Why is it possible to equip 4xR-60 + 4xR-60M, but not 8x of either?

[Skuva]

Whenever you try to equip a 2xR-60 or 2xR-60M on a wing already containing the same missile rack the game just erase the previous one. But having one of each on each wing is fine. Also having one 2x + 1x of the same variant (totalling 6x) in fine.

I looked into this forum, reddit and manuals. Couldn't find an explanation.

And for me it doesn't make sense, if the plane is really capaple of carrying the double rail in all 4 pylons at the same time, why would the systems have such limitation? One could argue the M variant having some peculiarity in the way the sensor works, but then what would limit a 8xR-60 (non-M) layout?

For reference, an image with the possible and not possible layouts:
null

Edited September 3, 2022 by Skuva

[Ala13_ManOWar]

The thing is the plane isn't "really" capable of that, double racks are a kind of hack invented later on, and not by the builder but third countries. It does the job, but has some nasty consequences like introducing a hell of a ton of drag, to say it in short it doesn't come for free. Plus, if you look at armament selector I believe to recall there's wiring problems for the purpose since there's no real option in there for the double rack to be selected, original aircraft isn't fitted as is to use those double racks, it isn't wired for that so the wiring isn't perfect nor it comes from factory, hence limitations happens and probably that one you're trying isn't allowed because of the wiring. In fact we have more than it should be, original factory 21Bis could only carry 4 missiles in 4 pylons and that's it, so be grateful M3 decided to include a relative rare option as double racks are for the model, but it doesn't come without some problems. To ask for the 4 double racks to be included would be not only inaccurate and unrealistic, unusable because it lacks wiring for it, but think the drag you'll get from that…

 

So yes, pretty normal you aren't allowed to do so.

[Skuva]

3 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

The thing is the plane isn't "really" capable of that, double racks are a kind of hack invented later on, and not by the builder but third countries. It does the job, but has some nasty consequences like introducing a hell of a ton of drag, to say it in short it doesn't come for free. Plus, if you look at armament selector I believe to recall there's wiring problems for the purpose since there's no real option in there for the double rack to be selected, original aircraft isn't fitted as is to use those double racks, it isn't wired for that so the wiring isn't perfect nor it comes from factory, hence limitations happens and probably that one you're trying isn't allowed because of the wiring. In fact we have more than it should be, original factory 21Bis could only carry 4 missiles in 4 pylons and that's it, so be grateful M3 decided to include a relative rare option as double racks are for the model, but it doesn't come without some problems. To ask for the 4 double racks to be included would be not only inaccurate and unrealistic, unusable because it lacks wiring for it, but think the drag you'll get from that…

 

So yes, pretty normal you aren't allowed to do so.

I'm not asking for the 4 double racks to be included. They already are. I'm asking why such inconsistency in what R-60 variant can go in it.

Also after some research I found the double rack's name is P-62-II. And it is very much a soviet invention, not invented "later on" but a few years before the Bis debut (It began prototyping on the 21S as far as I could find) in parallel with the r-60 development. So I think it's safe to assume the Bis was designed with the rack in mind or at least had an immediate retrofit.

About the wiring. I'm inclined to believe it was originally design to only support the rack on the outer pylons. Although there is some pictures of foreign variants carrying it in the inner pylons. But I haven't found any carrying on all 4 of them.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Skuva

[Ala13_ManOWar]

5 minutes ago, Skuva said:

I'm not asking for the 4 double racks to be included. They already are. I'm asking why such inconsistency in what R-60 variant can go in it

As I said, probably wiring for the thingamajig. I read somewhere around here it was first introduced by Czech, Polish, Croatian, can't remember now which one, air force and then adopted by others, not the other way around. But who knows. Anyhow not a good addition to the plane, apparently, and those problems seem to show up in the sim implementation.

[r4y30n]

Wait, how much drag? Do two double racks have more drag than four individual pylons?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You can test by yourself how bad it is just using a single pylon or the double rack, the aircraft flies noticeably worst.

Single pylons are streamlined after all, but the double rack being a later affix wasn't probably tested a lot for drag and all.

[Skuva]

I did some testing, comparing top speed (IAS by status bar) at 2000m level (Mil power, inf fuel, w/ center tank and flares), in various R-60's layouts.

I'm led to think if there is suposed to have more drag then it is not modeled. Altough the weight is modeled, it add an extra 5kg for each double rack compared to 2x singles. So for all pratical purposes you can take into account just the weight and drag of the missiles itself and difference in performance should be unnoticeable for layout with the same number of missiles.

Here are my results:

 

EDIT: EXTRA ABSURD TEST: I tried equiping 8xR-60's in 4 double racks and just fire them all, and then measure the top speed again. And God there is something very wrong here. The top speed was 1008 km/h. More than without any rack/missiles equiped. Then I tested 4 single racks, after firing them all the top speed was 967km/h, virtualy the same speed as with all the missiles in them. So I don't know what to think of it. With the double racks there is some imaginary negative drag after firing, in the single one it seems the R-60's have no drag.

And it gets even weirder when you drop the racks... the... plane... loses... speed... when... the... racks... are... ditched...

Anyway. I guess I'm deviating from the topic. There is clearly some fuckery going on with the drag models, and that should be reported.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Skuva

[r4y30n]

Good find!

[Hobel]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Skuva:

EDIT: EXTRA ABSURD TEST: I tried equiping 8xR-60's in 4 double racks and just fire them all, and then measure the top speed again. And God there is something very wrong here. The top speed was 1008 km/h. More than without any rack/missiles equiped. Then I tested 4 single racks, after firing them all the top speed was 967km/h, virtualy the same speed as with all the missiles in them. So I don't know what to think of it. With the double racks there is some imaginary negative drag after firing, in the single one it seems the R-60's have no drag.

And it gets even weirder when you drop the racks... the... plane... loses... speed... when... the... racks... are... ditched...

Sounds like the problem the Viggen had, which got faster with each additional pylon.

[QuiGon]

50 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Sounds like the problem the Viggen had, which got faster with each additional pylon.

Both were Leatherneck modules originally, so maybe it's even the same code that causes this

Edited September 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[rossmum]

ED modules have had the same issue in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if others did/do too. In this case at least it's 80km/h or so, not 300, and the 21 has some hard limits that stop you achieving warp speed 9.

Needs fixing at any rate, so hopefully that can be done without too much delay. I'd recommend detailing your findings on the M3 bugtracker to make sure it gets seen, as often forum threads don't.

 e/

On 9/3/2022 at 10:35 PM, Skuva said:

I'm not asking for the 4 double racks to be included. They already are. I'm asking why such inconsistency in what R-60 variant can go in it.

Also after some research I found the double rack's name is P-62-II. And it is very much a soviet invention, not invented "later on" but a few years before the Bis debut (It began prototyping on the 21S as far as I could find) in parallel with the r-60 development. So I think it's safe to assume the Bis was designed with the rack in mind or at least had an immediate retrofit.

About the wiring. I'm inclined to believe it was originally design to only support the rack on the outer pylons. Although there is some pictures of foreign variants carrying it in the inner pylons. But I haven't found any carrying on all 4 of them.

 

APU-60-II was mostly reserved for MiG-23 and occasionally 25, IIRC, as there were never enough in supply to meet demand. Photos of them in use on 21s are relatively uncommon and usually foreign (I've seen them on Finnish and Indian 21s). It's hard to say what limitations there were to prevent loading 8 missiles but it's possible that the reason wasn't just wiring, but perhaps negative impacts on stability particularly at low speeds, as the 21's manual is full of such limitations for pretty much every store except the existing air-to-air missiles and rails prior to R-60 being brought across to the 21.

R-60 itself didn't pass state trials until after the bis was in production and so it's unlikely its launch rails would have, either. Early prints of the aircraft manual make no mention of the weapon at all.

Edited September 10, 2022 by rossmum

[Lido]

Am 10.9.2022 um 12:55 schrieb Hobel:

Sounds like the problem the Viggen had, which got faster with each additional pylon.

"I am Speed"