Either way my point still stands.
The reason you only post snippets of the UK document is because you are being dishonest about something and don’t want a second set of eyes to look at it.
I imagine a guy who claims the Lightning F.6 maneuvers nearly as well as an F-16A or confuses Su-27 STR curves for ITR curves probably missed something.
I don’t read Cyrillic but pop off
There’s nothing else to that document
And the lightning during this trial did have similar performance to the F-16A potentially with weapons.
All the while the harrier was heavy on fuel and started at a disadvantage using low thrust ratings
Combats with the Lightning lasted 2.5 minutes and win loss or draw was taken comparatively depending on what aircraft maintained an advantage for the longest duration
I’ve got an American doc AV-8A vs F-86 I’ll post soon and that one says the longer the fight continues the more advantages the harrier draws
There is also vs mig17 21 and flagon
MiG-17 is known to be more maneuverable then the Hunter.
So when the harrier can use its highest wing Bourne thrust ratings it’s considered equal in all around guns only maneuvering engagements with something that turns as unbelievably well as a MiG-17
Fixed that for you.
The Lightning in this trial has 25% fuel.
A 50% fuel F-16 will sustain far more G than a Lightning.
It’s actually funny that you staked a whole claim on the Lightning turn performance and not once asked what the fuel load was.
25% fuel Lightning would run out of fuel if it used afterburner for that 2.5 minutes. That means they either didn’t use afterburner the whole time or literally glided back to the runway after the fight was over. Like damn dude Harrier might be worse than we imagine when you consider Lightning is having to alternate from afterburner to dry thrust.
Oh look more completely contextless charts that you claim show something but refused to post the rest of the document that actually shows anyone how to interpret the charts or the context that they exist in. Great reporting buddy!
You straight up ignored the fact that they didn’t have guns installed but we’re only simulating guns
They had plenty of fuel
Add over 1000 lbs worth of fuel to your little calculations
They are very simple
The bigger the number the greater the advantage for the harrier
Harrier also started with a heavier fuel load then the 21
This is also an MF with its much more powerful engine
Yeah so there is actually no performance metrics to be derived from these charts. They are useless.
Lmao I’ve shared data with you
If you refuse to believe it that’s on you.
F-15/16s were told under no circumstances to get slow and turn hard with a MiG-21 as it would eat them alive.
However a Harrier has a 70% advantage over even that at low speed
So we go from 1900lbs of fuel to 2900lbs of fuel out 7400lbs of fuel. That’s 39% of a total afterburning time of 6 minutes. So it has 2.34 minutes of full afterburner.
So yeah the point still stands. Plane ain’t got no gas in it.
That’s also just the average weight not starting weight
You haven’t shared data. We don’t even know what performance metrics are being evaluated in the charts at all. You haven’t shown what constitutes “key acm parameters” or how they are weighted. Literally leaving out context and hoping we all just assume that it equates to turning performance.
If only the EM diagram existed that proves this wrong. Too bad we won’t be able to find them. The whole concept is alien to us. It’s not like both planes turn better than a MiG-21 all the way down to low speeds.
The chart you posted shows it having a rating of 7…where 5 is considered evenly matched in whatever the unstated performance metrics are here. So being 2 points above even is a 70 percent advantage? Yeah maybe that math works in Britain but it ain’t gonna fly in the civilized world.
Like let me point out how useless these charts are.
This is an Su-15 Flagon. It’s a huge twin engined interceptor that is not at all designed for dogfighting.
According to the chart that you posted this plane compares more favorably at low altitudes and low speeds than the MiG-21 and the only place the Harrier has a marginal advantage is below 0.6 Mach. Note the 6 bubble from 0.2 to 0.5 Mach.
Yet in the same speed range ends up being much more unfavorable to the MiG-21…a lighter plane with much better turn performance metrics.
The Su-15 also ends up comparing more favorably than the MiG-17 at all speeds above 0.5 Mach.
So yeah I stand by my original point. These charts are totally useless.
You fundamentally don’t understand how they work and that’s unfortunate for you.
It’s not that huge and it had very decent performance
No matter what way you shift the goal posts it doesn’t look good for the Harrier mate.
Either they ran Lighting with no fuel at all so it could have something that resembles maneuverability. And in that case the Lightning has to modulate afterburner use.
Or they ran Lightnings heavy on fuel and Harrier still managed to lose even in pure head to head merge.
I stand by original point that F-104 is better than it.
This was overall capabilities as the aircraft as a whole.
A metric you probably can’t hardly fathom.
Sustained turn rate are only so useful as a metric. In your mind any 2 aircraft would merge and then pull to their exact sustained turn rate and the one who sustains more wins.
Ignoring the fact that air combat is constantly changing between positional and angle situations.
No it looks very good for the harrier. It can rate just about as well as the F-4E with comparative fuel and make mince meat of a MiG-21 at low speed.
It’s not going to be anywhere near as easy to beat a well flown harrier in even an on paper technically superior jet.
You have little to no knowledge of the harrier, yet here you are yapping about something you are unfit to talk on behalf of.
You also think the MiG-29 is underperforming when the charts for that say it’s significantly overperforming.
You don’t know how to interpret the data all you do is run around in mental circles trying to make yourself seem intelligent.
It’s a 6G airplane without an internal gun and higher wing loading than a MiG-21. Yet it somehow scores as a better gun fighter in British charts at subsonic speeds than even a MiG-17.
It’s performance is not good in this role by any means. It’s downright abysmal.
It’s got a higher sep and sustain turn and zoom capability
Overall it’s slightly better then the 17
It’s not hard to understand
This is comparing overall performance
It’s not theoretical either they took real AV-8As to fight the red eagles in the 70s
Let that sink in they actually conducted guns only air combat with the types
The air combat evaluation pilot says exactly what I do about the harrier
Fly it normally with the normal thrust rating and you’ll get your ass kicked
Use thrust vectoring and the higher thrust ratings and the tables turn dramatically
It does not. The fact that it has higher wing loading and can’t exceed 6G already precludes the turn rate argument.
The whole ACE analysis appears to be nonsense.
It’s because I can actually fathom this metric and can also look up performance metrics that I can see whatever “holistic” measurement that your charts are showcasing is ultimately meaningless.
I actually have multiple videos that explicitly point out that this isn’t always the case. However sustained turn rate is probably the most important overall turn performance metric followed by ability to make efficient use of energy when transitioning from high speed to low speed in exchange for position. Nose pointing and AoA based metrics only matter if you have already comparative EM performance. Or if HOBS missile engagement is a factor.
My ability to actually read the documents you post and rationalize like a half way intelligent human being already sets me apart from yourself. Hence I’m able to question the basis that Su-15, famously a gunless intercepter with high wing loading, is some how considered to be better at low altitude and low speeds than the MiG-21…a plane that was relatively renowned for its dogfighting performance given the time.
This is once again an ad-hominem attack. I have an hour long video where I point out places where the MiG-29 overperforms and where it underperforms. And how Gaijin arrived at the flight model it currently has.
No. My argument is simple; the Harrier has very high wing loading and poor EM characteristics. It also has shot tendency to aggressively depart flight in loaded roles. The manual even tells you that it’s not a dogfighter. The pilots will also tell you that as well… especially when it’s not being compared against dinosaur interceptors like the Lightning F.6 or Su-15.
F-18 super hornet has the same issue is it not a fighter now? That’s also for the harrier 2 not related in the slightest here
Harrier rates as well as the F-4 but beats the MiG -21 going slow as well
Not hard to understand
