Yeah they did that for fuel preservation and engine life, not due to engine overheat which basically only happens if you push the engine to its absolute max for a prolonged period of time by this era of jet engine.
The harriers are modeled pretty poorly ingame with the massive trails of smoke that are not at all accurate to how the Pegasus engines performed irl, along with the Thrust nozzles each counting as a extra engine in terms of IR signature so Harriers are some of the hottest aircraft ingame (hotter than even something like the F-14 which is a feat in of itself) when they should be a relatively cold aircraft due to the size of the airframe along with the engines not actually producing that much heat.
If you want sources for these claims its very well documented from Former & Active Harrier pilots in numerous books and reports(FAA,RAF and USMC).
Harrier’s engine produces smoke.
And Harrier modeled in both DCS and War Thunder are tied to engine heat.
Cause the reason for lower lifespan is due to high heat stress.
On top of that, Harrier GR1 uses one of the first Pegasus engines, which isn’t as resilient as the ones in Harrier II and AV-8B.
Those sources will say the same exact thing I’ve been saying, which means we’re in agreement.
Your entire 2nd half of your 2nd paragraph is just repeating what I’ve said previously.
i didnt say it was smokeless, i said the amount of smoke it produces is incorrect.
Yes the first harrier engines were worse than the later ones, i think its exaggerated in warthunder due to points already mentioned by other members like how 80% of throttle ingame is equal to 110% of irl throttle.
my point on IR signature which you seem to have just blown past entirely was that due to its small airframe the harrier had a lower IR signature, but ingame it does not mainly due to how gaijin models the Thrust nozzles which produce the same IR signature as the main engine when they shouldnt.
but if youre still having trouble believing me, here you go, some video proof, but the funny thing is is you disproved yourself in the very same video you posted.
So the AV-8B spewing as much smoke in the video as War Thunder’s AV-8B does disproves my claim?
You thought I claimed AV-8B produces more smoke than War Thunder? lol
where did i actually say this, point it out for me as english isnt my first language.
or it turns out the engine only produces smoke when its using water injection, but alas, if 2 official documents and multiple sections of the video you linked doesnt convince you, but you instead try to gaslight yourself into thinking youre correct, then im afraid this fools errand can go on forever
Not that I would really blame them for doing or at least trying so.
The earlier F-84 variants in the American tech tree for ex: F-84B/G both have air spawns when they honestly shouldn’t even when classified as attackers/strike fighters since their performance can be directly used as a BnZ fighter rather quite effectively against their contemporaries they face which can range from early jets and late propeller WW2 aircraft.
A player who has experienced using these air spawns with the F-84B/G would surely try it with the F-84F no?
Until they realize that the swept-winged, upgraded engine version F-84F is non-foldered with the previous F-84s in a completely separate line whilst still getting the air spawn, has worse initial acceleration (compared to the F-84G at least) and being worse in overall sustained turn-rate thanks to no longer having straight wings which also translates to bleeding airspeed in maneuvers even more.
This essentially means you have a worse turning and accelerating F-84G that can just carry more modern bombs and rockets at 8.3 which is also supersonic/IR missile territory.
TDLR: It’s pretty rare for an attack aircraft in the game to possess both poor maneuverability and terrible acceleration at the same time which is why the F-84F is pretty terrible in the sense that it is not a very good or effective aircraft at its BR in Air RB regardless if you’re even using it purely as a fighter or bomber.
but there are maps that had bridges in them. Where are they? Gaijin recycles the same maps over and over again, Korea hasn’t been played in over a year at top tier, Norway has multiple A.I Targets ships bases air fields etc, where is it? There are no boats in top tier maps to attack
For reference when I got the Pegasus 106 corrected these were the developer comments;
89% of throttle is not 89% RPM, lower throttle lower and achieve required RPM for cooldown engine less or equal to 620deg 'C, it is around 75% of throttle at SL or less at altitude.
100% throttle and 705’C is max power dry with 3 min limitation like in Mk. 105, this matches to manual (Normal Lift 2.5min 705’C) and ~10min for 670’C (should be fixed to 15min, will do it) and 30+ for 620’C (not rated by manual but it is natural estimation and requirement for our thermodynamics and gaming conventions).
We will fix max continuous to ~1h for ~90% RPM or 70-80% throttle
Is the F-84G really that bad? Every match I play, they always end up at 5km, which is often 2-3km above my aircraft. They are also incredibly fast and can outrun some 8.0 aircraft. It isn’t very fair for them to get an airspawn because of their speed. Also, since they only use the long runways now, shouldn’t they be able to?
They are the main reason why I don’t play 7.0-8.0 anymore, it just isn’t fun facing planes that always have an alt advantage.
