After a few years of research I now have the final definitive sources regarding the Harriers flight performance and characteristics.
To summarize there’s is quite plainly not 1 thing correct concerning the first generation of harrier jets.
To start the lift modeled in game is approximately half of what it should be meaning you should be able to pull much more G at any given AOA.
If corrected the Harrier 1 will pull almost as many G at the same speed as the Harrier 2 currently in game.
Secondly the sustained turn rates of the harrier are far less than expected seeing as the jet only makes 35% of its rated thrust at higher speeds.
Lastly 0 of the beneficial effects of VIFF are realized in game making nozzle vectoring pointless.
I however see gaijin making no changes. They just simply do not care about this game being accurate or historical but simply making profit off of peoples under tiered premiums.
By all means if anyone thinks my in game tests are incorrect please do test for yourself as some have in the past trying to prove me incorrect and when you do test them post them here and in the bug report as more evidence.
Sorry, having trouble finding it out, but what is the gross weight of the aircraft in your WT tests?
What is the configuration for the NASA test in graphs 5-18 and 5-19? They have the gross weight listed, but I could not find anything else (clean aircraft? any suspended armaments/tanks?, etc.)
Also, are 5-18 and 5-19 tests done by NASA themselves or just graphs included from the Harrier’s manuals?
Lastly, the empty weight is listed as ~6307 kg and in your test (the one screenshot in your report) you have 1853 kg of fuel. This gives us the weight of the aircraft at ~8160 kg plus whatever the weight of the pilot + chaff/flare + cannon ammo is, compared to the 7584 kg in 5-18 and 5-19. Assuming that picture is testing the performance in comparison to 5-18 and 5-19, you might have a much heavier aircraft.
Oh, don’t include screenshots with WTRTI, devs don’t like it and prefer you use localhost directly (they might even just reject your report based solely on that).
In the NASA tests they used a T4 trainer harrier that was clean. They conducted the tests themselves. It was NASA that developed the Harrier II wing seen on the Gr5 AV-8B. The tests where simply to gauge the basic performance of the wing in normal turns and see how it handles when inside its comfortable zone.
The empty weight of the Gr3 is 6185.7Kg as seen from the technical report so 8,038 Kg when fuel is added. So yes its 454Kg more heavy then the Trainer Harrier. The trainer Harrier has a much larger drag profile due to its shape anyhow and was limited to around 6G meaning that all of its turn performance is within peace time tests and are not the max value.
If a Gr.3 in game performed this test with minimal internal fuel it would still not achieve 6 g sustained.
Just read that this morning think I might throw a fit lol. They have accepted it in the past for other vehicles. I am determined and will do it 100% on local host.
I just redid the test with your reply in mind and did it with 1300Kg of fuel so the aircraft weight is 7,484.7Kg and was getting the same results basically 4.8-4.9 G sustained when maintaining speed in the .7 Mach range.
Another pro tip: If you are have a target gross weight, instead of using the fuel percentage, set the aircraft mass directly, as it actually sets the fuel mass to match the aircraft gross weight (armament and stuff is already factored in). This is especially useful for when you have a target gross weight and the suspended armament/tanks, but not the fuel, and you also don’t have to worry about pilot, cannon ammo, and other possible essential equipment’s weight.
Wait, I’m a little confused. Does the aircraft used in NASA tests have the same wings as the GR.3 we have in game? What are the differences between the two, just cockpit, or are the wings also different?
kg to N ratio is not 1 : 10. It is ~1 : 9.806. Might not seem much, but the weight in kg is almost 120 heavier (~6307)
If everything else is correct with it, then yes (if you did the test under the right conditions, for the right aircraft, etc.). But getting the report acknowledged/accepted just means that a tech mod will forward the report to the devs. The devs will then look at it, judge it, assess it, and then reply. If you are lucky, you will get a response within a month. You might have to wait months, otherwise (I have not done much reporting on FMs, the FM devs might be faster than the ones looking at my reports, who knows). They could say that the performance falls within their standards (lol). They may deem that the FM is not to standard, but they have more important stuff to handle, and put it aside indefinitely (you probably will just not hear anything, then).
Anyway, better to just do the report to your best abilities, send it, and forget about it. You can check it from time to time in case they ask for more info if you want.
The NASA Harrier has the same wings and engine. Its just got a 2 seat cockpit and longer tail.
My apologies about the weight that makes it around 7600, that is still very close though and still it underperforms by a lot.
What other issues lol they completely remodeled the Laggs from hand written soviet sources.
They made that one America light tanks frontal plate bounce APFSDS.
Reduced the Javelins afterburner thrust.
Changed the tornados turn performance and gave us a butchered brimstone.
They can do the harriers if they really care about the game.
Finalizations so I can whine to Gaijin as they don’t seem to want to fix it. Here is the data you tell me if it is correct.
Remember .55 Mach=366 knots
Az/g=normal G force
Ax/g=forward acceleration
What I get is 5.5G with 0 gaining or losing airspeed at 366 knots=16-17 degrees a second sustained turn rate.
