New P3 Orion

Hello Ivan,

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 wouldn´t have mattered.

Here´s a picture showing a full load of armament carried by an Orion. It certainly amounts to a mighty piece of work! There´s 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, I´d 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 I´m afraid I´d appreciate a more specific suggestion. I realize it would "only" be your opinion, but I´d go by that.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

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.

- Ivan.
 
Loading the Orion

Hello Ivan,

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 Experimenter´s 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 I´ll 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

Bomb Bay:
8 MK 46/50 Torpedoes (8x508lb = 4064lb / 8x800lb = 6400lb)
8 MK 54 Depth Bombs (8x350lb = 2800lb)
3 MK 36/52 1000 lb Mines (both 3x1000lb = 8000lb)
3 MK 57 Depth Bombs (3x2000lb = 6000lb)
2 MK 101 Depth Bombs (2x1200lb = 2400lb)
1 MK 25/39/55/56 2000 lb Mine (1x2000 lb = 2000lb)

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)

87 sonobuoys (87x15 = 1305lb / 87x20LB = 1740lb / 87x60lb = 5220lb)
pyrotechnics, signals (?)

>>UNQUOTE<<

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, I´d 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
 
Hello 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.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

Thanks for your reseached corrections! A great help. As a result, I think I´ll 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 couldn´t 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:
Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am glad the fuel issue is resolved.
Perhaps the numbers are a bit different for various versions, but without doing any more in depth research (reading through more manuals),
I am satisfied with just the four wing tanks and PERHAPS Tank 5.
Tank 5A simply should not be there for an operational aeroplane IMO.

I don't think you quite understand how typical aircraft loadouts are done (or perhaps I don't understand and am giving bad advice).

From looking over various photographs of the P-3, I came up with the following conclusions:
1. The typical Orion has Two of the Three possible Outer Wing weapons pylons installed on each side.
Typically the Wing Root pylons are not installed nor is the Third outer wing pylon.
2. There are two more Fuselage pylons that MAY be installed in line with the Wing LE.
There apparently is no Rear Bomb Bay aligned with the Aircraft CoG as I expected.
3. The Weapons Bay / Bomb Bay has a Total of Eight INTERNAL weapons stations.

Each Internal weapons station presumably has some weight limit and it appears to be quite high.
Probably it is over 2000 pounds since that is the weight of the heaviest typical weapon.
It is hard to know without reading through the manuals.

The Wing and Fuselage weapons stations are probably capable of at least 1500 pounds each because that is the weight of the AGM-84 SLAM-ER missile. Perhaps it is even 2000 pounds? Again, the manuals should tell you what the real number is.

What you have here is four classes (weight) of weapons but only have two sizes of weapon stations that CFS recognizes.

You will need to work out the numbers for what you believe the typical armament should be and what the maximum projectile weight should be. I have a few ideas of what might work but would need to read a bit more to confirm. Most of the ideas are from looking at photographs and doing a little semi educated guessing.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

Again, thanks for your additional research!
Yes, the fuel issue is solved, thanks! The 5th tank (which we will not use in our case) was apparently a kind of flexible bladder that could be used if necessary, and lay in the middle just aft of the wing, probably just infront of the Sonar Buoy compartment. (This would technically be the aft bomb bay that is not really a bomb bay).

Let´s see if I can come up with some decent suggestions for the weapon load after my most recent research:

Internal bomb load possibilities, my choice of which is the first, combined with 8 Sonobuoys.
1) Most common: 8 torpedoes (Mk 46 or Mk 50 Torpedoes) 8x800lb + 8x20lb = 6560 lb
2) Or: Three 1000lb or 2000lb Mines
3) Or: 2 Torpedoes and two 1000lb or 2000lb Mines
4) Or: 4 Torpedoes and one 1000lb or 2000lb Mine

Now for the external hard points:
There are 3 on each wing and 2 at each wingroot.
The outer wing ones carry 500 lb, i.e. a light model of the Maverick AGM65.
The middle wing ones can carry 1000 lb, i.e. heavier versions of AGM65 or AGM84 SLAM or 1000 mines.
The third from outside, as well as the 4 wing root points, heavier versions of AGM65 or AGM84 SLAM or 1000lb or 2000lb mines.

The outer starboard wing-root point on the right is always for the sonobuoy signal receiver (ESM pod) if sonobuoys are carried. The weight of the ESM pod can be included in the aircraft dry weight as this is not disposable. The weight could be about 250 lb, but I have found no exact data. The electronics themselves without a pod are only 10-20 lb.

The above 6560 lb torpedo+sonobuoy payload would leave 11040 lb for the normal payload on 10 external hardpoints, but the numbers don´t add up regarding the hard point loading capacities.

We can use 9 of these for missiles and 1 for the sonobuoy signal receiver that would be used to fire our eight inboard torpedoes.

Possibility a): Leaving the 500lb outer stores empty because they can only handle 500lb, using 7 x 675 lb AGM65 missiles = 4725 lb.
Possibility b): Ignoring the outer stores too, using 7 x 1000lb mines or depth bombs = 7000 lb.
Possibility c): We could use 9 x 485lb Maverick AGM65D missiles = 4365 lb.
Possibility d): 9 Rocket pods for 4 rockets each: 36 x 79.5lb Zuni Rockets with 44lb Mk24 GP explosive warheads: 36x123.5 = 4446lb

So there would be 4 possibilities for total disposable payloads for 8 torpedoes, 8 sonobuoys and:
a) 6560+4725=11285lb (8 torpedoes and 7 AGM65 missiles)
b) 6560+7000=13560lb (8 torpedoes and 7 mines)
c) 6560+4365=10925lb (8 torpedoes and 9 AGM65D missiles)
d) 6560+4446=11006lb (8 torpedoes and 36 Zuni rockets)

Possibly, the rockets would be the more appealing possibility for simmers! The missiles are for ground and sea targets only, and rockets could also handle air targets.
I´d go for 8 torpedoes and 36 rockets. This way one could also attack planes in CFS1, as the Orion had no machine guns for this. What do you think?

Any of these armament possibilities, with the 6554 USG tankage we have decided on, would leave a nice margin to be able to retain some good performance.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Almost ready

Hello all!
We´re almost there. Now the USAF markings are on, and we´re waiting for the Tail-art, i.e. Squadron markings.
Meanwhile I´m checking the .air file and the text files.
Here´s some more screenshots.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
wow...the paint shop crew
is doing a fantastic job.
i wish i could paint like that.
she's a beauty.

i hate to mention this,
but, in your above post,
you stated,
"the USAF markings are on"
umm, i'm sorry to tell you,
she's wearing NAVY markings.

hopefully, this is just a misstatement
and not a painter's error.
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Smilo caught a pretty good one. It obviously is USN rather than USAF... ;-)

Your painters are quite skilled. I hope mine do as good a job if and when my version of the Orion gets finished.
There is no end in sight for mine especially as there is no staff currently working on it.

A couple comments regarding markings:
The Red warning strip at the Wing Root Trailing Edge is quite prominent in most photographs I have seen.
From what I can see from the underside view, the Under Wing Insignia is at the Wing Tip.
It should be between the Engines because it would otherwise be obscured by Outboard Weapons Stations.

Regarding Weapons, the Orion really has no meaningful Air to Air capability.
Its weapons are for Surface (or Sub Surface) Targets.

I am more concerned with allowing the Aircraft Commander to take off with a full weapons load.
Good Handling and Performance is never guaranteed and should not be expected at Maximum Take-Off Weight.
If loads are selected less than optimally, it should be possible to exceed MTOW.

This is my own opinion but I would not worry about having a Sonar Receiver on a Weapons Station.
Unfortunately as stated earlier, there are several sizes of weapons and we can only pick two (is that really true???) to use in the DP file.

Ideally we could use some
Large Missiles AGM-84 Harpoon / SLAM at 1500 pounds each
Medium Missiles AGM-65 Maverick at around 750 pounds each
(Yes, this is high, but accounts for the several Sonobuoys expended per actual weapon launch and also for the Pylon which is normally not installed. Note that typically only two Outer Wing Pylons are installed per side as seen in most photographs. Others appear to be installed as needed.)
Small Missiles AGM-65 also but weighing around 460 pounds each.

Since we can only pick one size, I would probably use all 750 pound AGM-65 Mavericks and make them available on 12 Pylons.
This would be the 3 Outer Wing per side, 2 Inner Wing per side and 2 Fuselage Pylons.

With Bombs, it is much harder to justify my choices:
Torpedoes are a maximum of 800 pounds each for the Mark 50 with the Mark 46 and Mark 54 being considerably lighter.
There are only 8 internal hard points we have not accounted for so far but since we can only choose one size of weapon, I would consider making it either a 850 to 1000 pounds per weapon to account for Sonobuoys and the restriction to all "Light Weapons" on external Pylons.
I would also allow for perhaps 12 or 14 internal weapons even though there are only 8 weapons stations in reality....

I believe this would allow for a reasonable choice of weapons loads. The weapons performance would be very different, but without guided weapons in CFS, it doesn't make a difference anyway.

Just my opinion. It is not any better or worse than yours; It is just a bit different.
I won't make any claim that my ideas have been particularly well thought out.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Smilo,
Oops..Automatically my brain associated the star emblem with stripes on the sides with USAF instead of US NAVY! Luckily the pictures indicate that the painters didn´t make the same mistake!
I still don´t know which will be the nose number or the tail emblem - we´ll see.

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for pointing out the texturing issues. OK. I´ll tell them to move the underwing emblem inwards between the engines. About the Red warning strip at the Wing Root Trailing Edge, I can´t see any in the pictures, apart from the red rectangle around the sonobuoy openings.
Update: I finally found a picture of it! It seems to be a prolongation sideways and upward from the bottom stripe of the sonobuoy rectangle area marking. No problem!
Extra Update: It will be difficult to texture this red stripe because the wing root is textured with the wings, and the red sonobuoy rectangle is on the fuselage texture. I have to see if it´s possible to advance the rectangle a bit forward so that the stripe is approximately placed. I hope this will be acceptable. See attached screenshot!

Thanks for your ideas on the weapons. Well... So it´s either 8 torpedoes and 36 rockets, or 12 large AGM65 externally and 12-14 torpedoes internally. The first possibility is more literally correct, and useful for simmers´air-to-air defense/attack, although in reality, most probably so many rockets would never be loaded. The the second possibility would be an implementation which would compensate for CFS1 weaponry shortcomings. So both indeed are justified!

I could always put in a few rocket pods less and put in more torpedoes too... The extra torpedoes incl. sonobuoy weight would also be interpretable as AGM65 missiles.

Another Update: Oops, no! In Dp Torpedoes are implemented as bombs and Missiles as Rockets, but this would really be more realistic - more like your suggestion - less rockets and more bombs.
Torpedoes could be regarded as depth charges, although the bombs in both cases would explode on surface contact and not look for or wait for enemy proximity.

I still have to think about this...

Thank you for your good words from both of you praising the paintwork - I shall relay your comments to Udo´s painters!

Update (having thought about this):
-----------------------------------
The flaw in my 8-torpedo + 36-rocket combination is that it´s too light - only 11006 lb, and probably unrealistic with so many rockets, whereas on the other hand, your 12x750lb Maverick missile + 14x850lb large torpedo combination accounts for 20900lb payload.
This is fine, as it lies just over the maximum approximate 20000 lb payload, which, with a normal fuel tankage, leaves the aircraft still 7103 lb below its normal 135000 lb take-off weight (MTOW = 142000 lb). It also still gives the simmer a large enough number of firing opportunities.
The more I think about it, the better this possibility looks!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Red Stripe.jpg
    Red Stripe.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Hello Aleatorylamp

As stated before, the idea is to simulate the flight experience; The weapons experience is simply not possible in Combat Flight Simulator as I understand it. I don't have any particular expertise with DP files other than a pretty good ability at research.

Regarding normal loaded weight and maximum take-off weight, if you cannot reach those, you need to find out where the discrepancy is.
There MUST be one because it is normally an issue that one cannot carry as many things as there are spaces for because of weight limitations.
Usually it is a matter of choosing what to leave behind or just accepting (during wartime) that take-off will be over the aircraft's MTOW as stated in the manual.

This is what I meant with my comment earlier about understanding aircraft loading: Weight is usually the greatest limitation, not weapons stations.

As an example: The late model Spitfires had a fuselage fuel tank that was pretty far aft.
The manual states to never use that tank on an aircraft with a Bubble Canopy..... But one has to wonder: If it is never to be used, then why is it installed????

There are other strange cases such as the fuel handling on a P-51D Mustang with drop tanks.

- Ivan.
 
Last edited:
Hello Ivan,

Thanks very much for your ever helpful comments and guidance. Most useful, I must say!

OK, I get your meaning! With all the research both of us have done, in conclusion then, I think we have arrived at a good, balanced solution for the weapons with the last combination mentioned. The weights to include pylons and pods themselves are also very well reasoned.

As regards the discrepancy of being 7103 lbs under the normal 135000 take-off weight, and the importance of getting this right, the solution is quite easy: The 5th bladder-type fuselage tank with 1076 USG fuel. Implementing that, would get us exactly onto the specified 135000 lb normal take-off weight.

As soon as i get the finished textures from Udo, I´ll upload the model.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

YOU may have done a great deal of research, but I can tell you again that I have NOT done much research at all.
I looked at a few photographs and did a Wikipedia search on the Harpoon / SLAM and Maverick missiles for weight.
THAT IS IT. I confirmed that sometimes a Maverick or Phoenix like missile was carried on a few of the pylons.
I have no real idea whether this is typical or what the weight limits of the pylons are.
Can a Harpoon / SLAM or Large Mine be carried on EVERY pylon?
I expect that would be in the operational manuals, but I have not searched for those yet.

Regarding the DP file parameters, I state again, that There has not been much thought put into it.
It is sufficient to use to build a fair AIR file because it comes up with a reasonable payload weight and that is it.
There may be better ways to do this.

I have actually spent a lot more time looking for paint combinations for the P-40M and P-40N in the Pacific Theater.
I now know that the RAF flew the P-40M in the Middle East but still am not sure that they used them in the Far East.

The fuel tank sizes and locations for the Orion were a matter of using a diagram I found months ago when this project began.

Regarding Airframe Weight, I have seen a number for Empty Weight only.
I have no idea what the typical equipment is for this aeroplane in operational use.
What is included in the Normal Loaded Weight?
Does it include 4 fuel tanks or 5? The manuals should tell you.
How did you arrive at your Zero Fuel Weight?
Without looking there, you are just guessing.
I know that I don't have nearly enough information to even make a good guess at this point.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

You worry too much! I do remember stating that I´d found an operations manual that wasn´t allowed for downloading, only for on-line reading, and on two other spec pages I saw the typical weapon and fuel loads I mentioned in earlier posts, so, as far as I´m concerned, I can repeat what I said in my latest posts - i.e. meaning that the current state of my P-3 Orion load is more than satisfactory, especially after discussing the matter with you.

In effect, the manual stated that there are 5 tanks, and gave different weapon loading possibilities between mines, missiles and rockets for the different pylons (the outer ones are for 500 lb, the other 2 on the wings are for 1000 lbs and the inner wing-root ones are for upto 2000 lb, and then the bomb-bay has several combinations as well for torpedoes and/or mines), so I have it all sussed out, as the English would say.

You may not have done much research, but your comments have allowed me to sift through the information that I had researched, and extract the relevant data to decide what the most convenient loading combination was going to be for a best possible similation.

So, you can´t elude the credit that corresponds to you for the achievement of this model!

Here are 3 final screenshots (showing Udo´s wonderful artwork on the tail!) before the upload, which will be as soon as I have checked that everything is OK!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Final Orion 1.jpg
    Final Orion 1.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Lockheed P-3 Orion Uploaded

Hello all,

Just to say that I´ve finally uploaded the P-3 Orion.

It has taken a long time - since last summer - and has been a complete rebuild but that´s what happens when one tries to get it nicely right within all kinds of limitations.

The unit is VP-11 "Proud Pegasus" with fine detailed artwork on the textures by Udo Entenmann, and has been possible thanks to Ivan´s efforts in suggesting the most convenient buiding techniques and pointing me in the right direction to achieve the most convenient balance between reality and the simulation as regards the choice of weapons.

Here´s the link:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=21077

I hope you like it.
Please tell me if you want to throw any rotten tomatoes in case there are any glitches, flaws, faults or mistakes!!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Davis-Mothan for perfect realism!

Hello all, again!

I´d been having a discussion with my texture-friend Udo yesterday about the real Orion vs. getting the simulated model as near to reality as possible, because he does go to tremendous lengths to get his textures right.

However, he also defends "poetic license" here, in the sense that given the limitations modellers and painters have to deal with, sometimes it is only possible to arrive at a best possible solution, not a totally realistic one. This also coincides with what other people like myself or Ivan feel.

It is rather obvious anyway... Then he added a funny comment, which is really the reason for this post, saying that if someone wanted perfect realism, they could drive out to Davis-Monthan in the Arizona Desert to buy a used, original Orion!! I had to
biggrin-new.png
!

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the Orion.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Congratulations on the completion of your project.
It looks like a nice package.

You are right, Perhaps I do worry too much.
It is a pity there isn't an easy way to have at least three different weapons types.

I actually have been to Davis-Monthan. I stopped there when I was on a project at Fort Huachuca in Arizona.
I suppose I wasn't actually in the "bone yard"; I was just able to see it from the road where I was driving and also stopped by a couple other air museums.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

Thank you for your good words!
Let´s see how the model fares in the library. At the moment there´s already 10 downloads.

Yes, even only one more weapon type at least would make a big difference. The Sim accepts so many different tank placements, for example, and there are all sorts of different and sometimes perhaps superfluous parameters in the .air file, that one wonders why armament options are so scarce. Maybe originally CFS1 designers only thought of fighters and fighter-bombers, and in WWII the nearest to a missile fired from a fighter was a rocket. Possibly CFS1 was only an experiment anyway and the designers never thought anyone would use it for so many years.

I´d been thinking of implementing two types of rockets in Dp, a light one and a heavy one, but then, even if this was allowed, it would only let you define two places to fire from, but you´d never know which is being fired. Like you say, a pity!

Davis-Monthan seems to be an interesting place! I bet it would be possible to buy say 3 planes of the same type and make one good flying unit out of them.

Well, in view of the achievement, the workshop is being cleaned out, and the designers are preparing the plans for the Baltimore.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top