thickness of the wing from the root to the tip.

That value doesn’t affect nearly as much. The value is from 0-1.

If you look at gaijins number it’s 2.7 they are almost certainly referring to the aspect ratio.

or maybe you should understand how ratios work, because especially for game design where you want to minimize the resource demand of every mathematical process it makes sense to store the reciprocal of a ratio to reduce system demands

@MatrixRupture

Even if gaijin used wing taper ratio and not aspect ratio it’s still incorrect.

thank you for proving yourself wrong too

as it is within rounding error

@MatrixRupture

That value doesn’t affect nearly as much.

it actually has a lot of impact on parasitic drag, specifically in how they can model it

[MatrixRupture]

Why are you rounding and dividing random numbers lol.

[Alpharius11348]

HOW

how do you not understand this simple stuff

1 over a ratio, is still a ratio of the same things and I explained why they might do that

[MatrixRupture]

Im not going to argue with you.

You can now read what the Harriers Aerodynamicist has to say about the aspect ratio and how it affects lift dependent drag.

[Alpharius11348]

ok?

and?

its not wrong in game, your whole argument was “I dont know what this number does so clearly its actually this completely different number that I also dont really understand”

[MatrixRupture]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[YEARoftheEAGLE]

case in point, you don’t understand how it’s used in the game engine

[MatrixRupture]

They are the most basic of wing planform values.

Even if the Taper ratio is undecided the wing sweep values are basic.

F-86 in the files has a 35 degree sweep IRL its 35 degrees.

[tripod2008]

As to the weapons, the Sidewinders should be SEAM enabled it’s mentioned in the Electronics Section.

Implementing “Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode” (SEAM)

---

[MatrixRupture]

Is SEAM even in game?

[tripod2008]

Partially, SEAM comprises two methods (Seeker slaving, and Scanning) Seeker slaving is obviously modeled and the scanning effect is modeled on HUD is on many aircraft, but it doesn’t shift the Sidewinder iFoV.

[MatrixRupture]

Not quite.

It’s correct in game, you need to point to get the lock - then you are free for 40 degrees of gimbal.

However the HUD symbology for it all is missing.

[tripod2008]

@MatrixRupture

It’s correct in game, you need to point to get the lock

What I’m saying is that the iFoV of the Sidewinder doesn’t nutate like it should as if it was aligned with what the HUD shows.

Effectively the FoR of a boresighted Sidewinder should be significantly larger than it is prior to locking on, due to the scanning effect. In game it remains at 2.6 degrees instead of the 4.6 it would be if SEAM scan was implemented. As detailed in the report this effects all of the Teen series as well.

as described in Paragraph .5

@tripod2008