I have not.
This has always been the case.
Do you mean unable?
Okay but how much should it bleed? Surely you have an estimate.
It took you 1000 messages to figure out triangles. I do not think that you get it.
Like -100-200 maybe put the figures in let’s find out
Non of this changes the fact that input the wrong data set to get to 6.25G
So your error margin is a factor of 2?
Stop wiggling and just input the correct values for 6.25G
You’re starting to get it. Keep going.
Answer me small question.
Why is it when you look at 3 different CL/CD simulations and model testing of the same plane that you will get entirely different CL/CD curve?
You don’t you’re referring to AV-8B data to make it sound like you have a point when you don’t
I actually am not. I am actually referring to Su-27 and Eurofighter.
Now
Input the data for 6.25 G
With the values given
We will find that it bleeds
Here you go. Figure out how to do it yourself.
Right trying to divert the topic as you are wrong
I think it’s time for you to man up a bit and accept that you are incorrect.
Your own Sep calculations using the irl data that I believe to be true proved that.
I am not diverting the topic. I am inviting you to figure it out. And also figure out fundamental flaws in this approach. There is a reason it is not featured in any of my videos.
This is a very bad showing of your character and integrity
Everything you’ve been spewing off about for the last few days is BS
It’s time for you to apologize, accept that you didn’t know and move on.
It’s like I warned you several days ago now
-you don’t know enough about the harrier to talk about it like you’ve got a clue-
How is this a bad showing of my character and integrity? I showed you potential avenue that Harrier might be underperforming in the game. The earlier estimates that you were arguing were egregiously wrong would have “proven” that the in-game Harrier is under-performing if taken purely at face value.
There is a witty statement to be made about your basic comprehension of trigonometry or how you doubled and tripled down that it wasn’t real even when multiple people explained otherwise.
So which is it? Does my math “prove” something or doesn’t it? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It’s either one or the other.
Mate I’ll say it again as it is
I owned up to my stupidity publicly I had it wrong for an unrelated math equation I’ve not done any trig in a long time
I genuinely have nothing against you on a personal level and sincerely hope that you have a happy and fulfilling life
However you started this whole thing off saying that my basic lift theory was incorrect
As you said your math has proven my theory’s correct. It is underperforming quite a lot.
My values when put into the Sep equation result in the values seen on the E-M chart
How are they egregiously wrong
Wasn’t your math you had to be explained what values to input in the formula
And then whined the whole time because the lift and drag had to be taken from 2 sources
Despite the 2 sources being primary and specific to the AV-8A Gr.1
Dude you made the argument that doing calculations was part of your job. You were denying basic relationships that you should have learned in primary school.
Where is the EM chart? There is no EM chart with any positive or negative values. There are two ways to get to the same basic end result. One of them is to use 18 degrees AoA values and higher thrust or use 14 AoA values and lower thrust. My guess is that Gaijin uses the former instead of the later due to the way the game engine is coded.
My math is the basic aerodynamics that you claimed could not be applied to the Harrier.
You’re really foolish enough to sit here now and argue that a jet aircraft uses its entire gross thrust