I said it’s sustained turn performance is worse
Yet it’s still better than the F-4E
However it’s instantaneous turn performance is better, and the slower you go the more the harriers ITR advantage increases.
At 250 knots for example with 80% internal fuel it will have a faster instantaneous turn rate then the MiG-21 with 70% internal fuel
The red eagles proved that most western 4th gen’s will lose to a fished if they make the mistake of going slow with it, and a harrier out does even that.
Do you legitimately not know how to read? The document you are quoting says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
The chart you are using shows maximum ITR for the MiG-21 at a smudge over 20 degrees per second. If your top document is a comparison against MiG-21 then it puts the Harrier ITR at around 14 degrees per second at 5,000 feet. It’s ITR would be slightly better at sea level due to denser air.
And would you look at that! The Harrier GR.5 has a listed maximum ITR at sea level of 15.2 degrees per second which consequently appears to line up with your own documentation that you cite as proving that it’s “better”. The advantage that is being described in your document is extremely situational and very similar to what the pilot is describing in the interview that you posted.
Note that British MOD documentation also lists the F-4Es ITR being higher than the Harrier GR.5 while carrying a drop tank + 4 missiles, and a similar sustained turn rate. It’s also just straight inferior to all of the 4th Generation fighters listed as well.
This whole idea that the Harrier is a superb dogfighter and comparable to 4th Generation fighters is something that you have hallucinated through extremely selective reading of available documentation.
Hm. I may have another image of one with bombs, I’ll check when I get off work, not sure if it’s the FRS.1
18 but again you don’t know your documents I already explained to you they used buffet onset in you’re eft docs and not the lift boundary
As the Harrier 2 will do over 15 D/S with a full load of cluster bombs. (15 and 18 specifically for .5 Mach with the max ITR being even better at the G limit)
It would also be hilarious if a 75% fuel weight Gr.3 had a better ITR then the Gr.5
With the Gr.3 doing about 18 D/S as its maximum ITR
There you go again not reading things in full, or maybe it’s selective reading of my “delusional documents”
At 250 knots it has a slight advantage in ITR
That puts a Harrier 1 at doing over 16 D/S at 250 knots. If we compare it to the MiG-21 chart directly. Also being a higher value at sea level in denser air.
If only we could figure out how to read.
If only we knew how to read the English language we would learn that these turn figures are predictions. Not only that but we might notice that these predictions are at 0.5 Mach and not .65 Mach like in the ESR documents.
Okay lets use this one as well.
Note how it reaches a whole 17.5 degrees per second initial turn rate at sea level. Or how it reaches around 13.5 degrees per second at 10K feet. In 10K feet altitude difference it loses about 4 degrees per second in ITR. If we split the difference and assume that the ITR at 5K feet would be halfway between the SL and 10K value then we can do some simple arithmetic to get a 5K feet ITR value of 15.5 degrees per second at 450 KCAS.
Our best corner speed for the MiG-21 at 5000 feet is a smidge over 20 degrees per second at .55 Mach or 340 KCAS. At the same speed the Harrier in your chart would only be doing around 13.5 degrees per second; once again just splitting the difference between the SL and 10K values.
Now what is the difference between 20.5 and 13.5? Let’s do some simple math.
20.5 - 13.5 = 7
The difference in our predicted ITR is around 7 degrees per second. Where have we seen this before?
Oh wait it is right there in front of us but you somehow missed it.
I have taken the liberty of highlighting the portion of the EM diagram that coincides with 250 KCAS. Note that this advantage applies to basically the bottom 25% of the flight envelope and that in the other 75% of the flight envelope that the MiG-21 would be superior.
What is actually funny is we can use the two documents to compare the ITR curves and you will see that the British claims regarding MiG-21 might be pretty far off or that the EM diagram that you are choosing to use for the MiG-21 is erroneous.
This is what happens when you make a direct comparison of the values found in your chart and the values found in the MiG-21 EM diagram. Note that the decline at high KCAS is a function of the G limitation shown in the EM diagram.
Even if we try to make the argument that the Harrier document shows at 75% fuel weight and extra generous and add 2 degrees per second to the Harrier ITR values…we still end up at the end state of it being inferior to the MiG-21 shown in the EM diagram.
Keep in mind this is referencing the MiG-21 EM diagram against your interpretation of this chart and taking the red lines as being indicative of instantaneous turn performance.
However this source doesn’t seem to even agree with your other cited source that states 13 degrees per second at Mach .5 which is equal to around 330kts KCAS. The difference in values between the two sources is about 1.5 degrees per second.
Basically this idea that the plane is some kind of supreme dogfighting machine is a hallucination that you have cooked up by willingly misinterpreting sources. For instance the greater than 16 degrees per second figure that you have cooked up is done so by attempting to link together two completely separate sources and you are ignorant of the fact that the source that you like to cite to showcase its ITR performance shows that the plane is thoroughly mediocre in that regard.
In reality the plane is not anywhere near as good at dogfighting that you claim it to be. In fact when you take into account its tendency to want to depart flight during medium and high speed turns it would be considered quite crap by anything resembling modern standards. It is simply outclassed by pretty much any 4th Generation fighter in terms of maneuverability and VIFF-ing is extremely situational and results in the plane shitting pretty much all of its energy away.
Excerpts from 3 different Harrier pilot interviews.
“You take the same pilot level in both airplanes and the Hornet is definitely a better dogfighter for sure” - Pilot 1
“In ACM/BFM type stuff with the MiG-29 vs the Sea Harrier we’re outclassed in terms of the maneuverability of the aircraft” - Pilot 2
“The major byproduct of VIFF-ing was such an aerodynamic brick that as soon as you took the thrust away from aft it would slow down and energy is life…” Pilot 3
Holy yapping wall of text.
You are comparing wing born ITR to VIFF when I was saying with VIFF.
I showed you sourced that are undeniable however you choose not to believe them. That’s not my problem that’s yours.
Also it comes down to pilots opinions in many cases and how well that pilot could exploit his advantages.
That’s often good in a 1 circle
It’s 100 knots loss for 90 degrees of turn
He is describing having a significant experience gap between himself and the pilots that he is facing. It also appears that he only flew the Harrier since he says that “in his mind” the turn performance is just as good because he was able to beat less experienced Hornet pilots with it.
The first guy in the interview that I showed flew both Hornet and Harrier. We also have the charts to compare. Harrier is dookie dogshit in terms of EM performance compared to Hornet.
It’s hardly even a British docs it’s American and they took AV-8As to Area 51 to fight real MiG-21s if you’ve ever heard of the red eagles
The harriers butchered them
It’s still odd that you’re using harrier charts for conventional wing Bourne ITR to VIFF.
When I specifically said with VIFF it’s ITR is good.
With VIFF it ends up being better from 0-250 and up to 0.6 Mach (400 knots or so) it’s only at a slight disadvantage
20-21 vs 19 D/S
Still 18 even with 4 missiles and tons of other random pylons and all added onto it at .65 Mach
The data shows otherwise. It seems you are confusing pitch-rate with ITR and just completely discounting the drawback of VIFF…which is shitting all of its speed away. And also ignoring the nasty handling qualities of the plane at medium and high speeds; i.e departing flight in loaded rolls.
The data says turn rate not pitch rate
What does this say little feet pics
Does it say turn rate or pitch rate
More of an issue with the harrier 2 if you snatched pulled
The super hornet suffers the same problem it’s called abrupt wing stall.
This what what a VIFF lift curve looks like
However it’s an example data plot with an unknown altitude loadout or aircraft weight
But it appears to be the AV-8A
Oh hey look another source and it actually says mostly what you say that it does. I like how you went back and added it to your initial post like it had been there the whole time.
Note the sentence that precedes the section that you have highlighted. We can take the ITR figures cited in your previous document and add 0.6G to them and get updated ITR values to compare with the MiG-21 chart.
Let’s look at your 2.3G at SL datapoint.
Our interpolated 5,000 feet datapoint is going to give us an STR of around 9 degrees per second for 5,000 feet. This is a load factor of around 2.1G. This low speed comparison is where that 0.6G difference will have the greatest proportional effect as well; the difference at higher speeds is going to be lesser.
So our ITR + VIFF looks like the following: 2.1G + 0.6G…or 2.7G total.
2.7G at 225 KCAS would be around 12 degrees per second ITR.
Our MiG-21 EM diagram shows around 14 degrees per second ITR at 225 KCAS.
Or we can look at this as well. This 90 degree turn takes nearly 5 seconds to complete and it loses 100 knots of airspeed to do it. If this figure is at sea level then it is truly abysmal. For reference basically the best possible ITR for the Harrier is basically similar to the STR values of other 4th Gen fighters when loaded with missiles and a drop tank. 19 degrees per second ITR at sea level is inferior to an F-4E with a drop tank equipped according to the British.
We can also compare the SAC diagram to the MiG-21 diagram. However once again we are going to discover that it is inferior in terms of ITR, STR, and bleed rates. If we add VIFF to the discussion then bleed rates will go even further through the roof.
It turns out that the sources agree. The plane is a bit shite in terms of maneuverability. Poor sustained turn rate, poor instantaneous turn rate, and horrid energy retention. Look at the -800 line where it get’s around 17 degrees per second. The MiG-21 actually appears to have slightly better energy retention with around 17.5 degrees for the same bleed value while being 5,000 feet higher in altitude.
It’s like you intentionally come up with goofy takes
.6 addition at 5,000 feet is achieved with just 20 degrees of nozzle angle
With 60 degrees it’s about 1.5G in available G
Do remember this is for a harrier with 7 pylons 4 missiles a gun pack using only maximum thrust not normal lift.
Not to mention it’s a 65% lerx model
For example here’s an old standard mk102 engine harrier using normal lift
It will sustain 14 D/S
14 degrees per second sustained turn at sea level is abysmal. That is a whole 1 degree per second faster than an F-4E that is equipped with a drop tank and similar number of missiles. Also note that this chart seems to be around 4000lbs lighter than the reference weight that is used in the EM chart from the AV-8B SAC. Now I am no expert by any means…but if you remove a shit ton of weight from a plane…it will probably cause the planes turn rate to increase.
vs
So yeah it’s a bit shite innit bruv?
