Holbeach

The DMT doesn't zoom, only the Maverick seeker. ..

Yes it's still a thing. A mid air floater. ..

It's a legacy from "Lock On" 2003. ..

Moved ..

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/military-f-16-fighter-jet-crash-california/index.html ..

Checking my F-86 vids from 2015 against today, showed no change whatsoever at all power settings, from 64% to 100%. So there is no drift over time. It simply remains, that fuel flow is too low at the power settings that I've checked, mainly in the max loiter/range area. E.G. 30000' 74% 1200pph (0800pph). 35000' 77% 1100pph (0900pph). It gets more accurate the higher you go. As I'm only really interested to see if the Harrier fuel flow inaccuracy is unique, I conclude that it isn't. ..

OK, Thanks. Back in 2014 I made a F-15 video, 0 - Mach 2.5, which clearly shows the fuel burn at full AB. I will check to see if it is still the same, as there have been changes made to the FM since then. 2014: 40000' 95% M 2.561 FF 41800 pph. 2019: 40000' 95% M 2.606 FF 40450 pph. No significant difference. (I don't have any fuel burn graphs for the C, so I can't go any further). ..

Moved. ..

Studying graphs. So much information contained on a single sheet of paper. :book: To be fair to the F-86, I've shown the fuel flow at the very low loiter rpm, where very few are likely to be at, so I'll try mission fuel flows next, where the power requirement is much higher. Yes, it seems to be more of a DCS thing, which might have drifted over time. ..

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm ..

HARM (RL), is for fixed targets only. ..

@ Harlikwin. Here is an indicator to the state of play 15 months ago. Should give an idea of what has and hasn't been done since then, by elimination of known updates. ___________________________________________________________________________ From Snoopy: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196533 I’m sure RAZBAM has an internal listing but I thought I’d put together a list from the pocket guide so those of us in the community can keep track as the functions are added. I initially made this list so as we evaluate within the 476 vFG to possibly add the Harrier as a new Squadron we could keep track of some of the key things that need to be added first. If anyone sees anything I missed (or Zeus sees something I interpreted wrong from the guide) let me know. Looking forward to getting my hands on this aircraft tomorrow, she’s looking good so far from the preview videos and I’m excited for what is yet to be implemented! Missing features in Early Access (as of 14 Feb 18 ): Moving Map Ground Power Control Panel functionality NRAS & PC Valves fixed INS alignment options Ability to create/modify flight plans Markpoint (MK) Navigation EASY COMMS only Manually change radio frequencies UFC MAN Mode V/UHF radio Set Controls (RCS) EMCON Mode TDC Action/No Action modes NAVFLIR cool down time Video brightness Control Video Contrast Function NAVFLIR Hotspot Detector Manual Delivery Mode UFC & ODU Weapons Programming DSL(1)(manual) delivery mode NVG Case Pilot Body on/off HUD Display TGP interface HUD Symbology Brightness FLIR Video Controls MPCD Display Swap course knob UFC Additional UFC Functions Modes --IFF --Weapons (WPN) --Waypoint Over Fly (WDF) --Radar Beacon (BCN) --Altimeter (ALT) --Emission Control (EM CON) --Target-of-Opportunity (TOO) Multi-Purpose Color Display (MPCD) MPCD Brightness knob Additional MPCD Pages --HUD Repeater (HUD) --Built-in Test (BIT) --V/STOL -Rest Calculator page (VRST) --Software Configuration page (CONF) --IFF Data page (IFF) --Pre-programmed kneeboard card (CARD) --Close Air Support page (CAS) --Emergency Checklist Cards page (EMER) --System Data page(SDAT) --Communication data page (COMM) Weapons Acquisition & Deliver Modes Sidewinder Extended Acquisition Mode (SEAM) LOFT Delivery Mode AGM-65E/TGM-65E Further development of AGM-122A Expendables dispensing programming Additional Weapons (although specifics not listed) Warnings/Cautions/Advisories C_AUT: Computed delivery mode (AUTO and CCIP) Voice Warnings Items not listed in the Pocket Guide KC-135 updated to include refueling pods (per Wags) Additional Ship assets ITEMS ADDED Mirrors On/Off Day/Night HUD KC-130 TACAN autopilot ______________________________________________________________________________________________ There are also 7 items on the bug tracker. ..

Trying the F-86, as a comparison for fuel burn accuracy, with the Harrier. 1st test. Max endurance loiter clean. Actual, on the gauge flow, in brackets Predicted. 25000' 72% PPH 1250 (800lb) ..............20000' 69% 1300lb (500lb) ..............10000' 66% 1500 (500lb) ...............5000' 64% 1650 (600lb) The fuel flow a lower altitudes is way below prediction. As the alt increases, the rpm is increased to maintain CAS and the predicted fuel flow decreases. The actual flow increases. They come together at 45000'. CAS 185kt M.69 PPH 1000 lb. 87% RPM (1000 PPH) At 50000' I couldn't maintain CAS of 185 kts. Harrier (too high) and F-86 (too low) are equally inaccurate as each other, but in different directions. TBC. ..

Yes I did and yes they are and armed with this knowledge I've adjusted my way of flying to suit. I used the Decoy statement, as an example, to counter this incorrect statement and I have no comment on his actual statement. "Flightmodel is discussed between perfect fit and not good - Razbam does not say anything in that discussion" In my experience of past threads of this nature, particularly F-86 and Mig-21, Devs rarely reply to individual persons pet bugs and gripes, especially FM feelings and I can understand why. RAZBAM crew have actually been more forthcoming than most, but with Early Access becoming earlier and earlier and the list of WIPs getting longer, it's bound to take longer to completion. Don't buy EA if you can't accept this. My personal philosophy is, if a feature isn't yet implemented, then it doesn't exist on my aircraft. I use what I have got and get good at it. 250 hours of pure enjoyment on my favourite aircraft. Love it. ..

From Decoy. "The AV8B has been modelled using extensive data, the Harrier Flight model its as accurate as can be for a sim. Also as a note we have US and British Harrier pilots input on the FM, with nothing but positive feedback " ..

TOO is a, low level, designation method. The radar altimeter tells the diamond where the ground is and should be turned on automatically when the TOO is pressed, but it doesn't. If radar alt is previously manually turned on, it should still work, but it doesn't. Therefore it's unresolved. .. .

Here is an updated version of my previous SAM SA-11 Gadfly SEAD practice/training mission. I find the Maverick seeker movement too fast (coarse) when trying to lock it. It's supposed to have a 2 speed rate, but I haven't been able to find out how. Pay attention to the HUD 11 indicator. If it goes out, it's probably reloading and a Sidearm won't work. Use a Maverick. Don't get too close to the Gadfly site. It's easy to forget the 3 Strella 10. Samgori State Farm, SAM site, Vaziani. SEAD, Low Level Sidearm attack.

https://www.scribd.com/document/361497717/The-Illustrated-Encyclopedia-of-Combat-Aircraft-of-World-War-II

No I haven't seen that doc, (OK, found it. Bare in mind it uses the early 406 engine), but I've just completed a L-L-L mission, 4,000' (3000') 300 kt DI 40 No loiter, but 5 min combat at max thrust, for 158 nm radius. Predicted cruise flow is (082) and actual flow 120 on the outward leg start, with 69% at 300 kts Combat @ sea level. 5 min at 102% FF 295 (206) M 0.84. Pickle, 3,500 lb 27' 42''. Return. 4000' (3000') 300 kt 62% FF 105 (075) M 0.5 0800 at 22 nm land 0200 lb remain. 58' 41''. ( As ever, comments are welcome). Conclusion. Consumption is higher at the lower levels, 33% and very high at full thrust continuous. If I'd have used full thrust max, which is very very high consumption, I wouldn't have made it back. I'm guessing that these are the areas where most people will be, with their Harrier. ..

@ Whiteladder. That steady climb, rather than my optimum constant altitude speed, does indeed give that lower fuel burn, which would have given me enough left to get back to base. Good job! As Harlikwin said, the 1983 model had a lower power 406 engine and it had one more bomb, but it does show that our Harrier could have done it, given that we don't know if the jet dropped to a lower altitude to drop its bombs or had a gun. So the question is. Do you think the Razbam Harrier has a fuel burn that represents the real life version? And. Have you tried direct comparisons between predicted and actual fuel burn? Thanks..

I've heard of DMT camera and DSL and DIR mode. So what is DMS mode? ..

Real life 1983 Mission 1, 26,000 lb. 6 x Mk 82, (actually 7 x mk 82, but we can't do that), no gun. DI 30. 366 nm to Vaziani. Return at 42,000', land back at base with 0800 lb remaining. Method. T/O Novorossiysk, climb at 300 kts then M 0.68 102% to 33,000'. 1000lb fuel used. Cruise M 0.76 @ 0.108 miles per pound. Drop bombs CCRP diagonal on runway. Return. 18,000 lb. DI 20. at 42.000' @ M 0.75 0.18 MPP Start descent at close throttle, 230 kt, 70 nm from base. Land back at base with 0800 lb fuel remaining. Result with DCS Harrier, using Natops charts. Climb. 300 kt M 0.68 1000 lb fuel used. Cruise, 33,000' M 0.76 87% FF 085 Fuel over target, 2,700 lb. Time 52' 0''. Return. 42,000' M 0.75 74% FF 052 Critical 0800 fuel point, was 140 nm from base. Fuel ran out 5 nm from runway. Time 1 hr 48'. Fuel usage. 33,000'. Actual, .088 nm per lb. Predicted .108 nm per lb.......... FF actual 085 ppm. FF Predicted 072 ppm. 42,000'. Actual, .141 nm per ib. Predicted .180 NM per lb...........FF actual 052 ppm. FF predicted 045 ppm. Conclusion. Feel free to check my figures. This result makes it clear why this mission cannot work. It simply uses too much fuel compared to the real Harrier. ..

Using the easiest chart to use, sea level, early indications show a very high fuel flow excess with our Harrier at the lower speeds, 300 kts @ 64%. FF 114 DI 40. 26000 lb with 6 x Mk 82. As the speed increases the difference decreases until the imbalance flows in the other direction. So at around 87%, FF is 185 which is less than the chart flow. The big difference is at full power, where our Harrier is using FF 345, much more than chart suggest. The plot thickens. I'm guessing that most people are tending to use full throttle, hence the assumption that the fuel flow is too high, which it will be at that setting. FF @ 102% is 290 and FF @ 107.5 (max) is 354, for a gain of 4 kts. ..

That's the one. Thanks. ..

I haven't been able to find any, in any publications I have. ..