Dual Rack pl5's ?

[E-TF[101] Breeze]

Hi there, I was just curious why our JF-17 can't carry a dual rack of PL5's, they SD-10 and the PL5 use the same launcher rail, so on paper they should be able to by mounted on a dual rack right? 

[Dr_Pavelheer]

Perhaps simply nobody bothered testing such configuration IRL so it's not on the approved loadout list?

[VikingSail]

what's more strange is that how come we can mount the dual rack 250kg LS-6 on pylon 2 and 6, but not on inboard pylon 3 and 5 (which is also listed on the picture above)?

[My_Name_Jeff]

6 hours ago, VikingSail said:

what's more strange is that how come we can mount the dual rack 250kg LS-6 on pylon 2 and 6, but not on inboard pylon 3 and 5 (which is also listed on the picture above)?

That will definitely make it better, but we still have to consider the block, since this picture ain't showing brm rockets and I personally would not like to see it removed, just saying.

[BigBorner]

12 hours ago, My_Name_Jeff said:

I personally would not like to see it removed, just saying.

And i wouldnt want to miss the dual LD-10 Pylons either. 

[Alex Hound]

Btw, this is weird why we can't have LS-6 500 on the 2, 4 and 6 pylons

[Napillo]

On 3/26/2024 at 4:36 AM, Alex Hound said:

why we can't have LS-6 500 on the 2, 4 and 6 pylons

You can on 2 and 6, just not 4. Unsure why, if you can hook up a WMD7, I assume it has a good enough data connection, and since you can mount a 1000kg bomb, it's not a weight issue.

[J20Stronk]

I belive they mentioned they are strictly following what the CAC told them it can carry, and further restricted the loadout to what the PAF officially runs on their frames.

 

That is why, for instance, we cannot carry rockets or dual bombs on inner stations; the PAF doesn't do so for whatever reason.

Edited March 28 by J20Stronk

[Napillo]

14 hours ago, J20Stronk said:

what the PAF officially runs on their frames

so no role playing as a Nigerian JF-17?

[Mike_Romeo]

15 hours ago, J20Stronk said:

the PAF doesn't do so for whatever reason.

Rockets are a no go because their exhaust, when firing, will get right into the air intakes and could cause a engine stall.

[Napillo]

2 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:

Rockets are a no go because their exhaust, when firing, will get right into the air intakes

If it fires its engine one second after dropping, it would be just as far away or farther than the other pylons.

Granted, if its upside down, it wont, but they don't let you fire them upside down anyway.

Edited March 28 by Napillo

[BigBorner]

14 hours ago, Napillo said:

If it fires its engine one second after dropping

How should that work? Rockets are fired from a Pod using their own Engine power. 

[E-TF[101] Breeze]

On 3/26/2024 at 2:36 PM, Alex Hound said:

Btw, this is weird why we can't have LS-6 500 on the 2, 4 and 6 pylons

Yeah, I've also wondered why we can't carry 2x Mk82 on the inner pylon, or the ls6 100, or 250 in the inner pylon, would be pretty cool, you would be able to have 8 LS-6's and still have a pod or bag...

[Napillo]

10 hours ago, BigBorner said:

How should that work? Rockets are fired from a Pod using their own Engine power. 

bombs drop under their own weight, I assume they could drop the missiles the same way, though that would mean a different rack, as it couldn't quite slide out on its own. Still, bombs drop so I assume they have the capability to mount it that way. Also other aircraft have missiles who dont start their engine until after they drop away from the aircraft, so it's not unheard of.

Also, gravity is 9.8m/s^2 so one second and the missile would be about 10 meters away, which would prevent the engines from sucking in the exhaust plume.

Edited March 29 by Napillo

[BigBorner]

Are we talking about rocket (-pods) or missiles now?