9.7 is just fine even if they buff it
If it makes it any better, they denied my FV4005 weight reports and then changed the weight to exactly what I said like a month later. It might not be totally in vain, I appreciate your effort.
2 Likes
Thanks. I don’t see them doing that for this report however. I don’t understand what is so difficult for them to understand about the weights and thrust used. 11 and 13 D/S is correct just not for the weight they have it tuned too. Its so easy to understand and fix. Same with max speed, they don’t seem to understand that is a plane can do 600 knots with 16,000 lbs thrust it should go faster with 18,000 lbs thrust.
The Devs seem to think that a magic brick wall appears Infront of the Harrier and stop it.
2 Likes
Personal theory here. It’s another one of those ‘well a Soviet/Russian equivalent never managed to do it - so it can’t be possible for a Western counterpart to exist.’
Consider the Russian attempt at the Harrier - the Yak-38. A wheezing, barely functional bucket of lard that was just about able to fly in a normal manner, much less do anything remotely VTOL related without having to remain within sight of it’s carrier. That was of course assuming it had mere fumes in the fuel tanks and the onboard armament was limited to a broken bottle and coarse language on the part of the pilot.
I exaggerate, but not by much. It was a steaming pile of …insert noun here…
Meanwhile, the Harrier is a brilliant little jet that does a good job of being a plane, a VERY good job at being a VTOL and was eminently upgradable. It lasted for half a century in it’s various forms with the RAF, it continues to be a handy bit of kit for other air arms. However Ivan doesn’t quite understand how the British manage to make a little plane do so much - so it MUST be impossible.
One might even say it was ‘marketing lies’.
Fair play on throwing a decent amount of evidence at them though. It’s just bloodymindedness on their part at this point. I couldn’t find the GR1/3 aircrew or flight manuals in any of the stuff available to me - it would appear that is a VERY scarce document…
5 Likes
There is only one E-M chart of the first gen harriers that I know about and i am trying to track it down.
Yak-38 time: The Yak-38 is both heavier and has a smaller wing area than the Harrier. So a lot more wing loading as its literally carrying 2 entire jet engines with it that are producing 0 useful thrust.
Needs 3 engines to make the same thrust as 1 Pegasus meaning much lower average PWR.
Yet its performance is only minimally worse? Yet its faster, climbs better at higher altitudes. STR is only 1-2 degrees a second less than a plane with less wing loading and a substantially higher TWR.
It makes zero sense, the difference should be MiG-21 vs F-16 in terms of ability to turn and climb.
2 Likes
MUCH MORE THRUST!!! its already underperforming at higher speeds by around 50% how can they even be serious. Just give it more thrust than. Like it actually had…
Why are they comparing it to the AV-8B anyway its different completely and is a lot Heavier in terms of 50% fuel when compared to the Harrier 1.
Buffets are not limits either buffet only occurs around 16 degrees AOA for the Harrier 1 wing below .4 Mach. It has loads of vortex generators and wing fences to allow highish AOA maneuvering to make up for the lack of wing area.
If they “Tuned It” to any of the documents and resources they stated than they wouldn’t perform as they did.
6 Likes
Reporter requested performance that can’t be achieved on this aircraft without insane aerodynamics or thrust characteristics. This is just impossible
Except that the data shows that it is possible! Game developers pretending to understand aerodynamics. Matrix I cant even imagine your frustration dealing with this level of stubbornness must be. I hope you are able to find that E-M chart but I fear the Devs will just say that they dont believe it again.
5 Likes
The report I provided was legitamelty used to calculate the VIFFing part of the E-M chart. Its was aptly named “The Effect of In-Flight Thrust Vectoring on the Characteristics of the Harrier Gr Mk.3 Aircraft in Combat Configuration”
The test was conducted at 20,000 for safety and they used like 5 pages of math to standardize it to sea level. (this is how a lot of E-M charts get computed.) They have the equations for SEP and therefore know the power needed to sustain said turn as all aspects of drag where also tested by NASA.
I am very frustrated but at the same time just couldn’t give a “insert word” anymore.
The Devs don’t even want to believe that an extra 2-3k lbs more thrust would make a plane go faster than its current speed. Honestly how braindead is that as a statement.
As for the E-M chart I technically have found it. In fact someone even has a copy of it, however it was a copy of clear laminate and can not be seen.
4 Likes
In fact the official requirement for the Harriers wing was a maneuvering lift of 8G but no less than 6G at 400 knots.
3 Likes
I’ve noticed that this tends to be a fairly common occurrence for some of the more technical bug reporters, that tend to hit informational walls, and burn-out.
Due to Gaijin either needing more info, or not believing sources.
4 Likes
Yes I can see that. Its even more annoying to see a turn rate bug report for the Rafale was just accepted and the only source used was HUD cam footage from an airshow…
I wish it didn’t have to be this technical, but as you have probably read already there is no easy simple E-M chart to just give us the answer.
2 Likes
Remember that Russian aerospace tech is lagging quite a bit behind what we assume is common knowledge in the West. In many cases you might as well be talking about Star Trek Warp technology.
Try not to let it drive you up the wall. (Easier said than done).
3 Likes
You should see the report the the AGM-65 Seeker’s I’m working on, that would “correct” the performance(the basic EO seekers have about 300~400% the range they should at very least, and that later EO variants that use CCDs exist that could restore said range) simply because they don’t have a dynamic range cutoff and trying to avoid the need for needing to develop new mechanics and recalculating the lock on range cutoff of a generic target (a T-62, to align with a source I have).
These are the tabulated results of the report, overlaid the known release limits
Remember the AGM-65A’s only relevant difference to the -65B is that it is missing a “2x” lens in the optical train so should have half the range.
Or the one they misinterpreted refused for game balance purposes due to being too hard to model, even though all they would need to do is have reverted the flip of a single Boolean value. That a DEV blog even acknowledges that they understand the distinction between Contrast and Correlation seekers.
It is pain, and always probably will be. This is probably the worst one I directly know of but is far from the only one.
2 Likes
I see, so in basic terms if I understand this correctly they should only be able to lock onto actual targets, IE tank or boat ect. and the range at which a lock is possible is determined by size.
I can see its pretty technical but for a AAA development team that work on a game that is legitimately for said complex military systems, they should really do better.
All I am talking about with thrust is that jet engines don’t just magically lose 50% of their thrust as they move forward.
That’s basically the exact opposite of how they work.
In general terms a Jet engine will want to keep making more thrust until the incoming airspeed matches the exhaust speed. (the Harriers rear nozzles are well over Mach 1 in terms of exit velocity)
This is a good graph
2 Likes
At least for the early(AGM-65A &-65B use an Analog seeker) versions, yes.(Later versions have a second axially separate, Correlation mode that permits actual point targeting in place of the centroid for Attacking Large facilities / Ships) Though it is effectively two separate reports. I just need to get the sources in a row and resubmit them separately and make clear what solutions should be imposed.
What is delaying me is mostly the fact that outside that performance report, all I can find is a value for the minimum angular size for the targeting gate (the digital (IIR) versions work differently and is yet more involved, but the range is approximately correct so I don’t really see a point trying to explain the How of Contrast buckets), and so the range cutoff is impacted of the Aspect ratio(Height, Length, Width, and angle of regard to the scene) for a given target, not just the actual size.
Others include getting various gunpod(s) e.g. GPU-5/A added to the F-15A & -E, F-4E, F-16-10, A-4. Removed from the A-7E (only USAF participated in the PAVE CLAW program, even if it is a mechanical clone of the A-7D, but was rejected for unknown reasons).
Where they literally don’t have a consistent stance on what qualifies as proof of carriage, leaving most things in a grey area. Since the quote
Has been used to both allow it to remain on the A-7E, but make it not eligible for addition to -15A (was flown on the Prototype TF-15A airframe used for the F-15E program), even though it contradicts the Brochure and video.
The -15E at least has additional supporting evidence.
I can’t wait for needing to try and explain how the UAI system works for the F-15E / F-16 / F-22 / F-35 etc.
2 Likes
Damn you got a lot of information. As well as many good sources.
You know whats also funny the Sea Harrier FA.2 is missing its HUD. And mfd functions.
1 Like
It’s mostly just watching videos and reading though archives and random Technical reports & patents, and bookmarking interesting things that you think might be added in the future, and it turns out that more often than not they are since you can’t really tell how well they are going to be recreated.
It’s just that I’ve had a few years head-start on Gaijin actually reaching the implementation of relevant features so I have quite the backlog or reports and my time and drive to get things right while extensive isn’t infinite.
There are a few Systems now that have been genericized (e.g. ALR-45(V), ALR-45D etc.), maybe I should make a report about “3D aural” alert systems for RWRs.
One of the hardest things to do is actually Get gaijin to specify a configuration that any given vehicle is being held to since there are a number of confusing or blatantly erroneous configs that are a mishmash of entire variants, just look at the changes made to / the current state of the US F-4E.
and Gaijin refusing to alter it’s ordnance or split it into an early / late configuration, or add the Targeting pod(s) / utility features(e.g. TISEO) it should have.
2 Likes
That is very true I do enjoy researching these topics as well. However every maneuvering or air combat report ive seen referenced for the Harrier 1 is labeled secret by the DOD. This makes them really hard to find.
Considering that things get declassified or added to archives from recovered samples / digitized over time it’s always worth looking over what was recently added or sending emails asking questions since someone can often point people in the right direction, even if you do have to pay them for their time.