Out of curiosity, would any one want a fictional (futuristic? considering it is replacing the C-2A C.O.D. role) paint of the CMV-22 Osprey? Im considering doing like a CAG and a low vis...
This one looks like a slightly different paint job, with wavy white paint underneath:
Last edited by Josh/Heater; August 27th, 2018 at 12:56. Reason: added images
Please do one. Thanks.Originally Posted by Josh/Heater
Out of curiosity, would any one want a fictional (futuristic? considering it is replacing the C-2A C.O.D. role) paint of the CMV-22 Osprey? Im considering doing like a CAG and a low vis...
This one looks like a slightly different paint job, with wavy white paint underneath:
Yeah,I think that would be very cool to add that repaint.
Please do man, it would not go amiss in the old sim
Hello,
-Yes!
It's beautiful!
Alain
Yes please !!!Out of curiosity, would any one want a fictional (futuristic? considering it is replacing the C-2A C.O.D. role) paint of the CMV-22 Osprey? Im considering doing like a CAG and a low vis...
This one looks like a slightly different paint job, with wavy white paint underneath:
Awesome addon considering it is free
Thank you!
Intel i5-2500K - Zotac GTX 750 Ti - 4GB G-Skills - Gigabyte B75M - Simbada 500 W PSU - 17' LED
untuk meyakinkan bahwa bagus itu tidak perlu mahal.
to proved that good stuff is not always expensive.
Maryadi
Hi Maryadi,
just wanted to check whether you're still working on the tanker version?
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...jwbuhcqre7.jpg
Best regards,
Seawing
for fun: yes,
for another things? it something not worth to do, since the fuel transfer only could filled around half of internal fuel tank in a F-18 Hornet (I forgot where I read the source info)
Maryadi
Are you sure that wasn't just the demonstrator - just looking at the payload capacities of the V-22? And the main receivers would be AV-8Bs and F-35Bs anyway.
Well, I guess for the fun in FSX/P3D it would be great to have it anyway!!
Best regards,
Seawing
I read on-line articles about a possible contract for a MV22B tanker version.
But I really wonder if this isn't wishfull thinking, because the payload capabilities of a V22 would just be sufficient to provide only or two receiver aircraft (like a Harrier or F-35B) with fuel.
And since such receivers have VTOL capabilities themselves, what would be the added value of in-air refuelling from a V22 tanker aircraft ??? I don't understand what the added value would be ….
Rob
let say, tanker version as less priority to do.
Maryadi
Rob, maybe the V22 could start together with the other STOL/VTOL aircraft from the same base/ship, thus extending their operational range. With two refuels (one outbound and one inbound) even tripling their range.
And even if every V22 can only refuel one or two other aircraft, you can use multiple V22 if you need more.
Well, Rob, it is actually pretty easy.
The V-22s are rather big aircraft for this tanker role. Previous aircraft have been S-3s and KA-6s. And think of all the other body-body-refuelers, like Tornados, F-18s, or even Etendards. From a military perspective all that makes a lot of sense and is regarded with the highest priority! You can loose a lot of airplanes, if you don't have those tankers airborne in time when you need them. I can tell you from my flying time in Naval Aviation that the whole base would go haywire if the tankers seemed not to be airborne in time.
Body-body-refueling is not normally used to allow for long-range missions as such, but rather to help other fighters get out or - probably even more important - to get back home.
Take the MV-22, it can take-off from carriers that previously had no refueling capability at all. AV-8B cannot do body-body-refueling themselves (that apparently changed with the F-35, but it is a question whether you can spare a high value strike asset to play the tanker role) and they have a limited take-off weight when flying off a deck. They also use a lot of fuel for take-off and climb. So it makes a lot of sense to top them up, before they begin their mission.
And, of course, it is a great reassurance when you come home with your jet and you quite literary run on fumes, to be able to top off again before attempting to land on a pitching deck under quite challenging weather and sea conditions. Mind you that military fast jets don't plan flights like civil airliners with alternates, holding fuel and extra contingencies. They regularly reach Bingo fuel. And if you do that on a angle-deck carrier, you might not be able to catch a wire. Can you see the stress building, not getting the trap, now getting really low on fuel, no alternate to divert to, being faced with the decision to try one last time and then eject, if it doesn't work? And then you throw away a multi-million-dollar fighter and you only have so many of them. And for the Harriers and F-35Bs, hovering or vertical landing uses a lot of fuel again.
That's why you want tankers around. All major carriers always have tankers airborne when they are in recovery operations. There is simply no need to completely fill up fighters when they are empty, but just to give them the extra miles they need to get safely home. Best, obviously, if you don't have to use one of your fighters for it, but a transport - not involved in the attack mission - could do it.
So, it would be great if we could get the tanker in the next release. For the military (both Navy and Marines here) it is a very valuable modifcation to an already very versatile aircraft!
Best regards,
Seawing
The STOW animations are impressive and it makes really fun to fly! Many thanks for all the work!
I disagree.The V-22s are rather big aircraft for this tanker role. Previous aircraft have been S-3s and KA-6s. And think of all the other body-body-refuelers, like Tornados, F-18s, or even Etendards.
The CV-22 would a near ideal fueling source for slow-moving, long-duration flights performed by ACC and AFSOC HH-60 and JSOC MH-60 and MH-47s. All of these a/c are capable of inflight refueling but are typically low priority for tanker time especially when down-range (unless involved with HVT's or high profile missions).
An additional refueling asset has been much needed for some time and I know for a fact that a pallet-based roll-on/roll-off tank (much like Benson tanks on our HH-130's) are being seriously considered in limited quantities.
Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
Best regards,
Seawing
If anyone is interested in additional views! These views are not fixed, so they can be moved in the viewing direction!
The positions are the Loadmaster seat, Passenger seat and Ramp (sitting)!
Code:[CameraDefinition.30] Title = "Loadmaster seat" Guid={eefda2fc-feff-4491-97ef-a50c6b400798} Origin = Virtual Cockpit MomentumEffect = YES SnapPbhAdjust = Swivel SnapPbhReturn = False PanPbhAdjust = Swivel PanPbhReturn = False Track = None ShowAxis = YES AllowZoom = TRUE InitialZoom = 0.5 SmoothZoomTime = 2.0 ZoomPanScalar = 1.0 ShowWeather = Yes XyzAdjust = TRUE ShowLensFlare=FALSE Category = Cockpit PitchPanRate=20 HeadingPanRate=60 InitialXyz= -0.6, 0.2,-1.4 InitialPbh= 10.0, 0.0, 5.0 [CameraDefinition.31] Title = "Passenger seat" Guid={50e71730-e4c2-4178-86a1-9286cd969029} Origin = Virtual Cockpit MomentumEffect = YES SnapPbhAdjust = Swivel SnapPbhReturn = False PanPbhAdjust = Swivel PanPbhReturn = False Track = None ShowAxis = YES AllowZoom = TRUE InitialZoom = 0.5 SmoothZoomTime = 2.0 ZoomPanScalar = 1.0 ShowWeather = Yes XyzAdjust = TRUE ShowLensFlare=FALSE Category = Cockpit PitchPanRate=20 HeadingPanRate=60 InitialXyz= 0.2,-0.2,-5.8 InitialPbh= 10.0, 0.0, 190.0 [CameraDefinition.32] Title = "Ramp" Guid={9677a397-32d0-4019-8b6f-339f8f53b512} Origin = Virtual Cockpit MomentumEffect = YES SnapPbhAdjust = Swivel SnapPbhReturn = False PanPbhAdjust = Swivel PanPbhReturn = False Track = None ShowAxis = YES AllowZoom = TRUE InitialZoom = 0.4 SmoothZoomTime = 2.0 ZoomPanScalar = 1.0 ShowWeather = Yes XyzAdjust = TRUE ShowLensFlare=FALSE Category = Cockpit PitchPanRate=20 HeadingPanRate=60 InitialXyz= -1.0, -0.7,-8.0 InitialPbh= 10.0, 0.0, 180.0
Hi,
Just tried them. and thanks for the contribution !!
But if I may make a comment (and that's just my personal opinion):
I don't like Zoom factors inside the VC anything less then 0.6, because they give a rather distorted picture.
Like the (default) 0.4 in the Ramp view.
If you would shift the default eyepoint back (so forward in the cabin) and use a default zoom of 0.6, the view looks much better if you open/close the door/ramp.
I know, it's a matter of opinion; besides the view settings can be changed manually (position, zoom).
It's just a remark on the default settings you chose.
Please forgive me ….
Best regards, Rob
No prob Rob and again thanks for your work!
For others who have the same opinion, change in all 3 Cam sections for the default zoom:
InitialZoom = 0.6
And in the "Ramp" section take these values for the new default eyepoint position:
InitialXyz= -1.0, -0.7,-7.0
Looks much better IMO ...
Thanks for the update !!
Rob
Hi Maryadi,
any update on the VARS version?
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ests-next-year
Best regards,
Seawing
Hello,
last week I asked Maryadi per Mail and he answered "please feel free to make it public".
After this friendly answer I do that now.
Based on the Paintkit, I repaint this nice plane to a Canadien Rescue variant.
If someone wants to use it:
A photo:
https://imgur.com/bCPfPrz
A video from a fly simulation friend:
https://youtu.be/PpMsDYIM-Nk
The texture downloadlink:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Dn...ew?usp=sharing
Best Regards and have Fun
Matze
I've tried every switch in the cockpit that pertains to lighting, can't turn on the beacon, navs, or strobes. What am I doing wrong?
Members who have read this thread: 5
Posting Permissions
FSX
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks