Except it is.
You don’t know the math and haven’t messed with the equation. There is a reason I have never used it in any of my videos.
Cool but with all of the inputs I’ve provided you the outcome is very close to the E-M meaning my data point are extremely close to the expected ones.
A sep of 100 on a F-16 only gives about .25G more
So you tell me how a sep of 31 increases the G by 4X that
Unless you changed something offscreen
Your math likely will not work at higher Mach numbers either
Reason:
The harriers drag profile is drastically different then normal aircraft
From 0-.85 ish Mach the harrier accelerates in a manner suggesting it would blow straight past Mach 1
As transonic speed is reached the rounded lip of the intake starts to produce a shockwave that continues around its edge resulting is extreme drag build up as the harrier starts to get close to the sound barrier
At lower speeds it doesn’t have that and has tons of power over drag
How would you calculate that on spreadsheet
Nevertheless at the the middle ground in speed my values provided values EXTREMELY close to the ones in the E-M chart
I’m not sure why you insist on arguing with my data it’s provided from NASA and the RAE with the corresponding NET thrust to go with them at that particular Mach number
I have no idea on how or what to respond to all this with, so woe, Sea Harrier with 9 missiles be upon ye
6 Likes
No. What we have done is effectively gone on a fishing expedition and claimed that the equation shows the things that we want to believe. I learned this a long time ago.
No
You changed something to try stay here like you’ve got a clue
Likely wing area maybe
A SEP of 31 is impossible to increase sustained G by 1
If a Sep of 100 can only increase it by .25 on a jet with a modern wing design
You are so close to getting it. Keep going. This might be character development for you.
Right ok man
You should just admit you are incorrect
If I can then so can you
But I am not incorrect. I have already given you more than enough hints. It is not something nefarious. It should be something that is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain.
You changing something off screen and then pretending you didn’t is an extremely low thing to do
You only have one very slim line after all instead of the whole thing mate
Is that what you think that I am doing?
Yes I think you increased the size of the wing and left everything else the same and then said well now look you’re wrong because it sustains more G
Based on you’re reaction earlier you were flabbergasted I guess the 14 degrees AOA thing so well
It took you ages to just show it
Explain what is going on here.
Lmao that would be easy to explain
The harrier can’t pull 6.25 G at that given AOA and your math spreadsheet doesn’t include wing area
If you wanted to do 6.25 G you would need to use more AOA and therefore more drag and then it bleeds
Your math simply gives out Sep based on given conditions and a Sep of just 31 is correct
The SEP equation does not include wing area. It hasn’t this whole entire time.
No shit sherlock.
But wait you were saying earlier that it proved that everything you said about the Harrier was correct?! This statement is completely incongruous to what you said before.
No stop trying to wiggle around this
Your calculations just then we’re assuming that the aircraft was pulling 6.25 G at 12 degrees of AOA
A harrier would need like 16-17 degrees AOA to pull that at the selected weight
Now do your math correctly
16 degrees AOA
Lift .9
Drag .205
Thrust 14,500
G 6.25
.6 Mach
Why don’t you do the math?
I don’t have to it’s obvious you misunderstood the context of the G
It is assuming that the G value is achieved with the given AOA drag and lift coefficient
However the harrier is unable to pull 6.25 G at 12 degrees AOA with the associated L and D coefficients
Now use the correct AOA Lift and drag needed for the aircraft to achieve 6.25G and you will find it bleeds
I’m not even gooder at maths and could figure that out very quickly