It pulls more AOA it doesn’t turn faster even without using VTOL the harrier beats it in turning and in a rate fight
Why are you using the GR.1 as a comparison are you dumb? You specified the Yak-38M so use the GR.3 which gets
Better missiles
Actual flares
Better CAS
Far better RWR
Far better acceleration
Better guns
Comparing the Gr.1 to the Premium Yak-38 there’s not much of a difference in sustained turn performance I even have videos that I can post. The Yak can also reach .98 Mach or 430Knots when in this configuration the Harrier can barely hit .90 Mach. The the difference in turn performance is so little it really comes down to the pilot. The Harrier should absolutely smoke the Yak-38 but it doesn’t because Gaijin doesn’t want to fix it. The Yak-38 at 500knots pulled over 18 degrees a second making it match the Harrier Gr1 very closely.
Yak-38: 50% fuel, 2xR60, 0 cannon ammunition
Harrier Gr.1 50% fuel, 4xSRAMM, 0 cannon ammunition
The Harrier also has 1000Kg less in fuel weight.
To summarize: a plane with missiles no good past 1.2km, no flares, no RWR, basic dumb fall bombs and rockets should be at a higher br then a plane that is:
Faster has only slightly worse turn performance, 4 missiles that are better than the SRAAM, can carry kh-23M as well as normal bombs and rockets, and has a RWR.
I like the Yak-38 its a cool aircraft IMO and I’ve seriously considered buying the Premium one a few times. I just don’t see why it should be a lower BR then the Gr.1. The Gr.3 is ok at 9.7 would be nice if it got its Chaff pods and all but it does well at 9.7 regardless.
the vampires and hunters are near unplayable, the vampire is slower and worse performing than the attacker yet its a whole BR higher and the Hunters are a subsonic with no countermeasures at a BR where there’s nothing but supersonics with sidewinders
The Venom Fb4 is absolutely not a 8.7. Do you know what really isn’t a 8.7 the G.91. The whole Harrier issue really gets under my skin sometimes lol and this guy over here telling me to “shut up I don’t know what I’m talking about” is annoying the if the Yak-38 was British it would be 9.7-10.0 easy.
doubt but ok
You’re delusional there’s nothing to fix its modeled fine.
Why are you using 2x R-60 and not 4x and why are you dumping the ammo, also why are you refusing to use 100% thrust with optimal VIFF you’re purposefully trying to make the harrier turn worse to fit your narrative.
Not really and the Harrier in game cannot even use 100 percent thrust before it just burns. You get like a good few seconds before its in the red. I dumped ammo as I wanted the planes to be closer to there empty weight. They both had proportional fuel to tank size. I used 2 R60 as that what I would typically go with but if you had 4 it wouldn’t change the results that much.
You also stated that even without VIFF the Harrier would out turn a Yak and it barely does by like a fraction of a degree a second.
Don’t you dare call me delusional about it underperforming I have a full report on it and many official documents that support it. Its absolutely not modeled fine. It performs on average 65% worse in the sustained turn then what a real Harrier can. Here is a NASA evaluation of a TAV-8A 2 seat harrier. It is for general flight pre buffet onset of the aircraft. This the TAV-8A was achieving these sustained rates below 15 degrees AOA.
Here is a combat performance test on the Gr.3 it can sustain 6.5G at .7 Mach in game with minimum weight it will do 4.8.
91% works fine, I haven’t had overheating issues with that %.
Why?
Just a carry over from me using the Gr3 I will do it again with 4 if that makes everyone happy.
I even left the bullets in it and with 4 r60 and 50% fuel it can sustain 11 degrees a second.
I have made a bug report genius. A very detailed one at that.
Having a .6 degrees per second advantage in turn rate isn’t going to change much.
Again when did I say the Yak-38 is better I just said that the Gr.1 could be 9.3 or the Yak-38 9.7.
I’m truly baffled how you can say two contradictory things in one sentence
.6° before you even factor in VIFFing which you still havent done
Then stop crying though i will laugh when you get a ‘not a bug’ label because you’re wrong
I don’t really care if you call me wrong but how can you call the Royal Aircraft Establishment, NATOPS, and even NASA wrong are you really that ignorant.
Here is what the Gr.3 can sustain at .55 Mach a speed that is very close to what I tested at.
I should be able to sustain just over 5G with the nozzles in the rear position. In the game its only sustaining 3.7.
50% isnt ideal VIFF with how many games you have in the harrier the fact you dont know that is something.
There isn’t such a thing as “Ideal VIFF” VIFFing was studied extensively and was found to be inefficient as an aid to sustained turn performance.
What it does do very well is unload the wing allowing for extremely high AOA maneuvers leading to either massive bursts of instant turn performance or using it in little increments to get the nose on target faster.
The Harrier IRL didn’t need it in most cases as it was maneuverable enough without VIFFing.
