It was frequency agile and therefore would have some ability to counter ground clutter but after all it was a pulse radar and lacked look down capability. I also don’t know its detection range in game.
The Sea Harrier is also missing a low altitude warning sound, not that it makes much of a difference but I think its a cool more modern feature.
I’ve never had issues with finding targets at a decent range, at alt, in sim. So Id consider that fine
I might be nit-picking so yes it does detect well whenever I’ve needed it to. I wonder if its not worth reporting the HUD and all again as its been a year or so and gaijin probably has forgotten.
I nag them enough as it is. It will just get closed. Depending on what sources you find, you could DM flame and see if its different information that could be added to the existing report. but I think we just have to keep nagging.
I didnt last update because it was rushed enough as it is and I doubted anything would happen, But I did in Firebirds, a Sea Harrier Overhaul dev post. Going to do one in the March update again
Good i’ll be waiting for it and lets be real the US mains whine like batch of puppies about everything and look how fast Gaijin fixes their issue. It took what a day for them to fix the RDF simply because enough people complained about it.
The Harriers all of them, underperform in every flight performance aspect. I whined a ton and got it accepted. Will it be fixed in this decade? Prolly not but who knows lol.
That is a ECCM feature for countering noise jamming. Nothing to do with filtering ground clutter.
I don’t know, test and find out.
It is also incorporated to reduce clutter from rough seas and rain and the lot it does help with clutter but not by a massive amount.
I have tested it but the only metric I have to use is the cockpit shuddering.
Every thing I have calculated this far, as well as how the Devs tested the FM incorrectly by using 1900 LBS less weight and a lot more thrust to achieve the same results as a document I reported.
one thing ive heard that it overperforms in is it should only be able to hover for 60seconds before engine over heats
Clearly you’ve been told wrong the jet pipe temps listed in the charts allow safe engine operation for several thousand hours.
I highly doubt any engineers would call it acceptable if the engine fried every time a vertical takeoff or landing was performed.
720 degrees for 2.5 minutes a flight is perfectly within the engines normal operating limit.
It can hover at like 19,000 lbs gross weight safely for 2.5 minutes irl and be well within normal operating specs.
The engine probably does begin to overheat after 60 seconds, but doesnt mean the engine cant handle that for a while. You can likely hover with more weight that you should be able to due to how Gaijin bodged getting the hover to work (they added more thrust)
Only the Mk.101 engine over performs. Infact the Mk.103 might be perfect to its irl counterpart as it actually makes less then 21,500 lbs. It makes 21,220 ish.
I’ll double check this in game today as well. What I do know for sure though is that the gr.3 matches up almost perfectly with the vertical takeoff chart for the 402 engine.
Formula for max t/o weight is .94x Max thrust
20,000 lbs x .94= 18,800 lbs (8,527kg)
full internal fuel weight 12,640 + 5000 = 17,640
This gives you 1,160 pounds for pilot weight and any weapons without even using the engine’s maximum thrust output.
However in hot climates the Harrier doesn’t like that and the thrust output potential decreases but up to temps around 20 degrees c you get most of its thrust rating.
In fact I loaded up my Harrier Gr.3 (Mk.103 engine) with 100% fuel and 5x1000 LBS bomb + 2x540 LBS bombs just so that it couldn’t lift off and on the carrier I hit - 9690 Kg thrust (21,362 Lbs thrust) with 110% wep power.
I tried the same test with the Gr.1 that has the Mk.101 engine. I got 9239 Kg thrust (20,368 Lbs thrust) That’s a good bit more then what the engine was rated for being 19,000 lbs thrust. The Pegasus Mk.102 was fitted on Gr.1A and it made 20,500 Lbs thrust.
So if we want to take anything away from this test its as simple as the AV-8A, Gr.1, and any plane with a RR-401 or Mk.101 over perform and any plane with the RR-402, Mk.103 underperform when compared to the engine Brochure figures.
And no they didn’t add any thrust to make the VTOL work. What they actually did was set a thrust reduction variable with speed so that the Harrier drops in thrust the faster it gets despite it not working like this IRL.
The simple understanding of the Chart above is RAM drag values at x10^3 so at .3 Mach with short lift thrust rating the engine is only losing 4500 LBS thrust due to ram drag however with the increased pressure of air incoming to the engine its also making more thrust.
Mach .35 the Pegasus Mk.103 at 95.5% rpm was making 18,411 Lbs thrust gross as seen above.
If we use the relationship of the values of drag for .2 Mach and .3 Mach at 95% RPM we can calculate net thrust. .2 Mach = 2500 Lbs drag at 95% RPM .3 Mach = 4000 Lbs drag at 95% RPM (roughly I rounded up)
The difference in drag between .3 and .2 Mach was near 1500 LBS.
The difference between .1 and .2 was also very near 1500 LBS.
With this we will assume .5 Mach speed increase will give around 750 LBS more drag. So 4000+750=4750 LBS RAM drag at .35 Mach.
18411-4750= 13,661 Lbs thrust but actually closer to 14-15 thousand if exact drag values are used.
If the trend in drag continues at 1500 LBS for every .1 Mach at .7 Mach we will have 10,000 LBS drag (1500x.7) at .7 and a thrust output of 27,018 meaning the net thrust would be 17,018. The harrier will have increase thrust in airspeed even with RAM drag calculated.
Yet in game we get this at full short lift power.
5556 Kg thrust or 12,248 Lbs thrust.
And at the calculated 95.5% rpm value translating to around 62% throttle in game we get 3536 Kg thrust or 7795 Lbs thrust.
Where is the missing 9223 LBS thrust??? ITS MISSING OVER 50%!!!
Now that’s out the way the Gr.3 was sustaining 13 degrees a second at over 8000 Kg gross weight with around this 17,018-18,000 Lbs thrust setting. According to a document from @Flame2512 As the 95.5% setting was the combat modification that replaced normal lift rating, this does not mean normal lift could not be used however.
1 Like