While Iīm waiting for my friend Udoīs textures, Iīm fixing up the P3-Orionīs Vitrual cockpit.
I was wondering if I could bother you with the necessary parts-flipping procedure so that the VC correction can be done properly with SCASM.
If you have the time and the gumption for this, Iīd be sending you the cockpit as an individual build, so that the identification of the parts is easy.
Pardon me for not paying attention to the threads over the last few days,
There was a Regional TSA (Technology Students Association) competition on Saturday.
Before that, there was a lot of last minute work that my kids needed some help on to complete their projects.
It wasn't that I needed to do everything for them; it was more like I am the only person that knows what tools to use and where they are and I needed to first find one thing and then another and set up a sander and Dremel tools for my son.
We actually spray painted his car at about 3:30 AM and did the final assembly at around 4:30 AM by doing a quick dry with a Hair Dryer!
Sheesh!
Friday night / Saturday morning, my daughter actually got about 45 minutes of sleep before having to get up again and dress for the competition. My son slept about 30 minutes and I got no sleep at all that night.
Pardon the diversion.
Regarding the Orion, if your model is built anything like mine, there is actually nothing that will be useful to flip.
There isn't a Canopy Frame at all, at least not on my model and I suspect yours is pretty similar.
If you want to send something, go on ahead, but I still have enough things going on that I can't promise a definitely response time.
I haven't even had the time to give the P-40N the attention it needed until last night.
I have always felt that a subject like technology taught at high-school helps students understand certain practicalities in life, which go beyond changing a lightbulb or a fuse in the house, and can be handy.
We had a good physics teacher who taught us lots of useful things with thermostats, lenses and electromagnets, and with that knowledge, I have often been able to repair stuff like washing machines, projectors, water heaters and ovens...
I remember that for one of my daughters I helped with a model water pump made with an electric motor, a axel, a disc with little shovels, a plastic 35mm film container and a couple of aluminium tubes, which was fun.
Anyway, not to worry about any delays in answering - thereīs time for everything, and no hurry!!
For the moment, the Orion has no virtual cockpit or canopy frame of any kind, and I can adjust the view-point with SCASM without any problem. I was only wondering whether to add some Inside-View only cockpit window struts, i.e. the Canopy-frame placed in the correct position for the inside view-point, and do this in a separate .afa file, to be flipped.
However, it is not really necessary and the plane will be fine without it, so if you are a bit busy these days it wonīt matter!
Just in case you were curious to see what my finished (?) P-3 Orioin looks like, I attached the model and the AFX to my post #192, but donīt bother if you are too busy these days. Not everything in life revolves around AF99 model-building, of course!! ...so as you wish!
I don't believe we are discussing quite the same thing:
If you send me a AFA or AFX or SCX file and let me know what it is you want done, I will help you flip the Polygons in the Component.
It normally takes an hour or two to get the whole process done and I don't promise I will get back to you promptly.
That wasn't really the point I was trying to make.
The actual point was that there currently isn't a Canopy Frame of any kind, so making one up just to be flipped seems like a lot of work for not much gain.
You don't even have reference Parts from the externally viewed Canopy Frame....
If you look at interior cockpit photographs of the Orion, there are very few pieces of it that actually match up with the exterior canopy frame.
Most of the things that can be viewed are flat panels, consoles, and other such equipment that would be better built as is rather than flipped.
If you actually try to build a Canopy Frame Component for me to flip, you will probably find that there are about 10 Parts in it in all, so why not just build them as is as Insignia Parts to begin with???
....At least that is how *I* would do it, but if you insist on flipping a Component, I will assist.
I think I understand what you mean now. What I did was build the canopy frame component as interior view only, comprising all the window struts and roof parts, leaving the window-glass empty. Then, the floor are 2 separate parts.
Of course, all this is only to be seen from inside, as the outside is solid component with textured insignia parts for the window-glass parts added to the outside.
As the roof and roof-rim are rounded, I have used 26 parts for the whole thing, but with 142% parts count I should be OK. Of course, SCASM flipping would be useful if I were at parts-count or compiling limit. Iīll see.
So, from what you have just written, I am led to believe that it is possible to build a canopy frame with floor to be used as virtual cockpit (i.e. to be seen from inside with the corrected padlocked chase view) by using separate parts (I have no components left anyway) tagged as insignia.
But: How will they be invisible from outside-underneath? ...the floor canīt be glued to all the window struts...
At last, what a relief! There was still a pending glitch to be solved, that Iīd already been working on for months now: Viewed from below, with near-vertical angles, the wingroot always disappeared on the opposite side.
I had had it grouped in Innerwing Mid left/right, together with the inner-wing section, trying it with and without glue, but the wing/fuselage template was not doing its job very well from lower viewing angles - only from upper ones.
Eventually I got round it by moving the wing-root to Body Main and gluing it to the mid-fuselage section in Body Main, and leaving the wing/fuselage template where it was. I had actually already tried some combinations with the wingroot in Body Main, but for some reason they werenīt working, although this had worked very well on the Curtiss AT-9 from the start! Strange...
Itīs funny how from one model to another, strategies work in different ways.
Anyway, the main thing is that now the wingroot seems to be fine!
Hello!
I thought it could be of interest to follow the progress my friend Udo is making with the new textures. For the moment, the paneling is done - and thereīs an Aleatorylamp Logo on the fin!!
It can also be seen that the wingroot displays OK now.
In a couple of days the textures will probably be ready.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
I simplified the internal cockpit parts - spars, floor, back and roof, and tagged the individual parts with insignia, and put them in as internal view, and it seems to work - no glue necessary!!
Iīd thought that the internal view didnīt work at all in CFS1 because it was part of the Virtual Cockpit bug, but now I see it works, only that itīs out of position for the combat chase-view, but I can correct that via SCASM!
Iīll let you know how it goes.
Thanks for clarifying the point!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Ivan,
Wow! It works a wonder!
Thanks a lot! That saves some SCASMing flipping bother, doesnīt it?
I only had to SCASM the virtual viewpoint for the padlocked chase view, but that was easy.
With the cockpit parts inside the internal view, parts count is now at 144.5%, and thereīs no compilation problem.
Then, there were rather stupid looking prop/spinner/engine bleeds through the aft wall and floor of the virtual cabin, as the forward engine nacelles and props are grouped in Nose left/right, but when I transferred the floor and the wall into both nose left and nose right, they blocked the bleeds out, so the modelīs just fine now!
Iīll be uploading it as soon as I get the new textures from Udo.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; March 9th, 2016 at 06:45.
Yet another misunderstanding.
It seems that we keep getting messages tangled or misinterpreted.....
The Interior View from AF99 DOES NOT WORK!!!!!
People have tried various tricks to get it to display properly but IT DOES NOT!
If you want to see a failure, just go from Interior View to "Chase Mode". You will still see the Interior Parts from outside!
What I was actually suggesting is to build the Interior as a separate AFA and then combining with your original model via SCASM.
That is pretty much what I am planning to do whenever I finish up my version of the Orion.
At the moment, my Development PC seems to have taken another turn for the worse:
I can build a model using AF99 and it displays properly in CFS, but I cannot animate it using Aircraft Animator.
It simply loads a visibly corrupted model.
If I can't get this latest issue resolved, this PC may be done for.
The very interesting thing is that it appears to be a Software corruption issue rather than an outright hardware failure.
The misbehavior changed a bit after I ran a disk verification using the Adaptec 2940U/UW controller utilities.
It seemed to have no problems with the 18GB Seagate Drive but looked like it was running slow on the 4GB IBM Drive.
I will do some more testing as soon as I can but until then....
Eeeek!!!!
Yet another misunderstanding...
What I was actually suggesting is to build the Interior as a separate AFA and then combining with your original model via SCASM.
-
Hello Ivan,
Well, that was exactly what I had understood before all along, but one of your previous posts had led me to believe that there was a part I didnīt know yet, and that some things did indeed work without needing SCASM...
As a result, I went ahead and built an Interior View Virtual Cockpit with all the parts Insignia-tagged to be seen from inside, as well as tagged as Interior View, both of which you had suggested in your recent post, and then all I did with SCASM was correct the virtual cockpit view position.
And... now both the normal virtual cockpit mode, and also the padlocked chase view work perfectly! All the interior parts are seen from inside the cabin, and I even managed to prevent the engines and props from bleeding through the aft cabin wall.
So now Iīm rather at a loss about what should be going on or not going on.
Anyway, no harm done!
Too bad about your development computer. It should be easy, nowadays, to get an older dual-core or Pentium 4 single-core Windows XP machine quite cheaply, and possibly even soup it up a bit.
I recently got a Centrino laptop given to me with quite a good graphics capability, (it was the first and slowest dual-core that came out: 2x800 Mhz and 2Mb L2 cache), but found a faster CPU (2x1000 Mhz and 4 Mb L2 cache) and 4 Gb of memory for it on Internet, as well as a new battery, for all of 80 dollars, and now this computer is 50% faster, which is noticeable indeed. It is even Windows 7 capable, although I use it with WinXP because of AF99. I like tinkering, and Iīm chuffed when something works out well.
Hello all,
The painters have been busy marking the panelling, an are going to start spraying.
Wheelwells and are landing-gear doors also better.
Hereīs a few screenshots!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
I had done some re-grouping of elements to get the wheelwells to display properly because of geardoors and nacelle-bottoms, but it got more and more complicated all the time. Iīd changed the nacelle-bottoms into wing low left/right along with the wheelwells, either insignia or glued, but the lower inner nacelles shone through the outer ones whatever I did, so I had to cancel all that.
Now itīs back to where I was before without the wheel-wells (Iīd say they arenīt all that important), and now I hope it will be a little easier to get the geardoors, gearstruts and nacelle bottoms displaying properly.
Hello all,
The painters are progressing with precision, and the painting departmentīs tea bill has risen.
Hereīs a screenshot.
I still have to figure out the best way to get the main gear struts from bleeding through the geardoors. Pity about having had to discard the black wheelwells, but with so many under-wing elements, fitting them all is not altogether a straightforward job.
Otherwise it seems to be going well.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
At last! Different grouping and glue sequencing of landing gear and gear doors has finally yielded acceptably good results. I have even been able to get the wheelwells back on!
I can hardly believe it...
Hereīs (yet) another screenshot.
...you can also see how the painters are getting on...
Hi again!
The painters have been very diligent. The basic paintwork is done and now come the markings, which will possibly be ready for Sunday.
Here are a few more pics.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Ivan,
May I load you with yet another request for advice?
This time itīs about the Dp files: The P3 Orion has no defensive armament, so Iīve taken out the machine guns, but wonder if I should leave in a couple of rockets to emmulate the missiles it could carry. These, however, would be invisible on the model as it is not possible to depict them on their under-wing hardpoints, so it may be a better idea to take them out as well.
Then, it had an assortment of other offensive equipment: Apart from the sono-buoys to detect submarines, which for the Dp files will be out of the question, there was a selection of missiles, bombs, torpedoes, depth charges and mines.
A normal payload would be 17400 lb, so I thought it would be a good idea to include a number of bombs, to cater for the concept of depth charges and mines.
Update:
At first I was thinking of twenty 500-lb bombs and ten 740-lb rockets, but then I looked up some real information on different weapon loads, and found a possible combination:
8x670 lb AGM65 Maverick missiles labelled as rockets in the Dp file, and
15x800 lb Mk50 Torpedoes labelled as bombs in Dp file.
That would total a payload of 17,360 lb.
Does this sound plausible? What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; March 16th, 2016 at 07:03.
The textures are progressing, and now itīs at a stage depicting a possible "Covert Ops" machine - i.e. itīs got all the details, signs and labels, only lacking USAF markings and tailart.
If anyone is nervously fidgeting in a hurry for the model I could attach it to a post on this forum. Otherwise, my texture-specialist friend Udo has told me his painters will have finished by Sunday evening, so Iīll upload the final version then or Monday.
As regards armament in the Dp files, I have put in 8 big rockets and 15 heavy bombs, adding up to the normal payload of 17400 lb. I suppose this would be as good as one can get it.
Sorry for not responding earlier. I hadn't seen your posts until this morning.
Real life sometimes intrudes into hobby time.
Regarding DP files, Folks probably have many different approaches.
Mine is to try to duplicate the loading situations that the aircraft commander would need to make.
I would suggest picking a load combination to allow each hardpoint to carry a load such that the maximum weapons load can be carried.
Note that since you can only carry one weight of bomb or torpedo or depth charge, you should pick a weight that may not be typical of the weapon but rather something that will reflect the 17,600 pound maximum load.
As for rockets, I would suggest adding them.
As an illustration, I can give several examples of what I would do:
The SBD Dauntless dive bomber would typically carry a single 500 pound bomb on scout missions.
On a strike mission, it would carry a single 1000 pound bomb. There were also wing racks for smaller bombs.
Since we have a choice of only one size weapon, I chose two 500 pound bombs maximum with zero as a default.
The aircraft commander must choose his own loadout for each mission.
Two 500 pound bombs make no sense, but I want to duplicate the handling and take-off issues that would occur with a maximum load.
With the A6M2 Type Zero fighter, the actual maximum bomb load was two 66 pound bombs.
From a load standpoint, that is pretty much negligible. That is what I did for the initial release (without thinking about it).
The typical mission profile flown by the A6M2 early in the war was a very long range mission with a 300 or 330 liter drop tank IIRC.
Since there are no drop tanks in Combat Flight Simulator, I should have chosen a single 550 pound bomb as an optional load.
The weight would be nearly the same as a drop tank though there is no associated drag. (This is the best we can do.)
Later versions of the A6M2 built by Nakajima were configured as fighter-bombers to replace the Aichi D3A dive bomber on carriers that could not handle the larger dive bombers.
They were called "Baku Sen" and actually carried a larger load of cannon ammunition than the earlier aircraft: 100 rounds per gun instead of 60 for the wing cannon.
That version actually did carry a single 550 pound bomb.
With the current P-40N, we have yet another situation to illustrate another point.
The gross weight of the P-40N with full internal fuel and ammunition was about 8350 pounds.
The aeroplane could actually carry three 500 pound bombs on a centerline rack and two wing racks.
The maximum take-off weight of this aeroplane (as near as I can tell) is 8850 pounds.
This means that with full internal load and full bomb load, the maximum take-off weight is exceeded by 1000 pounds.
In this situation, the pilot must choose how to load the aeroplane.
He has almost 950 pounds of internal fuel and a couple hundred pounds of machine gun ammunition he can adjust....
Or he can just take off in an overloaded condition.
In the Pilots Flight Operating Instructions Manual, the maximum weight that is described is 8800 pounds so this is literally uncharted territory....
I hope these illustrations give you an idea of what can or should be done.
Again, this is just my own opinion on how things should be configured at least until I learn a better way.
The Orion looks quite good at this point. Udo's crew does a good job.
You might want to remind him that typically on most Orions there is a red warning line on the underside of the fuselage just aft of the wing.
I believe it marks where a bunch of rockets live.
I have done nothing f consequence on my own Orion for a while. Design time has been spent on other projects and trying to get the development machine running reliably. The P-40M has had one partial SCASM pass and that is about it.
Thanks for your posts. I do realize that chores, obligations and general family life come first. It was only one or two days. Anyway, if it had been a week or whatever, it wouldnīt have mattered.
Hereīs a picture showing a full load of armament carried by an Orion. It certainly amounts to a mighty piece of work! Thereīs also a screenshot showing the underside. Actually, this is where all the "sonobuoys" live. Is this what you meant about the red mark behind the wing?
When you say "duplicate" the armament, is it to make a duplicate of, or to double it? Making a duplicate of some of this sounds OK, but doubling this lot would be too much, Iīd say.
Depth charges, torpedoes and missiles (rockets in this case for the Dp) can weigh 500 or 1000 lb, and I was thinking of omitting the small looking stuff. My plan for the normal payload of 17400 lb is as follows: 8 x 670 lb Maverick AGM65 missiles 15 x 800 lb Mk50 torpedoes
I was trying not to load the plane full up with either armament or fuel, so I took the suggested flight plan quoted in the scientific research P3-Orion specification .pdf: - 17400 instead of 20000 lb payload - 8200 USG instead of the maximum of 9470 or 10240 USG - This gives a range of 3800 nm instead of the maximum 4830 nm. This way, a ceiling of about 25000-28000 ft and good performance is maintained.
The question is, would these weapons be enough for the simmer to fight with?
I doubt there would be more than 8 missiles on the hard points in total.
However, perhaps the 15 torpedoes/bombs/depth charges should be changed? So Iīm afraid Iīd appreciate a more specific suggestion. I realize it would "only" be your opinion, but Iīd go by that.
It is impossible to properly answer your questions without doing a significant amount of research into what the armament capability of the Orion actually is.
Since I have done very little looking up to this point for armament, it may take a while to find what I need.
We had a tree fall on a power line in our neighbourhood yesterday. We didn't have electricity for most of the afternoon and evening, the computers could not get online until very late.
Luckily power was restored before it started getting cold again. It is actually supposed to snow this weekend.
What a change from 80 degrees F down to 20 degrees F in a matter of just a couple days. (It is 40 degrees now.)
I believe that I might have figured out the biggest problem with my development machine: Updating Internet Explorer!
It is not networked, but I needed to update Internet Explorer to install Visual C++ and even though the installation failed, it left a fair amount of not so pleasant residue. I figured everything was a Microsoft product so it should work together. Bad assumption!
I actually had a system lockup this morning because of an Internet Explorer error and I NEVER run IE on this machine.
There is no point. It isn't even networked.
Regarding loadouts: Allow for maximum fuel tankage as installed in the aeroplane. It is the Aircraft Commander's responsibility to determine if they will only fly with a partial load.
Regarding Armament: There are 10 Wing Hardpoints. Presumably they would each carry either a AGM-84 or AGM-64. There are several variants of the AGM-84, so it might be worthwhile to figure out the weights of each.
The Sonar Buoys are not properly a weapon, but can be either a disposable load or non disposable load at your discretion.
My personal choice would be determine their weight and factor it in as additional weight per weapon for each Torpedo.
One figures that for target acquisition and tracking, the sonobuoys would be expended along with weapons (probably torpedos rather than missiles).
The main idea here is to allow for typical fuel and payload weights at various stages of flight: Take-Off, Cruise, Attack, Landing.
Don't worry about duplicating weapons performance. Guided weapons simply do not work here. It is really the piloting and aircraft command experience we are trying to simulate as best we can.
This is similar in idea to loading a 550 pound bomb on the A6M2 Type Zero. It doesn't provide any extra range as a Drop Tank would, but at Take-Off, the pilot would have to deal with similar weights.
You want to give the Aircraft Commander the same choices he would have had in real life.... Consider the case of a B-17: Do you load a bit under 18,000 pounds of bombs and minimal fuel for a Tactical bombing mission or less than half that weight of bombs and maximum fuel for a Strategic bombing mission? The DP should allow for both options and just about anything in between.
As for the NASA document and using it for weight references, I simply would not do that at all. That single aeroplane is not configured anything like a military version. The document was useful for dimensions, geometry, performance and aerodynamics but nothing beyond the basic common airframe data. Note that there were LOTS of modifications to make it into a Research Aeroplane.
It might be worthwhile reading some manuals as to the typical mission profiles of the Orion.
Is it loaded differently for a Patrol mission requiring lots of loiter time as versus a Strike mission requiring maximum payload?
Is it loaded differently for a Shipping Strike as versus an attack against Land Targets?
How about for Ferrying?
These are all questions that are hard to answer without a fair amount of research but this is the way that *I* would approach this.
Also note that you probably will have to make a few compromises because of the way CFS handles bomb loads.
I hope your restored power stays on, and that you will be able to stay warm and online!
As regards software incompatibilities on old machines, what a useless incongruency, the one you describe. Hopefully you can get round it!
Regarding P3-Orion fuel and payload: Thank you for your long posts, and for your time preparing them!
The Normal loaded weight is 135000 lb, and the MTOW is 142000 lb.
Maximum tankage is somewhat over 9470 lbs, and maximum payload is 20000 lb.
So we shall discard the Experimenterīs Handbook that defines a normal operation 17400 lb payload and use a 17600 military one I found. This would be 12% less than the maximum payload.
The fuel tankage could then possibly be increased to 8230 USG and would give a range of just over 4000 nm. (Just so as not to have a full up plane with somewhat reduced performance).
Thanks for the information of the 10 hardpoints, so Iīll use 10 then! It appears there can be 2 or 4 under-fuselage hardpoints. I have found the following data as regards armament:
>>QUOTE<<
Up to around 20,000 pounds (9 metric tons) internal and external loads
Two Center-Section Pylons:
Note:[For the case of 4 under-fuselage hardpoints, the same weight would have to be maintained, although more but lighter units could be loaded)
2 Harpoon (AGM-84) (2x1523lb = 3246lb)
2 Maverick (AGM 65) (2x670lb = 1340lb)
2 MK 46/50 Torpedoes (2x508lb = 1016lb / 2x800lb = 1600lb)
2 2000 lb Mines (2x2000lb = 4000lb)
Three Under Outer Wing Pylons,
[Per Wing -Inboard to Outboard):
2 MK 46/50 Torpedo or 1000 lb Mine (2x508lb = 1016lb / 2x800lb = 1600lb or 1x1000lb)
2 MK 46/50 Torpedo or 1000 lb Mine or Rockets (2x508lb = 1016lb / 2x800lb = 1600lb or 1x1000lb)
2 MK 46/50 Torpedo or 500 lb Mine or Rockets (2x508lb = 1016lb / 2x800lb = 1600lb or 1x500lb)
A total maximum 17600lb weapon load includes:
6 2,000 lb mines under wings (6x2000lb = 12000lb)
2 MK 101 depth bombs (2x1200lb = 2400lb)
4 MK 50 torpedoes (4x800lb = 3200lb)
Now for the points you made:
a) OK, thanks for your comment that the the NASA document would be of little use as a guideline for military deployment.
b) Here, it appears that a typical load is 17600 lb.
c) As you suggested, torpedoes could be deployed with a sonar-buoy.
d) For flight simming, Iīd favour a strike mission than a surveillance mission involving lots of loiter time.
e) A CFS1 armament loading with 10 rockets and 8 bombs could be used against both land and shipping targets. Alternatively, one could use 8 rockets and 12 or 15 lighter bombs. The question being: What kind of rocket/bomb combination would suit a CFS1 simmer?
f) I understand ferrying would be flying out, delivering the payload and coming back to the base?
Thanks once again for your invaluable comments!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
A little bit of research into the fuel system layout of the P-3 Orion (non-specific mark) shows the following:
Each engine has its own Oil Tank of 7.35 Gallons.
Each Wing contains an Outboard Tank of 1606 Gallons
Each Wing contains an Inboard Tank of 1671 Gallons
Tank 1 is Port Outboard
Tank 2 is Port Inboard
Tank 3 is Starboard Inboard
Tank 4 is Starboard Outboard
--------------------
for 6554 Gallons
In addition, (presumably for Ferry flights)
Tank 5 is in the Rear Bomb Bay
Tank 5A is in the Forward Bomb Bay
These two tanks can carry 2650 Gallons combined and are interconnected.
Where did you get your number of 8230 Gallons or 9470 pounds? What combination of tanks does that number account for?
You must realise that 8230 Gallons and 9470 pounds are numbers which are inconsistent with each other?
On an operational mission, I am sure that Tank 5A would not be installed and believe that Tank 5 would also not be installed.
I know that the Forward Bomb Bay would be carrying Ordnance but am not sure if the Rear Bomb Bay would be carrying Ordnance or Fuel.
You get to look for that information in the manuals.
As for weights, the weight of Engine Oil is not terribly different regardless of grade.
For Fuel however, remember that Jet Fuel is not the same weight as High Octane Gasoline that we typically would use for Piston Engines.
Thanks for your reseached corrections! A great help. As a result, I think Iīll go for the 4 tanks with the capacities you mention!
There seems to be quite some inconsistencies in the P-3 Orion spec pages.
The 8230 USG was the result of the payload/range calculation derived from the NASA document, which we decided not to use for this and which quoted a 17400 normal payload and resulting range of 3800 nm to retain performance.
The 9470 USG (I mistakenly wrote lbs...) was the most repeated information on some sites quoting Orion specifications for max. fuel. I have also just seen a manual stating 9200 USG in 5 tanks, with the first four tanks having the capacities you mention, but downloading the manual was not allowed.
Then, there was also 10426 USG mentioned on a few other pages.
In the same manual I couldnīt download but inspected, I also found some typical weapon load descriptions.
Update:
Quite a usual one seems to be 8 Mk 50 torpedoes in the bomb bay and probably 4 Maverick missiles, plus some rocket pods on the 10 hardpoints. Each pod would have 4 rockets. I still have to decide about this. Maybe 40 rockets and no missiles? Difficult to decide...
I can adjust the weights (including 8 sonar buoys for the 8 torpedoes like you suggested) so that these items approximately fit the 17600 typical payload - without using the 20000 max payload.
Thanks again, and cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; March 20th, 2016 at 13:25.
Members who have read this thread: 1
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks