Even if you understand the formula you keep failing to understand what the correct values to put in it are
2 examples being you used gross thrust and you changed the G input without realizing the plane needed more AOA to reach the G input
Both times you failed to understand what is happening in the real world effecting the aircraft
Understanding the math is great and all but if you don’t understand what values are needed to use the formula what’s the point.
You’ve proven today without a shadow of a doubt you DO NOT understand the actual use of the formulas or how to solve for them.
Going to summarize this again for you:
Today you have mathematically proven that the harrier underperforms by almost the exact margins I claimed it did.
You input known and tested values of Lift C drag C the net thrust at 100% rpm at .6 Mach with the weight index of the irl chart into the SEP equation
These data points came directly from nasa and the royal aircraft establishment via my sources you can’t logically argue against them without saying nasa and the rae messed something up
And surprise surprise it resulted in almost an exact match the the IRL E-M chart for PS=0 at .6 Mach
The only reason it was ever so slightly higher was because the drag on the mathematical harrier was less then that of the real one.
That’s extremely easy to understand
Sitting here arguing against it is foolish and pointless.
1 Like
they cruise at like 30-40k
No they don’t mate they attack at that altitude
They have very little SEP at dry power up there so when they push out they are 25-30
Any red flag debrief will tell you that
lol he copied the helicopter quote
Oh boy here i thought Sea Jesus died long ago.
Turns out he was always there, under the name of Sea Harrier.
A plane that is soo good it basically beats most dedicated 4th gen fighters in almost any area, makes me wonder why British engineers didn’t kept upgrading the sea harrier instead of switching to F-35 or Eurofighters.
2 Likes
You can do this conjecture later.
Your opinion on an aircraft is completely yours to have.
However it’s foolish to try and deny the most basic performance characteristics of an aircraft simply because you THINK it’s bad.
This is an aircraft at the end of the day went head first into a conflict with conditions and challenges almost no other aircraft could cope with.
It proved vice-less achieving one of the highest kill ratios of a modern jet fighter. A high reliability rate when operating on a tiny carrier in bad weather thousands of miles away from spare parts. While being out numbered 10-1
As John Farley said it best “Anyone familiar with the harrier and what it can do wasn’t surprised about how well it did in the Falklands”
Oh its not just about my thoughts its based on facts and maths.
@FeetPics is right here.
Lol.
My my, still much worse than F-15/16 despite bein better aircraft according to your claims and cherry-picked documents, makes me wonder how Sea Jesus didn’t get the best ratio in the end despite fighting against mostly A4’s and Mirage3’s that didn’t even have all-aspect missiles nor enough fuel to stay on battlefield.
Thats not confirmed actually, its based on claims.
Funny how other harrier pilots also said that Sea Harrier is dogshit against any dedicated 4th gen fighters in dogfight or other scenarios, guess pilot claims only becomes revelant when you post them.
Anyway it seems discussing this topic is pretty pointless considering you believe Sea Harrier is some kinda plane that can defy physics and not bein obligated to any law.
1 Like
His math just proved me correct
Stupid comment to make given today’s discussions
You call me a cherry picker when you’re referring to AV-8B pilots
The harrier 2 is a fat bomber and that’s it
It’s worse then the harrier 1 in all air combat parameters
Actually quite the opposite.
His math only became revelant when it suited you on spesific scenario.
Dude he didn’t even know that you can’t use gross thrust in the equation
Don’t even start
What happened here is he put the irl figures in and got the result in the E-M chart ( ie my figures)
Also not man enough to come out and admit it
completely biased, there is no such thing as a viceless aircraft.
you know they keep spare parts on the carriers right?
by badly maintained flareless A-4’s and Mirages, and a bunch of even worse attack aircraft
Sea harriers were also flareless
which in the end didnt affect them as much since Argentina had far fewer and worse IR missiles, their planes barely had enough fuel to make it to falklands and back so they couldnt actually fight very much
False
They had lots of time on station even had
The argies were scared of the Shar self admit-tingly in official reports
1 Like
You talk as if the F-15 didn’t shoot down outdated jets at BVR range
The sea harrier had to get in visual
The sea harrier gunned more jets
Airframe for airframe the sea harrier has more kills
it also downed newer aircraft like the MiG-29
what does this even mean
ofc they will be worried about an aircraft with better radar and missiles that can stick around to fight longer.
they were pushed to the limits of their aircrafts range, they only had 2 tankers and some of their aircraft couldnt even refuel midair. its generally agreed upon they didnt have much time and almost always just attempted their airstrike and tried to leave making them very easy kills
1 Like
Stick around and fight longer is a natural advantage to f the harrier
No they had lots of time to fight they just tried to avoid them
they did not, between getting loaded up, having to operate from afar, and having to fly low which hurts range a lot, they did not have much time to stick around if they didnt want to bail out in the Atlantic
only because they were able to fly off carriers which were closer. if it was the other way around sea harriers would have struggled similarly
1 Like
Bro
They managed to fly all the way around the fleet
Go to low level sink Atlantic conveyer and then fly all the way back
Your claim has been disproven In after action reviews
You’re grasping at straws
