The preemptive bias here isn’t an inherent bias against a certain vehicle purely on the basis of it being said vehicle, but rather prejudgment (preexisting assumptions) and lack of depth during investigation. It often feels that, unless you somehow pique the interest of a dev, your report will be given a quick read and then any judgement will be made solely on their existing subject matter knowledge and impression of what you were getting at.
Sometimes, you write a quick report on a big bug, it gets passed quickly and within a couple of weeks they fix the reported bug, alongside some other related issue that you didn’t even know about.
And sometimes, you report something, write out the details and highlight important points that can easily be missed/misinterpreted, wait half a year, only to then see that whoever read the report seemingly glossed over everything you wrote, fell into the trap you tried so hard keep them away from, and declared that everything is fine and requires no changes. As a cherry on top, the report is marked as not a bug (or fixed with no actual fix), the replies are immediately closed off, and when you ask mods to reopen it and/or to deliver your message clarifying the issue to the devs, you get told the tried and true “file a new report”.
The more I write reports, the more I feel like a man writing an email with a request to someone who doesn’t even want to read it.
Don’t even know know where I was going with this, but I feel you.
At the end of the day these people are game devs. They make video games - not weaponry, aircraft, tanks, etc. You’re not telling me they don’t often speedread through a lot of technical stuff without really having the slightest grasp of what it is actually saying.
That isn’t a slight by the way. If someone were to give me a paper on molecular structures - I’d probably be reduced to 'nodding politely and making ‘uh-huh’ noises quite quickly; without any clue by the end of the it. In fact that’s probably why I didn’t do all that well at Chemistry…
Combine that with a not-inconsiderable degree of blinkered technical apathy towards some non-Russian technology (see also ‘Igla cannot do this so Stinger/Mistral can’t either!’) and you get the results we do. I call upon the Gaijin Comedy Statement of the Year 2025 -
perhaps, but this would only be a fair comparison if you too made THE game, not just A game that effectively monopolises this genre of semi-casual combat vehicle simulation (or in this case molecular structures…) and wrote in several advertisements and other report responses that you pride yourself on your focus on realism -
you are naturally going to attract an audience/buyers you have to be justifiably beholden/accountable to in your detailing
similarly, Gaijin isn’t exactly one guy with personal interest and boredoms in mind, more like employees paid to at least put in effort…
Flight test results using 85% fuel and a whole 98% throttle giving a static sea level thrust of 19,500LBS based off of a engine brochure that states normal wet thrust uninstalled is 19,500. (the installed engine makes less power, the normal lift setting used in flight was dry not wet so 2x over is making less thrust then 19,500)
I could only sustain around 4.85G at .7 Mach and this would give you 11-11,5 degrees a second sustained when compared to a document that clearly states 13 for this exact same configuration (albeit with less actual thrust)
The devs stated the NASA tests was instantaneous turn performance. However this isn’t 100% accurate as the tests where done in conditions under buffet meaning perfect airflow over the wing with no separation (the wing is working at 100% efficiency for its design).
For an aircraft weight of 16,400 lbs the wing can actually achieve over 7.8 G at .8 Mach as used for 6g on the nasa test.
14 d/s at 6 g with near perfect wing conditions would not lead to rapid loss of speed.
19 d/s at 8 g or so is possible but will lead to rapid loss of speed.
All I can say is that I am in awe of your perseverance… I really do hope they eventually listen to you and sort out the harrier once and for all. Sadly I doubt it and as a result, I wont be paying the snail anymore…
Thank you, and yes I don’t see them taking my data. There is one E-M diagram for the Harrier Gr.3 I know of however it was in the Harrier Tactics Manual second edition at the national archives. The document they have is a photo copy and the original E-M chart was on transparent plastic and that can not be photo copied.
So if someone is able to find the original we can find a full E-M chart of the Harrier 1.
This is the National Archives Reference: DEFE 71/1019
If any one can find the 2 pages needed then we will have what we need.
Found this which has flight envelope data for the AV-8A c. 1973. The relevant info (which presumably applies equally to GR1/3?) is from around page 402.
I believe it is unrestricted but can take it down if there is any doubt.
I just found something interesting form the AV-8A manual. At maximum G the Harrier cornering speed bleed rate is no more then the Harrier 2.
Harrier 1 corner bleed rate should be 25/30 knots a second at 7.8G and is only very slightly more then the -24 knots a second as seen from the AV-8B. Below is the Statshark E-M diagrams and how great of a difference is seen between the 2 planes in game. The Harrier 1 had a greater SEP as well and was able to climb to higher altitudes then the Harrier 2.
With a few tests this is what I got.
At 7.9G or very near the 7.8 Max G I hade a speed loss of -17.34 m/s^2 or -33.7 knots a second.
At only 6 G you lose -13.25 m/s^2 or -25.6 knots a second.
Assuming the -25 knots a second seen in the manual is a clean aircraft at sea level at 7.8G
The harrier is losing 8.7 knots every second while in a hard turn more than it should.
The relationship in loss of speed in a 5 second max G turn is as follows.
-168.5 knots
-125 knots
You leave the turn with 43.5 Knots less than you should.
