If we are using DCS as a source now…might we ask why the Harrier in DCS is also dogshit?
Lmfao if you really want to get into that the RAZBAM devs have personally asked me for sources and data.
RAZBAM intends to create a sea harrier for Falcon 5, and yours truly will have provided the majority of sources for that.
It’s been confirmed with them that the aircraft’s performance is not correct. So fee free to use it if you like just know that it’s underperforming.
I gave them full documentation.
Lmao won’t be the case but dream on.
Like I warned you a while ago you know nothing about the harrier so it’s wise you stop trying to argue about it.
You also know nothing about the Harrier…hence you try to pass off DCS chart as accurate for another plane and then complain when I basically the same thing. Your actual conclusions about the Harrier are just as fraught with errors as your conclusions about other planes have been.
You are someone who is completely incapable of making arguments in good faith; hence why you only post snippets of documents and then make the assumption that you are the only person who knows how to read them or has even a general understanding of reality.
An 18 knot per second bleed rate with the nozzles deflected 60 degrees is implausibly low. In reality what your document probably describes is utilizing a lesser nozzle angle and managed deceleration to the best corner speed. It should be noted in your graph that there is no additional ITR available at hover stop below a certain speed.
Let’s think about this for a second now feety.
You have 2 options here, you can only pick between 2 potential beliefs if you refuse to accept my suggestion.
1: if you believe the bleed rate of the harrier to be higher then the F-18 for example then the average rate of turn would need to be significantly higher then you would ever admit (and I would ever claim)
2: if the turn rates added by CTVC are less then my claims then you would need to accept that the Bleed rate is lower then you would ever admit.
For the harrier to bleed say 60 knots a seconds to put it inline with the F-18 then the 90 degrees of turn would need to be completed in 1.6 seconds resulting in 100 knots of airspeed lost in that time.
This would put the harrier at an average rate of turn of about 56 degrees per second. (No I don’t think it’s doing this I’m just providing an example)
If the turn rate added by VIFF is to be below my estimated figures say 15 degrees per second on average the the 90 degrees of the would take 6 seconds to complete
This would mean the bleed rate is only 16.6 knots a second. (I’m not claiming this either it’s just an example)
Or you can just admit I’m correct and concur that the correct use of CTVC does not result in super massive losses in airspeed.
1 Like
This is also incorrect - the forward and downward thrust components are equal at 45 degrees nozzle angle providing overall more thrust then the engine makes static. And at 60 degrees it’s makes its peak thrust components
Good job on feet pics math
Math you didn’t even need to do as a diagram and thrust components data point was already provided.
The 28,000 and 14,000 figures hold up at 45 degrees nozzle angle not 60.
Even still the relatively low bleed rate is contributed also in part by the increased aerodynamic efficiency.
Don’t even say something about no full documentation.
Ive given you the full reference you can go and read the full thing.
Likely not true when compared to a CTVC harrier.
Given that the Cl of the harrier at heavy buffet is around .9 using only the wings standard aerodynamic lift coefficient.
As seen below there is a massive uptake of the lift coefficient here it appears to be close to an increase of 2.4.
Simply the added coefficient of lift proved by the change in airflow over the wing greatly exceeds the overall maximum lift coefficient achievable by the F-18
Buddy…look at your chart really closely.
The thrust at 0 degrees / no vectoring is 20,000lb.
The thrust at 60 degrees is 10,000lb.
10,000lb is half of 20,000lb.
Holy moly it’s a basic trigonometric problem. Wow. Amazing. Yet you somehow do not understand that.
Ohhh boy another unlabeled diagram from yet another different source and a conclusion based on conjecture. Note that no drag diagram is included… curious.
You can’t use this same excuse any more
The docs have been provided in full go read it and educate yourself
Maybe you ough to try reading them.
Just at a glance the chart you have posted already shows a non-vectored CL that is much higher than you claim it is. No Mach number is listed either.
It seems you are once again taking something out of context and then doing a song and dance go apply it to the Harrier.
Like does it ever stop?
Feet pic fails reading comp
That’s an AV-8B
I gave values for A
The simple explanation is that you have misinterpreted the document that describes the most efficient way to enter a turn.
I.E they are not slamming the nozzles to 60 degrees deflection and aren’t doing a pure-maximum ITR to enter a dogfight. This would also be consistent with other documents and practices described by pilots. For instance 20 degree deflection retains majority of forward thrust.
That’s literally what it says they are doing unless to you words don’t have meaning
50-60 degrees nozzle for a maximum performance turn missile brake
It was an example chart not exact data broski
The chart shows a CL of 1.5 for aerodynamic lift. Not the 0.9 you are claiming that it is.
Keep in mind I do have the NASA document that Gaijin has based the FM on as well. It’s not worth my effort since it should be blatantly apparent to anyone that you’re just going to keep moving goalposts to try to conjure and argument.
I already told you I gave data for harrier 1 that is a harrier 2
Harrier 1 is .9
Funny that the harrier 2 has almost as high a Cl as the Hornet
It’s almost like they entirely redesigned the wing to be a lot better. Crazy how that works.
Yet you still make the argument that somehow the Harrier II is incomparable to the Harrier I because it is somehow worse.
No we don’t have VIFF data for it as such no comparison can be made
The goal posts always move.
One day we can’t use the EM diagram for the Harrier II to generalize turn performance of Harrier I because it’s incomparable / worse / makes the plane look bad.
However we can use the CL diagram for Harrier II to try to approximate data for Harrier I on the next day because reasons.
Like dude just literally compare sea level diagram of Harrier II with diagrams for anything else at this point and you’ll see the plane is thoroughly mediocre.
All it showed was the CL increase due to thrust vector
Never claimed any specific data point just helped visualize the increase in lift C