Dev response for bug report
2 Likes
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like they’re still working off the understanding that the maximum achieveable speed is M0.9, instead of that being the maximum safe rated speed.
They’ve said that there is no excess power after M0.9 which doesn’t align with what the source material is saying. (Thrust should still be in effect until the airspeed matches the nozzle output speed which is 360m/s from the front nozzles and 525m/s at the rear (using the engine temps doc).
Also reading the comparison between the Mig21 and the Harrier, it says the Harrier is at a disadvantage from .5g at 250kts to 4g at 500kts, which only makes sense with the corrected flight model, and doesn’t align with the current flight model.
Then it looks like they’re not taking into account the reduction of wing loading caused by VIFFing either. “requires insane amount of thrust and and insane wing efficiency or much lower weight”. Wouldn’t the relatively downward vector of thrust reduce the wing loading and cause the plane to fly as if it weighed less?
From reading that they might have a point about the 17 deg/sec turn rate being instantaneous turn though, as from the source Central Tactics and Trials Consideration it reads under the header “Improved performance Using NLR” that the maximum sustained turn rate is 11-13 deg/sec, and in the “Effects of TVC” says TVC only provides 0.05g benefit in the sustained turn.
Interested to hear your thoughts @MatrixRupture and what your reply to the Dev Response is. I’m just learning a fair bit from all of this - it’s interesting stuff.
Cheers,
Sebdspy
3 Likes
I am not too happy but I happen to have just been to the national archives today and can prove a few things about the Gr.1 such as its G achieved with flaps mid, buffet onset characteristics etc. There view of it is incorrect
1 Like
Im not happy they didnt read any of it
@Gunjob in their reply they clearly stated they have Harrier 2 E-M diagrams just like the one I shared. Can I use it or could you ask what E-M diagram they have.
I’m a little mad the devs don’t even know the harriers thrust setting or rating.
They did it completely incorrectly and have shown how little they understand or care about the Harrier.
I’m honestly surprised that they didn’t lock the comments on that report.
But at this point it seems like they just don’t care.
Is my reply valid?
Yeah it seems perfectly fine. Honestly if that won’t atleast get the report passed on then pretty much nothing will. It’s clear evidence of the issue and I don’t see how it can’t be anything else
Yeah he didn’t even test it correctly, didn’t correctly reference any of my provided sources, didn’t use accurate weights, and didn’t even use correct thrust settings.
The bigger question is if anyone is going to see it. I don’t think they have any notifications there (or there are so many that important comments get drowned). Also, this is not the dev coming themselves and responding, it is them responding (somewhere internally) and a tech mod pasting that message in the bug report, so a tech mod would have to deliver your response.
I contacted the same Tech mod again as their reply was complete garbage to be quite frank they didn’t take any notice of it.
Happens often, sadly.
Its missing so much performance its clear bias against the harrier here.
I don’t understand why you’re referring to a nato classified source. They can’t use it.
I didn’t know it was classified lmao it can be found online with a google search.
I pray that it at least one day can get its warranted buffs so it can hold its own in air combat like IRL, rather than being the glorified missile bus/van it effectively is at the moment without extreme luck & skill…
thank you for your work, if only to relieve me that someone out there cares also about it and that it should be better than it currently is lol
I don’t know if the Dev involved with this reply is dumb or just doesn’t like the Harrier and has some preemptive bias. They can’t deny what’s been shared its all there. They didn’t even test it correctly, using 50% fuel vs 85% and 100 percent thrust vs 80.