You just cant leave it alone can you.
I’m not an aeronautical engineer, neither are you, and you should stop pretending to be one lol.
Besides you didn’t even know what real world data to input into the equation.
This is going nowhere to that’s quite enough now.
Surely if you believe the calculation is correct then you would prove it against other known quantities.
This is covered in first year introduction to engineering courses. It’s a very basic principle.
It was proven against:
The E-M chart in the TACMAN
The G capabilities Chart in the RtoS doc
The buffet and maneuver boundaries in the RtoS doc
AV-8A conversional trim maps
Very basic indeed, it holds up compared to all of the primary sources.
The math doesn’t even matter anyways as we are not aeronautical engineers. I’m not even going to pretend to act as if that 1 math problem has any real valitidy.
All I did was point out the irony, you started making Bleed rate calculations to be oppositional. You used fundamentally incorrect data. This proved to me at least, that even if you had the theory you had no understanding of the practical.
When I corrected your input values (Values that came from primary sources - values found by real aeronautical engineers) The SEP calculation ended up approximately correct for the given condition.
You cant even string 2 simple documents together to just get the basic lift and sustained G characteristics for the plane flying around normally with just the wing. Then how can you have a peaceful and informational conversation about this aircraft.
All I’m getting at is this:
You should stop trying to push across your opinions of an aircraft as being facts of an aircraft.
Its performance is better then you are implying and that’s extremely easy to see. There’s no reason for you to continue carrying on in here.
Why don’t you just admit that you can’t do the math and can’t build the calculation in Excel? Your staking your entire claim about the Harrier performance based on my own bootleg calculator.
I’ve already done this by the way…over a year ago.
Let me put it this way. You are saying the calculator is right because it says 1+1=2. I am asking you to put 2+2 into the calculator and then see what it says. And then what happens when the calculator says 2+2=5 and what it says about the accuracy of how it got to 1+1=2.
Never said that at all, read.
I have always compared the harriers performance to simple charts and data points from primary sources.
If you want to believe them or not is on you.
Have a good day there is no point to talking to you further as you can simply not discuss things in good faith.
Which EM chart? Show one with bleed rates.
What is the evidence that the calculated bleed rate is correct?
If calculator says 2+2=5 then is it a good calculator? Or do we believe that Harrier powe-off bleed rate would be superior to any litany of 3rd and 4th generation planes?
Already told you
You can’t do the math and don’t understand the calculation.
Let me make it simpler for you.
There is a rock throwing calculator that lets you calculate what angle to throw rocks, how fast to throw them, etc. And you have a special rock throwing device.
The calculator has 2 basic inputs.
The drag value of the rock.
The velocity of the rock.
You take your special rock throwing calculator and your special rock throwing device to a place to throw rocks. Your rock throwing machine throws rocks at 3000fps. Your drag values for your rocks were measured in a lab.
What happens when the rock throwing calculator says it takes 10 units to hit a target at 1000 units? But when you actually test it…it only took 9.7 units?
What variable do you change in the rock throwing calculator to get the correct output?
I’m not a rock throwing scientist so I’m not going to pretend to be one.
And neither should you.
I actually know the answer to this question though. I am quite good at throwing rocks.
This is a relatively simple question in relation to aerodynamics.
So do you change the drag until it shows 9.7?
Or do you change the starting velocity until it reaches 9.7?
Unrelated and off topic
You’re not a rock throwing scientist.
And a rock is not a harrier yet alone a sea harrier
except it is very much on topic
you cant understand that he is explaining the formular to calculate the SEP to you right now
I’m pretty close to one. I did it for quite awhile.
A rock is more aerodynamic.
It’s not even that. I’m trying to explain the basics of trueing a solver.
Read
So… Sea Eagles for the FRS1 when?
Whenever Gaijin get round to modelling the launchers I guess (probably a long time).
Yeah…