Jump to content

Inner Pylon Bombs


Mustang25

Recommended Posts

Will we ever get the ability to load other bombs on the inner pylons like mk82/GBU12 in single or double racks? Or even the type 200?

 

I understand the justification for removing ordnance that produced exhaust from the inner pylons but you'd think that these bombs should be allowed since they're even lighter than the mk83 and mk84 that is already implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deka said, that after implementing surges due to exhaust gas, they might consider changing available loadouts. But we have not heard anything since then (~1 month).

 

A few days ago I had the engine lose power and restart after strafing a ground target in Jeff. Could that be it?

 

P.S. I did notice similar situations before low level, AB, hard maneuvering so it might be AoA related or something

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

MATRIC developer

Check out MATRIC and forget about keyboard shortcuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deka said, that after implementing surges due to exhaust gas, they might consider changing available loadouts. But we have not heard anything since then (~1 month).

 

I hope they do revisit it soon! It would make it just that much more multi-role if we had a few more options on the inner pylons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we didn't see real photos showing aa missile/dual rack bomb mounted at inner pylon :(

I imagine there's not enough clearance for safe ordinance separation on the dual rack.

Dealing with engine surges in the middle of an aerial fight is also probably too silly to allow as well, but what about air to ground missiles like the C-701? i just find it strange that the C-802 is fine while the 701 isn't.


Edited by Xeno426
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, makes sense. So the it's a decision based on not wanting to risk exhaust inhalation, and not any other technical limitation?

 

Kinda wonder if it's like the Kh-25ML on the Ka-50; sure, one country doesn't want to do it to increase the lifespan of their airframes, but the company would happily allow if it that's what a customer wants.

 

Kinda like how I imagine it went down when Pakistan went to Klimov and say "we need more POWER" and Klinov's response was "sure, if you don't mind shorter engine life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...