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.
I’ve not got the Gr3 spaded, but I’ll have a play in the FRS1, should be close enough and see what results I get
Yes they have the same FM so far as i can tell but if we both get the same result then I would believe you are correct in saying the drag is way to high on the wing. I have been getting about 8.5-9 degrees AOA before I start to lose speed. That’s 5G at .7 or 445-450 Knots IAS and 11 degrees a second turn when clean with 22 mins internal fuel. Normal acceleration or G force is nothing more then the relationship between Lift and Weight so the Harrier in the real world are making a lot more lift then the ones in game.
So in theory, if the IRL harrier had better performance with a full combat load and provisions. Compared to an in game clean Harrier with no provisions of equivalent weight. Would there be an argument that can be made using the data and evidence seen, that the Harrier flight model should be looked at? Seeing how a fully combat loaded IRL Harrier out turns, and has a better sustained G compared to a 0 drag reference Harrier in game. Should this not be enough to raise a few eyebrows and possibly lead to the devs reconsidering there Harrier 1 FM performance.
Gaijin I’m about to finish researching the First Sea Harrier so you need to fix it by the time I’m done I’ll give you three days. @AntonYudintsev
Secondly, the Sea Harrier FRS.E is just 1 br step above but it gets double the missiles, so you need to move the first Sea Harrier down by a br step too.
Yep, same for the F-104. They both have tiny wings, like bleed speed like they’re damn A-4s.
Whilst the F-104’s issues kinda makes sense (Gajin’s flight model is too basic to model characteristics that early 2000s flight sims already had factored in), the Harrier is inexcusable.
The reason the engine IR signature is so very much cooler is that the engine is a high-bypass ratio turbofan and not a turbojet. Turbojets run exclusively on heat. However, turbofans use turbines after the combustion section to drive larger fans at the front which simply blow large masses of air around the engine and add to thrust. They increase thrust with better fuel efficiency and mix with the hot exhaust (which is no longer as hot because the turbines robbed some of that heat to drive the first stage fans) thereby further cooling the heat signature.
Most jet fighters use low-bypass ratio turbofans which have first stage fans which are not massively larger than the engine itself. This is because high-bypass ratio turbofans are bigger increasing fuselage drag and they react slower (it takes a lot more energy to spool up or slow down those bigger fans [inertia] and don’t react quickly to immediate needs for more power). The Harrier uses a high-bypass ratio turbofan because it solved a great many problems involved with thrust vectoring. The front nozzles don’t have heat shields because they aren’t necessary simply blowing the cool air from the first stage fan. The rear nozzles do have a heat shield because they are carrying the hot engine exhaust of the core.
Sort of yes but the Harriers wing is a whole meter wider and has a higher aspect ratio. It’s also got a properly prominent airfoil vs the f104 that are thin enough to cut you.
The difference in wing loading is huge a combat loaded Gr.3 has a wing loading of around 370 odd kg/m^2
The f104 is at 500 odd kg/m^2
The Harrier also features high AOA flow aiding devices.