Unnecessary buddy
None of this actually changes any of the points made earlier regardless
You not being able to grasp a basic fundamental of mathematics and arguing that math is fake should have caused you to have a moment of reflection. It seems that was perhaps asking a little bit too much of you.
This is precisely the opposite of what pilots have said. Here are 3 different accounts regarding VIFF and energy retention…including from the interview you linked to earlier. This is a fact that you either missed or one that you are just in complete denial about.
Also anyone else that cares can watch the video. It’s only 2 minutes long.
Lmao
I said from the beginning that viff causes a loss of speed however the loss of speed is Less then expected
When pulling anything more then the sustained turn rate at higher speeds it will result in an overall less loss of energy
My math might not be “gooder math”
But this was written by a group of scientists I’m sure their math is fine.
Well to be fair to you here
All of those pilots flew the harrier 2 and it might be less useful on that aircraft. My sources are for a harrier 1
It’s not impossible to think that the jet exhaust interacted differently between the 2 jets seeing as they are very different in shape
Okay and? Your argument has been that the plane will have good retention with nozzles angled at 60 degrees down.
I am just pointing out that your characterization of what pilots claim is completely wrong. If 15-20 degrees is the “good” configuration for energy fighting and the pilots are saying that it shits speed quickly…then increasing the nozzle angle is also going to cause it to shit speed faster.
15-20 degree nozzle down will still have greater than 90% thrust directed aft. This is far different than having only a horizontal component that is equal to 50% of thrust.
If the CL diagram that you posted for the Harrier II is accurate then we know that the Harrier II has a much higher CL than the Harrier I. The Harrier II in all likelihood is going to be comparatively better in terms of turn performance.
No I said the amount of speed lost is less the what you might expect.
Based on the 100 knots bleed in 90 degrees of turn
With the public data we have it seems the 1 turns better.
Although we don’t know as we don’t have data for a harrier 2 at lift thrust now do we
There is no turn rate that is listed here and no altitude. You keep listing 19 degrees per second. The only document that supports it is the one that shows ITR for nozzles directed to hover stop and aft. As I said earlier your interpretation of this document is based purely on conjecture.
We don’t know correct
Even still to increase bleed rate you need to increase the rate
Or vise versa
Note that this chart you like to use shows a lower maximum ITR an Instantaneous Hover Stop. So what is the weight of the aircraft in this document vs the other one.
??
The other document literally says going beyond 60 degrees makes it turn worse dude
Hover stop it’s 86 degrees or so
And this one says the theoretical maximum is with at hoverstop while the chart you like to post shows data for that and data for aft. So what gives and why is the snippets seemingly inconsistent?
As others have said earlier actually posting the sources and not just snippets would allow people to make a better assessment as opposed to the “just trust me bro its good” approach you seem to take.
This was before they did the scientific tests
The idea was to run air combat to see if VIFF was even the slightest bit useful
So they didn’t waste time and money if it wasn’t
If that turn rate is used it actually decreases the bleed rate
Seeing art 100 knots and 90 degrees of turn doesn’t change
Ok now post the whole thing and not just snippets.
Like I could take ESR-D document and just use snippet where guy says MiG-29 is comparable to Eurofighter and go off to the races with that. Would it be accurate? Well it does say that in the document. But the rest of the document provides much more comparison and context.
Or the reference weight in the tactics manual is lower and we are using a light loaded harriers bleed rate as indicative of a heavy loaded harriers bleed rate.
And this seems to have been a trend that you have done in the past. I.E 25% fuel Lightning vs 85% fuel Phantom + F-16A etc.
The E-M chart is from the tactics manual
