even then, the sea harrier is only somewhat ok at altitude compared to the av-8b+, both are losing to any contemporary fighter and some strike jets up there
I don’t care
Why are you looking at bleed rate for a VIFF turn at 400 knots
And not what the wing and thrust can sustain at 400 hmm?
It’s already there if you care to read. But you cannot it appears.
Shift your eyes down to the red circle below that.
Well yes they have no afterburner
The advantage lies in the fact that the harrier can cruise with 4 AMRAAMs and drop tanks at these altitudes for hours without needing fuel
If you’ve looked into how eagles fly in red flag and all they typically cruise at 25 odd thousand feet
But this is just conjecture
The sea harrier beats the harrier 2 in basically every flight performance category
You have +6 and -142
Like what values are these even for
You’ve not provided full data
As such anyone looking at that should view it as made up
Unless you provide us with all values
you gave him the values for this
He only has coefficient of lift and drag
They act on a reference surface he doesn’t know the exact specifics of the harriers wing body and everything else he doesn’t have the schematic
Please explain in detail what I am missing. I am using materials that you have provided as credible sources of evidence. I am using the CL/CD diagrams that you provided and the thrust values as well. We aren’t calculating the turn rate either; we are operating with given assumption that it will hit the G we claim it to regardless of whether or not it can. The math for SEP is agnostic to whether or not the G loading is actually capable from the wing.
Easy
You didn’t increase the CL of the wing when VIFF is used
If you remember it increased it by 2 for 1 specific situation
However I don’t know what the Cl increases by at the specified turn rate
You also forgot that the harriers wing when using VIFF things it’s at lower AOA then the rest of the plane
hm
would you like to share this schematic
Would love too, under the conditions that he shared all of his work so I can follow along with his thought process.
What it looks likes he’s done is take the basic wing lift and drag polar
Made it pull a G it likely can’t even pull at 400 knots
Removed a component of forward thrust with the triangle math thrust vector
And then said look how much it bleeds bro
Then refuses to elaborate
So I need to double to CL in the equation to get an accurate predictor of VIFF?
based!
Again like I’m not being funny but I don’t know
Like I explained earlier the thrust is interfering with the wing constantly
There is no data that gives us the exact value of lift and drag if the nozzles are at 60 degrees the speed is 400 knots in the configuration the plane is in.
The only chart I did have showed that the CL increased by about 2 but it’s at a complete unrelated airspeed and all that good stuff
It is also a completely unrelated airplane. And you did not show by how much drag increased either. And the CL/CD plots you provided are at half the speed of the 19 degrees per second datapoint. And the charts about the ADD do not indicate what the datum is.
On top of that if you had done even the tiniest bit of research you would realized that CL/CD plots have to be normalized to mach values and that not every CL/CD diagram at the same mach number for the same airplane is going to agree with each other.
So we are using CL/CD plots from source #1 which is for a clean airplane and at lower end Mach number.
Thrust values come from source #2 (and also indicate Harrier standard weight is 15,500lb)
An ITR figure from source #3 that also shows no context of what weight it is at.
Another ITR figure from source #3 that is dramatically over the standard weight and has pylons on it.
Another source that shows 6G is attainable at 16,000lbs but once again whole thing is not shown.
There is no way to string all of these sources together in a way that is coherent. The argument against the negative SEP figures by the way is also completely incoherent. You don’t even know if those SEP values are good or bad; you are arguing against them because I am the one posting them.
4 Likes
If you can find me a singular source with all of
that information I’d give you £1,000
You can’t it doesn’t exist
This is why I said your bleed rate calculations are meaningless to begin with
Why you’re trying to do them is to boost your own ego when you are most likely incorrect in this case
and yet you seem to have zero issue cherry picking from these docs to reach your own conclusion very interesting will keep note of this for later study
Like I said you can take them at whatever value you wish
It’s impossible to not take from different docs to at least try and get 1 overall picture as no 1 document has everything sadly.
Again there is a E-M chart and you’re free to interpret it as you please
So what makes your vibes based assessment better?
At the end of the day math is math…and the math says the Harrier is dogshit. If we can find better math it will probably also be more dogshit.
1 Like
You’re math isn’t saying shit lmao
You don’t even have all the required values to even come close to a mathematical answer for the harrier
Again I’m not making perfect claim to anything in particular I’ve said many times feel free to interpret at will