hold on I got something for ya, NVM they deleted them someone made like 8 copy and paste bug reports on the abrams armor and eventually they had to tell him to stop or he would get banned guess he got banned cause the bug reports are completely gone
update found it on page 13 guy made like 8 of these looks like only 4 are still there
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/P7pccPuxXQLo
Can Harrier II use AN/ALE-37?
To my knowledge no. But I can double check.
A2A IRST & missile guidance functionality for the AV-8B+ via LITENING AT TGP
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jS291jJ6zFv9
AGM-65E Seeker Range:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RePLOHOKVPZz
AGM-65E/E2/L Track Rate:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lAKr78Q8067L
AGM-65E/E2/L/F/G Warhead:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/elXPRxl5e8GA
AGM-65D/F/G IR Maverick incorrect FoV:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c0wIZ1uBCdhO
Litening II weight:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/k091OhJj9cVl
AV-8B Plus & AV-8B (NA) TPOD field of view:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uOxBQxBf0QY2
AV-8B Plus & AV-8B (NA) TPOD angular limits:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/UhZ4CTWQJF30
AV-8B Plus missing HUD symbology:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/poB1WKIYxvCr
Do you have proof of decrlasification for the A1-AV8BB-TAC-000?
APG-65Q (AV-8B Plus) ACM modes:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/7Zfe7nXeohWf
AV-8B (NA) and AV-8B Plus Empty mass:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PETOezHY4By5
AV-8B (NA) and AV-8B Plus Speed Limit and (Achievable) Top Speed (in level flight):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BLDl3m3HvmGF
AV-8B (NA) and AV-8B Plus Acceleration:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/EfRAOsqvDHBC
You tested the Turn rates wrong. You should be testing them with around 90% in game throttle.
110% throttle does not equal combat JPTL plug
They will adjust it based on their internal testing anyways
But it’s clear that the performance data is off
Given that even the empty weight is off …
Can you elaborate with screenshots from the source?
I used 100% throttle for the game
Just refer to any of my countless forum posts and bug reports and you will see it all when compared with various sources.
Also where did you get the empty weight, you must also remember that war thunder doesn’t take into account the weight of pylons.
You should be reporting on the Harriers AOA as IRL it can pull 40+ without any issues. Yet in game we are limited to about 25 with both the Harrier 1 and 2.
80% throttle is usually about “normal” max RPM
80+% is combat thrust
(100+ is water injection)
its why the engines overheat over 80% throttle
So do need to be careful when testing because in game throttles settings dont line up with IRL all that well
I’m pretty sure they take the weight of the pylons into account with the empty weight
But regardless, 6 pylons still doesn’t explain around 2400 pounds of weight difference …
And where did you come up with the empty weight as far as I recall localhost doesn’t even list overall weight.
In none of your bug reports I see a turn rate test either. LocalHost also doesn’t give turn rate, it gives G.
Yeah from the (classified) flight manual seems like combat thrust comes to around 92.5% throttle in the game based on JPT, assuming temp thrust curves are correct and that’s what the “engine” temp in the game indicates.
With 92.5% the turn performance is within 0.5 deg/s of the charts.
I edited out the turn rate parts.
Will look at the other reports as well.
I explained my calculation in the report
Yes the turn performance of the Harrier 2 is pretty close, however the climb rates AOA acceleration are too low.
The Harrier 1 turn rates are just not even close to their IRL standard.
A lot of work has already gone into just the Harriers flight performance.
They should also all have soot free exhaust and have very small IR signatures yet they burn very hot.
Speed limit is obviously not affected by throttle
Re-did the top speed with around 92.5-93% throttle (715 deg engine temp) and top speed was 0.91 instead of 0.92
Still a long way from around Mach 0.828 specified in the charts …
Acceleration should also still be valid
But unfortunately for you that is an H-M diagram and not top speed…
That’s not the top speed of the plane but more its ability to reach X height from X speed.
Although the difference is small lol.
Its still quite slow
