As an enjoyer of Air Sim and the Harrier it’s interesting to see the thrust chart where the engine becomes more efficient as speed increases. I remember reading about Harrier tactics and the effect of Viffing, and in the current state of the game Viffing feels very weak until you get to slower speeds. I’ve never been able to properly replicate the Harrier tactics I read as a result, which was always a little dissappointing for me.
If the thrust is actually supposed to have a higher efficiency as speed increases, and drag/AoA isn’t properly modelled that would help explain the disparity here quite nicely. I would love to see what a properly modelled Harrier would feel like if the flight model is fixed.
Kudos to your efforts, I hope the Harrier flight model is able to be accurately represented in game!
As for the Harrier being modeled accurately in game I’m starting to think its a waste of my efforts Gaijin doesn’t seem to give much care into fixing any of the Harrier issues. (Engine smoke, Hud, Temps, ect.)
As for the effects of VIFFing we could use the report i provided as it is the effects of VIFFing and how it changes turn performance. You can see that at in all the charts whenever the aircraft performed the VIFF turn it needed less AOA to get the same G load. The VIFF essentially creates fake lift and removed weight on the wing.
This thread makes me sad. I love the early and late gen harriers, and to see the early gen ones under-performing and all the evidence to support it with no response from the devs is disheartening.
Yes but I’m not hopeful lol. The first gen Harriers underperform worse then any plane in game. Everyone keeps raging about the SU-27 and all but whats the difference in sustained turn performance there like .3G at the most?
I have in game tests and IRL documents that show the first gen Harriers are missing the better part of a whole 2G! In comparison the SU-27 is irrelevant.
Matrix, I just want to say I commend you for your efforts. I have loved the Harrier since I was a kid, and reading books about them beating F-5s in dogfights then flying the brick we have in game has been disappointing. I very much hope Gaijin heed your report and implement the flight model change. Id love for the Sea Harriers to be viable outside of being missile trucks.
Thank you, and yes its been accepted so that’s the first major obstacle. After that is just about waiting as I don’t see the devs being all to bothered about fixing the Harriers compared to other newer jets in game.
With some new documents I have received I have a final answer of the Harrier 1s max sustained turn rate under a combat thrust setting. In game it will do 9.9 a second and it should do 13 a second being able to be increased with higher thrust setting.
Math:
The Pegasus Mk103 in game has a max RPM of 7510 and that gives us the max thrust available by the engine, being wet thrust max in the IRL chart that is 107% RPM irl.
7510/107=70.186 70.186*95=6667.75RPM so with this math 6667.75 in game RPM is the IRL equivalent of 95% rpm or combat rating. Using local host 60% throttle will meet this RPM setting.
Top Speed:
Under the 15 min rating or 95% RPM the NASA Harrier was able to reach .92 Mach in level flight at sea level. The Gr.3 in game under the same conditions will reach .89.
Turn Performance finalization:
With 85% fuel, 2 full gun pods, and with a throttle set at 60% the Harrier Gr.3 should sustain 13 degrees a second as said directly by the Harrier air combat evaluation report. This changes the turn time from 36 to 27 with higher thrust ratings increasing this even further. The minimum aerodynamic 1G airspeed for the Harrier 1 is also in correct in game and should reach G 10 knots sooner.
Harrier 1 and Harrier 2s:
The Harrier 1s should have a turn time listed as 27 seconds. The Harrier 2s should have a 23 second time.
Yeah that’s true, they still haven’t addressed the bug reports for its heat signature being way too high. Even though they have 4 nozzles it should only be hot exhaust from 2 of them.
