Sea Harrier, Gr Harriers, AV-8A/AV-8C, and AV-8S discussion about flight performance

[MatrixRupture]

Without a doubt the first generation Harriers underperform. I do realize I sound like a broken record but I just want them to fix this iconic aircraft I really am no different to the F-16 boys or the SU27 kids.

Abstract:
In accordance the the NAVAIR AV-8A Turn Capabilities chart and the data from the technical report the Harrier Gr.3 can sustain 16-17 degrees a second at sea level at 366 knots (.55 Mach). This includes the drop tanks and missiles. This would be a 2000 foot turn radius at a constant 16-17 degrees a second.
Values
.55 Mach 5.5G sustained at around 13 degrees AOA seen on the technical report.

Link to OLD bug report:
Sea, Gr, and AV-8 Harriers Induced drag too high // Gaijin.net // Issues

New Report using ONLY Localhost:8111 and with 1300 Kg fuel meaning the in game aircraft is lighter then all the tested aircraft IRL.
Gr,AV-8,Harriers have Incorrect flight models. // Gaijin.net // Issues

In game they do have near identical G pull and turn rates at given speeds and AOA just like they should, but they are sustaining on average 2 G less in any given sustained turn then what NASA documents as well as what the Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Report 77021 state.

I believe that in game the only thing they need changed is the induced wing drag across the AOA range. In doing so the turn rate chart and max G chart will remain accurate with the harrier and the sustained G chart will increase to what its IRL values are. Inversely this also can mean the engine needs to make more thrust as airspeed increases.

Examples and tests:

(All tests I trialed in game are with a spaded Gr.3 Harrier with only gun pods and 30 mins internal fuel.)

(Technical Report 77021 features a Gr.3 with 2x100 gallon drop tanks on the inboard pylons and 2xaim9G on the outer; this gives the real aircraft a significant amount more drag at any Alpha. Standard weight of 15500LBS and a gross thrust at sea level of 95.5% Nf/Radical of 0 (rotational engine power). There is a chart with thrust output at different Mach values with .7 Mach being 27018Lbs/thrust)

First test from Report 77021:

Normal acceleration versus longitudinal acceleration at .7 Mach nozzles aft
Az/g= 6.25 at 10 degrees AOA while still accelerating and 6.5G at a value near 11 degrees AOA while maintaining 0 Ax/g acceleration longitudinally (maintaining forward airspeed)

In game test at .7 Mach below 300 Meters altitude 95% throttle or over 100% rotational speed:
Unable to maintain speed at 10 AOA.
4.8G sustained at 9 degrees AOA at .7 +/- .01 Mach

Test 2 TR 77021:
No flaps .85 Mach nozzles aft
Sustaining speed at 7.5 degrees AOA at 8.75 G

In game:
Maintaining speed at 6.5 degrees AOA 5.2G

Conclusions:
According to the NAVAIR AV-8A flight manuals turn rate chart for the Marines, With the values listed the Harrier could sustain just over 15 degrees a second at 466 knots (.7 Mach) and 6.5 G with a weight of 15,500 lbs and a turn radius very near 3000 feet. With a whole 57% in game throttle might I add.

Last test was at .95 Mach and the Gr.3 in game cannot even reach this clean. The IRL aircraft was sustaining 5.25G at around 4 degrees AOA.

Documents: (Declassified)

At any rate this is the Buffet Onset turn performance chart on a T4 harrier studied by NASA. As you can see it is sustaining 14 degrees a second at 6G (overload graph) at .7 Mach at sea level.

The Gr3 in game at Sea Level turns as fast as a trainer harrier would turn above 10,000 feet. This is seriously wrong in game. Obviously the Military single seat harriers turn better. Just over 15 degrees a second at the same speed with a full combat load is what the test above would suggest.

[MatrixRupture]

[MatrixRupture]

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.

[MatrixRupture]

Here is the G overload sheet associated with the NASA test.
Also below is the statement by NASA about the two graphs.

[Grimtax]

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).

[Nacho5944]

Yeah they just rejected it for using WTRTI

[MatrixRupture]

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.

[MatrixRupture]

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.

[MatrixRupture]

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.

[Grimtax]

Pro tip: Use http://localhost:8111/editor/fm_commands.html to set the fuel mass (works only in test flight, AFAIK).

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.

[MatrixRupture]

Didn’t know that thanks you for the insight. In your opinion do you think they will accept the new report with the Localhost:8111 directly?

[Grimtax]

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?

@MatrixRupture

6185.7Kg

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)

@MatrixRupture

Didn’t know that thanks you for the insight. In your opinion do you think they will accept the new report with the Localhost:8111 directly?

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.

[MatrixRupture]

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.

[이승만]

I tribute to your hard work.sincerely

[MatrixRupture]

I really appreciate that thank you.

I don’t see my efforts being seen by the Devs however.

[MatrixRupture]

Chungus 2 seat Harriers.
For anyone wondering that’s the actual NASA plane used in the tests.

[Grimtax]

That reporting platform is flooded with reports. Your best bet would be to dm a tech mod asking them to take a look at your report.

[MatrixRupture]

Do you know any Techmods that would be willing to look into it.

[MatrixRupture]

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.

[Grimtax]

Gunjob, InterFleet, David Bowie