Well I just got my documents from the national archives and quite impressively we are both incorrect on sustained turn performance. At 10 AOA the tested harrier Gr.3 with 2 aim9g and 2 fuel wing tanks but no gun pods at M.7 and no flap deflection can sustain around 6.5 normal G acceleration without gaining or losing any Lateral acceleration this is then a 6.5G sustained turn at .7 Mach. M.7 = 466.71 knots at sea level and if we look at the NATOPS AV-8A Turn Capabilities chart that almost exactly 15 degrees a second if not slightly over. Again that’s sustained as in not losing or gaining airspeed. This document also lists installed engine thrust at sea level for different Mach values.
A train ticket to London and a day spent at the National Archives taking many hundreds of photos.
Interesting, which documents did you get? This is the one I found 11°/s quoted in:
Unfortunately the sustained turn rate graph was completely blank because the manual in the archives is a photocopy and you can’t photocopy clear plastic, which is what the graph was printed on.
One of the most useful pages in the manual, and it is literally the only one that didn’t photocopy properly.
1 Like
I posted my documents above and its called The Effect of In-flight Thrust Vectoring on the Characteristics of the Harrier Gr Mk.3 Aircraft in Combat Configuration. Its catalog number is AVIA6/25706 and it does in fact have all the data graphs lol. Looking at yours thought it assumes the Gr3 has 5 pylons fitted and 2/3 internal fuel.
Seems a bit odd for it to hold 5G and only turn at 11 degrees a second that .6 Mach becomes 400 Knots at sea level and if you look at the Turn Capabilities chart for the AV-8A with the Pegasus 11 engine its doing almost 15 with the 400 knots and 5g. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was intentionally underplayed in this document to maybe fool the soviets.
Its all good mate, its from our National Archives.
I don’t want to see anymore of that cope, we we’re not putting false information in our secret level documents provided to aircrews to fool the soviets…
1 Like
I wouldn’t say cope lol. Why would the Royal Aircraft Establishment release false data. What it does say very clearly is that at just over 10 degrees AOA at Mach .7 zero flap and zero nozzle deflection it will will do about 6.5 G without gaining or losing any longitudinal acceleration.
Different testing conditions can lead to different results. We were not providing our aircrews with false information on how to fly their aircraft on the off chance the Soviets got a hold of the document. That is cope and incredibly dumb when you think about it for even a singular second.
Alright so then what’s the general consensus, does it underperform in game compared to the various sources or not. For one the document the states 11 degrees a second doesn’t even have a graph or flight test data to use for referencing. Where as the AVIA document and the NATOPS documents all do and are based on flight tests and wind tunnel tests with specific weights and configurations.
I don’t know, your FM report is a total world salad then breaks off talking about the HUD and other topics. Then is talking about dog fighting F-5’s etc.
It needs to be simple and clear.
In X manual the conditions for X have been tested and I achieved X with the same conditions.
We don’t need a 50 page write up on it.
Yes I agree lol and I apologies for that as well. There are many issues with them and I shouldn’t group them all into one big word salad. I and one other person on the forum have conducted a similar test for sustained turn performance at 300 knots and could only achieve around 10.8 degrees a second. My source says .7 Mach so it looks as though I will need to test more in game again.
The only part of the FM that feels a tad off to me is the energy retention. Just feels like it bleeds a little too much speed when doing turns.
The Impression I alwasy get from SHar books is that the Harriers either dont loose much energy in turns or accelerate near instantly back up to speed afterwards.
No worries, its one issue per report.
If you have an issue with the sustain turn rate, that is one report.
You need to show the conditions in the manual you are quoting, then demonstrate those conditions in game using FRC. It should be a very short report, we don’t need big explanations of the what or why. Just the data and your own testing.
No need for any personal opinions or general complains etc etc.
I’ve been reading Sharkey Wards book a little after you mentioned it and he talked about when they did some simulated combat with the F-5C aggressor squadron in the USA and Ward achieved a 12-1 K/D ration and he said that the only way to lose that fight is to let the nose drop below the F-5. Based of my experience in game any F-5 will run circles around you in a turn fight regardless.
Yep, its encounters like that which make me feel something isnt quite right.
either that, or Im flying it really wrong
Yes I’ll write a proper report after more tests. There is one issue however and that is that the test aircraft had no gun pods but had 2 fuel bags and 2 aim9gs. We can not remove the gun pods on the Harrier Gr3 and there is no drop tanks. How would you recommend doing the test so it provides clear results.
The only way to win that fight is to come from above dive in below and make sure you have more speed, and never turn with them climb away.
If it cannot be replicated in game, you cannot use those results. Drag values will be totally different.
Then it looks like as of right now its not possible to know. The documents I have above from the National Archive are the only solid evidence I have of what the tin wing harriers can achieve as far as sustained G turns are concerned. All the NASA data then also doesn’t apply.
Speaking of trying more test right not and at .7 Mach at 10 degrees AOA it will be losing speed pretty fast with 90 percent thrust with 25 mins fuel and only gun pods. The gr3 with two drop tanks and 2 aim9g can hit the 10 degree AOA and actually still be accelerating irl. This you can see in the graph above. If you have the Gr3 maybe give it a try in FRC and see what you can sustain at .7 Mach.