Jump to content

Automan

3rd Party Developers
  • Posts

    1383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

2 Followers

About Automan

  • Birthday 07/16/1980

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS
  • Location
    Italy
  • Interests
    Trucks, Trains, Ships, Aircrafts... anything engineered with an engine;-)
  • Occupation
    Italian Air Force

Recent Profile Visitors

29717 profile views
  1. Well, I frequently test new plugins but I always keep a stable set ready to revert back if necessary
  2. Latest plugins are experimental and not always the best to work with.... Sadly, the server now cleanup old plugins more frequently than in the past. I've upload plugin version 198146 to an external host, make a try: https://gofile.io/d/W0w9kB
  3. Con la revisione del forum la sezione whishlist è un pò più nascosta, ma si trova qui: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/339-dlc-map-wish-list/ In merito al tuo desiderio, non sei il solo... Questa mappa del post l'avevo idealizzata anni fa nei limiti dell'engine terreno rimanendo entro i 900km quadrati: interessantissima per i molteplici utilizzi, da Deny Flight del 93 ad un ipotetico scenario futuro di contrapposizione alla Serbia(ultimo paese RED...), ma anche riutilizzare il tutto da Amendola in giù per un eventuale scenario Libico. Tuttavia sarebbe una opera mastodontica con i tool a disposizione adesso, con poca automazione e tanto da fare a mano impiegherebbe per almeno 4-5 anni a tempo pieno un team 2d/3d dedicato composto da una decina di persone...
  4. Asked to the dev a couple of months ago, I would say that for now is still a no-go...
  5. While it is a pity that some weapons cannot be implemented like they was intended, it’s a real fact that for security reason AMI choose to not fire rockets in this dispenser: during further testing, armament specialists noticed that the temperature inside the tube, during a dive and at high speed, reached too hot values to be considered safe and avoid/prevent a premature rocket initiation. This occurred for aerodynamic reason of the air attrition in the small 50mm tube with the airflow blocked by warhead. In the LR-25 aerodynamic fairing helped in prevent this behavior. About cluster bombs, neither the BL-755 nor the Belouga BLG-66AC(Anti-Char=Anti-tank) were realized by us, and particularly the first is an ancient model/code imported from old lockon, so I would not consider this near fidelity of working. We are not aware when ED, that now wants to have control over all 3rd party weapons too, finds time and sources to develop further these cluster bombs.
  6. 1)Yes, you must remove some fuel to carry heaviest configurations and be within mtow limit. Keep in mind that weight of the 6 pylons and the tips matter. And just to remark a note about the tip tanks: in the 339A they really are not a loudout like a fuel tank would be, instead they have always been considered an integral part of the wing until Aermacchi adopted a quick disconnection system introduced later with 500L version (cylindrical shape). This was so true that in old dash 1 the total internal fuel was referred to the sum of fuselage and tip tanks while the clean configuration was indicated as the a/c with tt... Just to say, I would not consider realistic for a combat mission going without tips: except for some rare demonstration in the past, the 339A needs them since the fuselage tank is not sufficiently safe to provide range and a reserve for a typical CAS mission (180nmi in low level, and 4 x Mk82). Unless to conduct a suicide mission, without AAR, the fuel balance is always crucial: more fuel means more time you can help your troops before rtb or remain on target for 2nd pass, etc So, choose the right balance of ordnance/fuel for your mission, tip tanks mounted and LO-LO-LO profile 2)Well, the weapons delivery manual doesn't provide further details on bombs different from slick Mk-82 (arming position N/T or T only) but says that the same procedures are used for weapons of equivalent class except for the dispenser BRD-4-250 for which the SAFE position should be used to fire rockets(not implemented for DCS limitation on double-use weapons) while N/T is for release of mk-76 or mk-106 bombs. By the way, it's true that on Snakeeyes the fins are kept closed with a release band locked by a cotter pin connected to the Tail arming wire: if the relative fuze solenoid is active during launch the pin will be pulled and the band will free the fins, otherwise they will be like free-fall Mk-82. We must still request assistance with ED for an hypotethical implementation, since for realistic working the arming wire should be connected inverted by the armament specialist: infact, the 339 doesn't provide nose only fuze switch in the armament cp and the tail only solenoid (by default connected to tail arming wire) should be connected to nose arming wire for working like F-5 or F-14.
  7. About the first question, the last revision of Flight Manual and performance Data are only reporting the weights for qualified configuration used by MLU of Italian Air Force. Considering the declared mtow of 5900kg, the configuration for Flight training with no wing tip tanks(two pilots, internal fuel and 4 underwing pylons) rated at a weight of 4072kg, you can assume that about 1800kg are available for weapon load, but that is wrong, since this is the total wings load while the pylons may have limitations in loading imposed by static test or dynamic behavior ( ie. fluttering) emerged during trials.Sometimes the good old technical description dedicated to insiders and evaluators can still help: In this case, wingtip or not, for pylons we have a total ammissibile weight of 454kg x4 +340kg x2 2nd question In reality BAT-120 now have 3 versions. Originally was developed by Brandt-Thomson in 2 version ABL and AMV, more recently, development restarted with Thales and a new generation LG (Laser guided) came out.The version we introduced is only the ABL (Anti Blindé Léger), dedicated to light armored vehicle. AMV (Anti Matériel and Véhicule) is dedicated for hit infantry and unprotected vehicles. The difference is the weight and number of fragments, 800 frags of about 12 grams for Abl vs 2600 frags of 4g for AMV, but the kill radius is the same(20 meters): but while an AMV can’t damage an armor, the ABL have kill probability for both armored/ unarmored and personnel, so I surely more versatile.
  8. Sorry, yes Belouga are present, added to the list. about Pylon limitation: yes, the first two pylons can load 1000lbs while the outer have a 750lbs limit. Also there are some weapons that could interfere with flaps in landing position.
  9. Weapons supported by MB.339A already present in DCS database: MK-81 MK-82 LD & HD MK-83 LAU-10 LAU-3 BL-755 MATRA 155 (introduced by Razbam on their Mirage2000) BGL-66 Belouga (introduced by Razbam too) Weapons introduced by us (code, model and textures) and integrated by ED as now required: BLU-107B Durandal BAP-100 with short adapter 14-3-M2 and longer 30-6-M2 (this adapter can’t be loaded on 339 but is suitable for Mirage and F-5) BAT-120 (loaded with same short adapter of BAP-100) LR-25-0(AL-25-50) and ARF-8M3 rockets with 3 types of warhead) BRD-4-250 with training MK-76 And MK-106 smoke bombs Conformal Gunpod AN/M3 12.7mm Conformal Gunpod DEFA 30mm (and 3 types of cartridge) this is about weapons, then the load out include: Conformal Reconnaissance Pod with Vinten Camera(still not functional) Fuel Tanks Travel pod Mixed fuel tank/oil for PAN version
  10. Well, I-GROW was an Aermacchi registration for MB-339B, a modified A (serial MM54502) with improved avionics and lately re-engined with Viper 680-582 (the same engine that was adopted and transferred to the 339 JPATS demonstrator). During the eighties, at Farnborough and Le Bourget, I-GROW was the battlehorse in static display, often in tandem with the bad brother I-BITE (single-seat 339K) with whom it shared some of the developments: a common view was the support of a wider array of guided weapons like AGM Maverick or AShM Marte, and AA (SW and Magic) but also a protection kit to survive in critical environment (Elt555 ecm pod and AN/ALE-40 chaff-flares dispenser). The latest revision of 1993 introduced the refuel probe and new avionics adopting 2x LCD EFIS displays, (as can be intended with Advanced Cockpit Technology text written on the tail), and again re-engined with 632-43 as in origin: this was one of the latest apparitions of the B demonstrator, then the aircraft was transferred to AMI with serial MMX607 and the program was cancelled. Instead, the born of CD is a bit different story: the C prototype was I-AMDA, two-seat 339 engined with the powerful Viper 680-43 (about 2KN more of thurst), fitted with HUD, RWR suite, SMS and 1 MFD but still a partial analog cockpit. The first C customer was New Zealand that needed a transition trainer able to carry armament compatible with A-4K, so a new prototype was built (I-TRON) to customize the requirements needed: EO TV system to fire Maverick, Computer guidance for CCIP release (dumb bombs), AA modes of HUD with aiming calculations for guns and the sidewinder missiles. Then started the fork project of CD(Completamente Digitale) with Viper 632-43 and FD(Full Digital) with Viper 680-43: CD for Italy (Protype derived from modified A serial MM54544, remarked MMX606) CE for Eritrea (1st production a/c started with FD prototype) CM for Malaysia (same as 2nd batch of Italian CD) Italy and Malaysia that operate even the A variant, choose the same 632-43 engine instead of the powerful one, to keep the same maintenance line(and obviously maintenance costs lower...). Finally, for answer Yoyo, I'm a big lover of the Macchino but supporting AA weapons on the A is sadly a no-go: the B was a prototype demonstrator and the 339 obtained the certification of this armament from C variant onwards (Mave and sidewinder) and FD/CD (Marte).
  11. Colgo l’occasione per aggiornare…Reverb venduto un paio di mesi fa, in vendita rimangono le 2 periferiche CH.
  12. The 4-tube is a custom launcher for FFAR 2.75" (70mm) rockets (Mk4 or a licensed version) Below an inert/dummy FFAR being loaded in a launcher. This was commonly used by GAF with F-104 or G-91, mainly fired from LAU-32GA launchers (7 tube similar to the one in the photo standing on the ground). The same launcher was then passed to Portugal Note: any photo linked here is property of their respective owners As far as I know, Germans never owned Matra SNEB rockets: even the AlphaJet A that replaced the G-91 was still using the LAU-51 70mm when they selled all the weapon system to Portugal. French and British apart, SNEB rockets were quite uncommon in Europe: 70 mm Mk4 and then Mk66 (Hydra) was preferred. Note that some references wrongly identify the LAU-51GA with Matra 116, but this launcher is 19-tube for 70mm rockets not 68mm SNEB...
  13. und mit zwei großen Zusatztanks (520 liter)
  14. We are celebrating the anniversary of the first flight (August 9, 1956), with some new renderings of G.91 R3 version: they are wip and do not represent the final product.
×
×
  • Create New...