You lost the same 3 graphs and then don’t read them. Like we’ve already had this debate.
Like wowee Harrier gets kinda close to F-4E sustained turn rate if it decides to carry 80%+ internal fuel and 4 Sparrows to the merge.
The sparrows themselves reduce it’s sustained turn rate by around 2 degrees per second.
The harrier has all 5 pylons and gun packs while also having like 80% internal fuel
The pylons reduce the turn performance by a comparable amount
It’s a good comparison
And it doesn’t “get close” it exceeds it at all speed below 450 knots
Huh?
The phantom is twice the size and weight naturally
Both planes are comparable in drag and fuel % in the charts
I understand that. But weight alone is not a determining factor in an aircraft’s maneuverability.
Yes we know?
What are you getting at?
The 2 charts used are a good comparison as both aircraft have the same % of fuel and similar drag indexes.
Are you saying it’s not a good comparison.
Well, you know it, but apparently this guy doesn’t. Otherwise, I don’t understand what his remark about bricks and their weight has to do with anything.
I see my bad I thought you were on his side of that argument for a second
Even if you exclude the FM related issues (which imo, is still underperforming, if nothing else, VIFF is literally not modelled at the moment and the thrust curves are really wierd) and instead focus on everything else, then the Harriers, particularly the Sea Harriers would still be waaaaay more healthy than they are currently.
If you also throw in things like 9Ls are waaay too easy to flare, or the general AMRAAM issues (for the FA2/AV-8B+), etc etc. or GR7 missing missiles. It does all add up pretty quickly and the aircraft could be waaaay healthier than they are currently.
Then , failing all that, there is BR, I think half of the harriers are hard-pressed to truly justify their current BRs and probably need a 0.3 drop (though a major decompression would be just as effective) like can we really justify the Sea Harrier FRS1 being the same BR as the Mig-23MLD in ASB, or even the same BR as the Harrier T10? and is the Harrier GR7 really only 0.3 BR weaker than the F-15A/J?
So I think there is pletny of room to greatly improve all the Harriers.
It’s not some kind of miracle for the F-4E to stay above that speed. You also ignore the fact that it has superior initial turn coupled with less bleed rate. On top of that the STR at sea level is G limited in your chart which means that there is actually more performance available in the airplane.
It can see mirage 2000 on some days too
Yeah, though thats a choice, so I dont mind that as much
Yes the frs1e is the better option anyways.
All you get with the late is 2 extra missiles not really worth it imo
Yeah. Its why ive not touched the FRS1 in more than a year. I dont see the point.
Not much point to either of them to be fair. I don’t think i’ve seen one in about a month.
I havent played SB in 8 or so months, but I did play the FRS1e from time to time when in the mood for it, but even at 10.7, it was a bit of a chore.
That BR is so badly compressed than I dont touch it in ARB.
Yes its way more fun to just hop in the F-5E fcu. You can just do whatever you wish.
It was a mistake to put then to 12.7
Yeah, but even if they didnt and they were still 13.0… (and also the IRCCM F-16s were also 13.0) Im findign the GR7 really hard to justify at 12.3 these days, at least until such time they fix it
It maybe would have been ok if they removed 9M and had them at 12.7 with sparrow and 9L
1 - Im not sure you know the ITR of the Harrier 1
2 - you dont know the bleed rate of the harrier 1
Based on the chart i’ve shown you a harrier 1 would pull to its best instantaneous turn rate at 400 knots and lose 0 airspeed, doesn’t make much sense until you realize that’s because its buffet onset G.
(the Harrier 2 is an extremely different aircraft its not a good reference)