It doesn’t. We already compared the graphs earlier.
It comes close
In fact at any speed below 450 ish knots the harrier has a STR advantage
So they-4E only has a STR advantage if it somehow managed to stay above that speed
Lmao so you’ve moved away from comparing the aircraft and now you are comparing out of context duels
Really proves enough you’ve lost the “harrier is bad” argument as you don’t know enough about it
1 Like
You also had a falling out with him
When we did flanker vs AV-8B he had exactly 1 more kill then me so it wasn’t too far off
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
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
4 Likes
Either I have problems with English, or this guy has problems with logic.
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.
1 Like
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.
- IR Signatures are too high
- AN/ALE-40 CMs should single release / BOL is a mess
- No EEGS on the SHars
- Incorrect RWR on the SQV SHar
- Sooty exhaust makes them really really stupidly visible at long range (like cross map VID)
- Missing weapons (Like Seagles)
- SHar HUD is a total mess (makes it nearly unplayable in ASB at the moment)
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.
4 Likes
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.