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)
So no we are once again moving the goal posts from it’s ITR is 19 degrees per second and 60 degrees nozzles down to “well actually now it sustains 19 degrees per second.” This is an actually delusional take.
I said looking at the chart, were it pulls 5.3 odd G at 400 knots with the wing alone. Stop confusing things
I found something revolutionary for the VIFF reports.
The Gr.1 Mk101 when at the breaking stop position create -3,500 lbs in thrust (reverse thrust) when stationary.
2 Likes
Nice
Which chart? You keep posting different ones whenever you want to try to change your argument.
The only chart I’ve used to compare turn rates with the F-4 broski
If you follow this chart at face value, pulling to your best instantaneous turn rate at 400 knots with the wing lift only will result in 0 loss in airspeed.
If you think about that it doesn’t make sense, what does make sense is that this chart provides you with buffet onset coefficient of lift instantaneous G.
Based on Gaijins though process (and likely your own) the Harrier can pull to 18-20 degrees AOA at 400 knots and lose 0 airspeed.
Since gaijin believes that the NATOPS V-N diagram is gospel its only 3 lbs different in weight and we both know that stores has essentially no effect on lift (instantaneous G) for a given weight.
If we continue to follow that chart it should be impossible for the harrier to pull 2 G at 200 knots as in the NATOPS chart it cant even get to 2G at 200 knots using 20-21 degrees AOA.
at 475 knots the harrier should only be pulling 7.25 vs 8G
Just food for thought if its instantaneous G capabilities are to be taken at face value from gaijins assessment and your own, the harrier can pull about 20 degrees AOA at 400 knots achieve 5.3G for 0 loss in airspeed.
Or what my assessment is based on 5 other primary sources is that the V-N diagram and the ITR line on this chart are for buffet onset. With the V-N diagram being extrapolated using an unknown AOA figure.
In other docs - 6.2G on a 16,000 lbs harrier can be achieved with just 14 degrees ADD. At the same time the aircraft can comfortably pull to 18-20 degrees AOA at the same Mach value. Potentially providing 7G at 400 knots. (Although this is for a 1000 lbs lighter aircraft 6.6-7G would be my estimate for a 17,200 lbs aircraft at 400 knots)
Red pill / blue pill thing here
Choose gaijins side and the harrier can pull 20 degrees AOA without loss in airspeed / meaning it would need the SEP of a rocket ship to maintain that thrust/drag
Or choose my side the harrier can pull 12 degrees AOA without loss in airspeed / however this means its also underperforming in lift and instantaneous G.
1 Like
And before it’s even mentioned as I know you’ll say it “WhY wOulD ThE brItIsh GeT thEiR OwN SoUrCes WrOnG”
They didn’t, as stated before they only tested to buffet onset to keep the testing simple and much more accurate.
Them calling this Phase I testing implies that there would be a Phase II. Your assumption is that they never tested beyond Phase I and just wrote every subsequent manual based on Phase I testing.
By the same estimation we can just say the F-104 was never tested beyond buffet limit and is actually much better IRL and just vomit post snippets of incomplete and unrelated documents to substantiate the argument.
1 Like
The data I have is phase 2 VIFF trials. I don’t know where phase 1 is or how to get it.
And the buffer onset and G capability came from the RtoS manual.
1 Like
Sea Harrier is an F-104 victim
2 Likes
Lmao sure buddy
It’s unfortunate that it was never equipped with AMRAAM. Would have been much better premium then whatever harrier variants there are.
1 Like
4 AMRAAMs plus 2 Aim-9M on supersonic dart sounds way better than a shitty subsonic platform tbh.
Btw you mentioned that EFT documents says Gripen has poor sustain rate, did they write based on bad faith or is it accurate?