no it doesnt you read it wrong
No I didn’t mate that’s the dry weight with all the stuff attached to it just no fuel
What is wrong with the CL/CD values that I posted in the excel spreadsheet?
Do you disagree with them?
Please explain.
it says “In an aircraft configuration with 190 gallon drop tanks on the inboard pylons, empty pylons outboard, 5000lb internal fuel and a dry aircraft weight of 13,850lb, the “normal” acceleration limit is 5.7g and the “never exceed” limit is 6.4g.”
“and” meaning all that stuff added to its dry weight of 13,850lb, not that all that stuff and the harrier is equal to 13850lb. the “5000lb internal fuel” gives it away
They can be mostly correct
Except 18 degrees AOA is not used to generate the ITR line on the irl chart
Around 12 is used at .6 mach there
But again you don’t believe that.
?
As in remove the fuel as it sits with that stuff on it
It weights 13800
where does it say or even imply that? it says the pylons + the drop tanks + 5000lb fuel + 13850lb empty jet gives you a normal g limit of 5.7g and never exceed limit of 6.4g
@FeetPics am i missing something that says 13850 is the weight with empty drop tanks and pylons?
what do you mean by mostly correct
do you take issue with some?
There’s brochures out there to put the FA.2 at 13,500 as well
The AV-8A weights 11,950 to 12,000 lbs dry with nothing
5 pylons weigh just 329 pounds on harrier 1
The FA2 and Frs.1 programs maintained a “light weight” change program
12,329 for harrier 1
And the sea harrier with its added systems is 1171 lbs heavier
Half of the sea harrier radar is held in the tail to maintain a light and equal weight.
thats pretty close to 13,850 for a brochure
are you sure the “two” isnt just saying how many they are. because 77lb for the inboard pylon is a little questionable
No that is the weight of both of them
Again I have a whole research paper that talks about the pylon development for harrier 1
The harrier 1 was designed to egress to the target as low and fast as possible high drag and weight pylons on a plane that needs to
1: go transonic at low level
2: land vertically in the woods
That ends up in low weight low drag
Okay so where is the source that says that?
where does it say that? you misread the other source about the pylons + tanks + empty weight, you couldnt understand an extremely simple trig function, i cant really believe what you say anymore without backing
also that puts your claimed AV-8B pylon weight into question because a ninefold increase in weight is a little hard to believe if what you are saying is true
I’ve shown it already but you don’t believe it
This G chart was taken with an AOA limit of 15 and at higher Mach numbers was gathered using lateral oscillation AOA as maximum G
So 14 degrees of alpha at .6 Mach resulted in over 6 G for a 16,000 lbs plane
Makes no sense that for 1000 pounds more it struggles to pull 5.3G with a full 18 degrees AOA and sustain that at the given speed
Ok broski that’s not how that works
Also look how the center line pylon weighs a whole 52 lbs!!
the inner wing pylon is way bigger
and it still doesnt explain the 3000lb pylon weight for the AV-8B which sounds way too high
a single LAU-7 which only has to hold 1 sidewinder weighs 90lb and its far far smaller than any of the harrier pylons
No that’s operationally dry with the gun
The pylons on harrier 2 weigh 788 pounds
But create a drag index of yes
Harrier 1 gun pods (both of them with 260 rounds of ammo) weigh 900 lbs
12,300+900=13,200
Just look at it at face value too
Like the harrier 1 literally sustains 2G more then the harrier 2
what? thats hardly a fair comparison then, doesnt FA 2 not have guns built in?
No
Pods
But most of the time it carries missiles only
It still comes out closer to 14,000 pounds dry with gun pods if you want to make a perfectly fair comparison
A ton lighter