Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Okay, so it's time to add another Super Hornet to my complete Jolly Rogers history (30-strong collection). The way I did the Tomcats is how I'm doing the Super Hornets; with the F-14A's I did one representative scheme each from the 70's, 80's and 90's, then with the B's one each of the 90's and 2000's. Did one Super Hornet for its combat tour in '07. Now it's time for one of the 2010's. So I chose the beautiful gloss black and white-trimmed 201 modex from 2014, decals by Wolfpak (sheet #72-083, seen here) http://millcreekconsultants.com/WP72-16.html I'd like some more options on loadouts typical of the recent couple of years. I don't want to load it heavily for bear, and probably not pure A-A, but would like something. Google images don't show much other than empty MER's, a training Mk-82, and one each GBU-38 and -12. I'm leaning toward something like that, wondering if I'd want to restrict it to a centerline tank only (since the '07 bird has the Goofy Gas load). I defer now to your combined wisdom and suggestions! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shion Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 2015-2016 timeframe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Collin Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 http://www.navy.mil/viewGallery.asp Type in Super Hornet, VFA, F/A-18....you get the idea...into the search box Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 Wow, are those GBU-31's I see there?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Collin Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/295953-great-navy-hornet-and-others-weathering-ref-shot/& Quote Link to post Share on other sites
757flyer Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy said: Wow, are those GBU-31's I see there?? In the pics posted by shion, the bombs on the right wing are GBU-32's (1,000 lb JDAM). The left wing outboard station has a GBU-12, (bottom pic) the midboard station has a GBU-38. Pics posted by 757flyer, top pic - left to right: AIM-9X, GBU-38, GBU-38, ATFLIR, Drop Tank, Drop Tank, GBU-12. bottom pic - left to right, AIM-9X, GBU-12, GBU-38, GBU-38, ATFLIR, Drop Tank, Drop Tank, GBU-12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted September 14, 2017 Author Share Posted September 14, 2017 12 hours ago, GW8345 said: In the pics posted by shion, the bombs on the right wing are GBU-32's (1,000 lb JDAM). The left wing outboard station has a GBU-12, (bottom pic) the midboard station has a GBU-38. Pics posted by 757flyer, top pic - left to right: AIM-9X, GBU-38, GBU-38, ATFLIR, Drop Tank, Drop Tank, GBU-12. bottom pic - left to right, AIM-9X, GBU-12, GBU-38, GBU-38, ATFLIR, Drop Tank, Drop Tank, GBU-12 Really appreciate the photos, everyone, very helpful! Let me ask this then, regarding the GBU-32. In the 1/72 Hasegawa Weapons Set VII, is what they claim is a GBU-31 JDAM; but it appears to be based on the 1,000 pounder. Did they misname it in that weapons set? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
achterkirch Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy said: Really appreciate the photos, everyone, very helpful! Let me ask this then, regarding the GBU-32. In the 1/72 Hasegawa Weapons Set VII, is what they claim is a GBU-31 JDAM; but it appears to be based on the 1,000 pounder. Did they misname it in that weapons set? It's pretty similar in size to their mk. 84 in weapons set I. I don't think it's misnamed. Attack squadron makes some GBU-32's in 1/72. They make some good stuff. https://m.ebay.com/itm/Attack-Squadron-Models-1-72-GBU-32-JDAM-Joint-Direct-Attack-Munition-Resin-Set-/361741676533?hash=item54397beff5%3Ag%3ATfcAAOSw8w1X5Swt&_trkparms=pageci%3A7b73b78c-993f-11e7-870a-74dbd180648e%7Cparentrq%3A80236d9f15e0a9e808400d7efff35964%7Ciid%3A1 Edited September 14, 2017 by achterkirch Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vaildog Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 Ill never get over how goofy those off-kilter pylons look. Definitely should lose points with the judges Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 12 hours ago, Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy said: Really appreciate the photos, everyone, very helpful! Let me ask this then, regarding the GBU-32. In the 1/72 Hasegawa Weapons Set VII, is what they claim is a GBU-31 JDAM; but it appears to be based on the 1,000 pounder. Did they misname it in that weapons set? I couldn't tell you, I don't have that set so I can say if they are the right size or not. 2 hours ago, Vaildog said: Ill never get over how goofy those off-kilter pylons look. Definitely should lose points with the judges Yea, Boeing screwed the pooch on that one, now you know why the SH doesn't have a speed brake, it has six of them on the wing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vaildog Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 11 minutes ago, GW8345 said: I couldn't tell you, I don't have that set so I can say if they are the right size or not. Yea, Boeing screwed the pooch on that one, now you know why the SH doesn't have a speed brake, it has six of them on the wing. Drag is Life! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dnl42 Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 8 hours ago, Vaildog said: Ill never get over how goofy those off-kilter pylons look. Definitely should lose points with the judges Wow, and I was thinking I needed new glasses! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 13 hours ago, achterkirch said: It's pretty similar in size to their mk. 84 in weapons set I. I don't think it's misnamed. Attack squadron makes some GBU-32's in 1/72. They make some good stuff. https://m.ebay.com/itm/Attack-Squadron-Models-1-72-GBU-32-JDAM-Joint-Direct-Attack-Munition-Resin-Set-/361741676533?hash=item54397beff5%3Ag%3ATfcAAOSw8w1X5Swt&_trkparms=pageci%3A7b73b78c-993f-11e7-870a-74dbd180648e%7Cparentrq%3A80236d9f15e0a9e808400d7efff35964%7Ciid%3A1 Well, any reason why they wouldn't carry a -31, then? Since I have them, would a couple of those be a reasonable load? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 They rarely fly GBU-31's while on the boat, that's a lot of weight to bring back in they don't expend them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 How about this: Left wing with GBU-12 on outer; one each GBU-38's on the middle and inner pylons Centerline tank Right wing with empty outer pylon, one each GBU-32's on the middle and inner pylons AIM-9X on one wingtip only (left maybe?) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 9 hours ago, Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy said: How about this: Left wing with GBU-12 on outer; one each GBU-38's on the middle and inner pylons Centerline tank Right wing with empty outer pylon, one each GBU-32's on the middle and inner pylons AIM-9X on one wingtip only (left maybe?) Yep, that would be a good legal load. I would recommend an ATFLIR on the left cheek station. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 And if anyone was wondering, the pylons are canted 4.5 degrees outboard, the two outboard stations are also tilted 2.5 degrees. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dnl42 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 44 minutes ago, GW8345 said: And if anyone was wondering, the pylons are canted 4.5 degrees outboard, the two outboard stations are also tilted 2.5 degrees. To what purpose? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 2 hours ago, dnl42 said: To what purpose? Depends on what engineer you ask, I've heard it was weapon seperation clearance between the cheek station and the inboard pylon, I've also heard it was due to wing droop. Joe H would know more details so I'll defer to his expertise for this (hopefully he will chime in and set me straight). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 On 9/15/2017 at 12:02 PM, GW8345 said: Depends on what engineer you ask, I've heard it was weapon seperation clearance between the cheek station and the inboard pylon, I've also heard it was due to wing droop. Joe H would know more details so I'll defer to his expertise for this (hopefully he will chime in and set me straight). Joe had posted in the past that it was based on a possible weapon separation issue. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 52 minutes ago, Murph said: Joe had posted in the past that it was based on a possible weapon separation issue. Regards, Murph Yep. Pylons were toed out because the wind tunnel data said that 2 specific stores in particular load configurations and release conditions might hit the fuselage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) The wing drop was a different fix - one I can't recall right now with any certainty. It might have been tweaked in the flight control software? edit: not FCS - here is more than you'll ever want to know about the problem and the solution. . Edited September 18, 2017 by habu2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shion Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Wing drop problem was fixed by the porous fairing on the wingfold area. And this fix was abandonned on the growler. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dnl42 Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 9 hours ago, habu2 said: The wing drop was a different fix - one I can't recall right now with any certainty. It might have been tweaked in the flight control software? edit: not FCS - here is more than you'll ever want to know about the problem and the solution. Fascinating paper! Thanks for pointing that out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.