WARNING - CREATING NEW WEAPONS
-
A real turnaround with refueling and full weaponload (and some basic checks) would be at least 10 to 15 minutes I guess. It may be realistic to simulate that, but those would not be the most exiting minutes ingame
-
A real turnaround with refueling and full weaponload (and some basic checks) would be at least 10 to 15 minutes I guess. It may be realistic to simulate that, but those would not be the most exiting minutes ingame
10 to 15 minutes is way too low for a refuel and rearm. Realistically, it would take an hour, maybe more. But you are right, it is much simpler to exit and jump in another flight.
-
Snail is talking about the JA37
Cheers
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
Sorry for the off-topic, and no intentions to offend anyone, just for the fun of this!
-
6 facepalm please âŚ
-
Really? I mean go ahead, do what you want but⌠lol!
-
This post is deleted! -
@FoxBMS:
Your answer was little bit unexpected for me. All you can do is drop the dirt ? Really ? You could better save your work with your pictures cause that was not necessary. I only (and many more players for sure) think this is useful thing and makes campaigns more interesting. Nobody told you that you must do it. Right ?
As I said no hard feelings there, only joke. Of course you can do whatever you want in your machine setup without limits. But, it would be much better to have the unlimited ammo function restored somehow rather configure and load the plane with unrealistic loadouts and numbers. Doing so you will also have increased weights and drugs, thus reduced performances that will destroy your gameplay.
-
Yes, ok but if ground service can load 3x AGM-65 or much heavier bombs to one pylon why is unrealistic loading 3x AIM-120 to pylon instead AGM or bombsâŚ.Can you tell me why itâs not possible in real F-16? I donât understand that. Thx. Btw i didnât find option unlimited ammo in BMS and i donât wanna use that. Peace.
-
It is not so easy as it looks. The main problem is missile(s) itself and their ability to sustain specific loads, Gâs and fluttering forces under specific speed/altitude/weather conditions, on specific pylons and positions, and with specific additional weapons loadout combinations. It is a huge map that requires in-depth flight tests, both computer simulation, wind tunnel tests, and rl flight testing under every condition as per above to find out what weapons can be carried to what positions, how many, and under what aircraft limits.
The manufacturer (Lockheed Martin) due to the marketing ops in selling their product (Viper) has taken care of most tests for weapon combinations, at least for the basic or most common loadout configurations, as and excluded the configurations that are dangerous to the plane. So when a new customer requests the Viper, there is a ready configuration offered to him with the âdefaultâ software & weapons package. If additional weapons (outside of the default), weapons loadout numbers or combinations are requested by the customer, then LM is going to compare the request versus the excluded-dangerous list. If it is not documented there then they will ask for extra money, much money, to test and certify the loadout specific for the customer and update his specific software and manuals. Not all countries / customers are accepting this policy, to pay extra for adding some specific loads to the birds.
So for example, HAF PXIII & IV vipers are capable of loaded with Mk-82 class bombs on the centerline rack, it is just a MAU-12 there so no actual problem with that. These also are capable and certified for 4x Harms in total, but similar to all other vipers cannot be loaded with IRIS-T on the wingtips since the missiles will fail due to fluttering aerodynamic forces. The IAF Sufaâs (plus older blocks if i recall correctly) cannot hold; any a2a missiles in 3/7 stations. The F-4âs can take ânormallyâ 4x AIM-7 or AIM-120 missiles on the fuselage, but when the 600gal centerline tank is installed the 2x rear missiles must not be loaded due to catastrophic loads by air fluttering on their extended wings, produced by the tank body. So you now can get the point of what is allowed and what is forbidden.
The Maverick is a massive and with a very strength-body missile, same goes for the bombs. By design it could accept 9gâs if loaded on the plane, but the plane / pylon / wing itself wouldnât hold the forces by its weight and fail resulting in structural damages and most probably, crash. That is why the plane is limited to 6.5g. That triple-rack pylon is the LAU-88, which is specific for loading up to 3 AGM-65A/B/D Mavericks, no other weapon can be attached to the rack due to its design.
There where some tests in the past to actually load the 3/7 positions with double LAU-129 racks (similar with the F-18 ) but they were not successful, the wing fluttering as and aerodynamic loads produced by the 370gal tanks (when installed) resulted in damaging these loaded missiles and their wings. Same for the 4/6 positions, if i remember right the forces there were produced by the fuselage next to the intake.
Hope to help you clear a bit this area.
-
Understood, you completely cleared this area for me. Thanks for your effort and explanation in this comprehensive article. Very interesting. Regards.
-