VTOL problem
-
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 2009-02-14 16:52
VTOL problem
Simple question,
does this mean we will finally tackle the VTOLs in PR which are considered to be a pilots nightmare at the moment?
And will we see carrier landings in a PR minimod that isn't combines arms ( Or what ever that mod was )
~Nuke
does this mean we will finally tackle the VTOLs in PR which are considered to be a pilots nightmare at the moment?
And will we see carrier landings in a PR minimod that isn't combines arms ( Or what ever that mod was )
~Nuke
-
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2010-04-22 17:32
Re: VTOL problem
The Harrier is rumored to be making a ton of progress behind the scenes. VTOL will probably make it in game as a result before Falkand War.
-
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 47909
- Joined: 2005-12-13 20:00
Re: VTOL problem
STOVL will be encouraged (ie, taking off by the ski-jump) since its faster but since we can't accurately simulate the weight of the bombs and fuel in PR which would make it impossible for the Harrier to take off vertically (VTOL) you can technically do it ingame, but takes a lot more time to get upto a decent height before you can switch into forward flight and far longer than taxiing to the runway and pushing the engine to full throttle ![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
But I take it the bit your asking about is vertical landing, which yes is pretty much the only way to land, although a rolling landing (SVRL) is just about possible but very hard to do.
The reason why the harrier was so messed up in the past wasn't because we didn't know how to get it working, its simply because we hadn't got round to coding it![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
But I take it the bit your asking about is vertical landing, which yes is pretty much the only way to land, although a rolling landing (SVRL) is just about possible but very hard to do.
The reason why the harrier was so messed up in the past wasn't because we didn't know how to get it working, its simply because we hadn't got round to coding it
![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
-
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: 2009-05-02 19:44
Re: VTOL problem
The never took off VTOL as they were too heavy. On landing yes and at the temp base on the islands.
-
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: 2010-03-03 13:25
Re: VTOL problem
Thats what he said:PLODDITHANLEY wrote:The never took off VTOL as they were too heavy. On landing yes and at the temp base on the islands.
[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:... but since we can't accurately simulate the weight of the bombs and fuel in PR which would make it impossible for the Harrier to take off vertically (VTOL)
![Image](http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/008/549/If%20you%20know%20what%20I%20mean..png)
-
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 47909
- Joined: 2005-12-13 20:00
Re: VTOL problem
Actually the Falklands was one of the very few cases where VTOL was ever used for more than just an airshow, as I believe they transferred the 8 Sea Harriers and 4 GR3s off of the SS Atlantic Conveyor before it was sunk by them taking off vertically from its launch pad but I have no source for this, its just the most sensible way I could see them doing itPLODDITHANLEY wrote:The never took off VTOL as they were too heavy. On landing yes and at the temp base on the islands.
![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
![Image](http://www.btinternet.com/~philipbparker/CONVEYOR-FALKLANDS_1982-1.jpg)
![Image](http://www.rfanostalgia.org/gallery3/var/albums/RFA%20FALKLANDS%201982/stuft/conveyor.jpg?m=1328287175)
But ye, too heavy for combat, as I said
![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
-
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: 2009-05-02 19:44
Re: VTOL problem
And in German Dispersal sites....near where I was born ![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
20secs
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
20secs
-
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 47909
- Joined: 2005-12-13 20:00
Re: VTOL problem
Ye, since the original concept for VTOL was for survivability, but was never put into practice and has since became pretty obsolete and commanders found out that the biggest benefit of VTOL/STOVL was in fact, flexibility. Like from two examples mentioned above from the Falklands, being able to transport many of the aircraft on the cargo ship, with transferring via VTOL so the carriers didn't need to be held up in port and being able to operate the harriers being able to operate from established temporary airbases on the mainland, giving the aircraft even better response times and loiter times.
-
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: 2011-05-22 14:34
Re: VTOL problem
Was that ship property of the government or was it commandeered?'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1764037']Actually the Falklands was one of the very few cases where VTOL was ever used for more than just an airshow, as I believe they transferred the 8 Sea Harriers and 4 GR3s off of the SS Atlantic Conveyor before it was sunk by them taking off vertically from its launch pad but I have no source for this, its just the most sensible way I could see them doing it
But ye, too heavy for combat, as I said![]()
Also, why do those harriers have different paint jobs?
-
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: 2007-02-25 15:38
Re: VTOL problem
i believe it was commandeered
as for the different paint jobs the left ones are Sea Harriers, from the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm. The camo paint job ones are from the RAF
as for the different paint jobs the left ones are Sea Harriers, from the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm. The camo paint job ones are from the RAF
ex |TG-31st|
AnimalMotherUK - YouTube
AnimalMotherUK - YouTube
vistamaster01: "I just dont get people with girl usernames/pics/sigs lol,
for example I thought AnimalMother was a girl
ops:"
Arte et Marte
for example I thought AnimalMother was a girl
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_e_surprised.gif)
Arte et Marte
-
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 47909
- Joined: 2005-12-13 20:00
Re: VTOL problem
Ye it was requisitioned and quickly retro fitted to do this job. Before it was a merchant container ship.
And as AM said, they are two different versions of the Harrier. The first is the FFA (Fleet Air Arm, Royal Navy's Air Force) Sea Harrier FRS1 (the grey one with black nose) which is primarily a fighter (although did a little bit of ground attack in the Falklands, mainly at the very start hitting Stanley airport) and the second is the RAF Harrier GR3, which is primarily a ground attack aircraft, and has a very long pinokio nose![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
Sea Harrier FRS1:
![Image](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f_TiAqdkqU4/TUibKCnZr5I/AAAAAAAABjQ/eRQGpEaLPwQ/s1600/Sea+Harrier+ZA193+Dave+Smith+24+May+1982.jpg)
Harrier GR3:
![Image](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f_TiAqdkqU4/TUiAyM4yD-I/AAAAAAAABjA/mTnplsSq38o/s1600/Harrier+G.R.3+landing.jpg)
Both will be featured in PR Falklands, but both will only (for now at least), be reskins of the Harrier GR9.
And as AM said, they are two different versions of the Harrier. The first is the FFA (Fleet Air Arm, Royal Navy's Air Force) Sea Harrier FRS1 (the grey one with black nose) which is primarily a fighter (although did a little bit of ground attack in the Falklands, mainly at the very start hitting Stanley airport) and the second is the RAF Harrier GR3, which is primarily a ground attack aircraft, and has a very long pinokio nose
![Razz :p](./images/smilies/imported_icon_razz.gif)
Sea Harrier FRS1:
![Image](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f_TiAqdkqU4/TUibKCnZr5I/AAAAAAAABjQ/eRQGpEaLPwQ/s1600/Sea+Harrier+ZA193+Dave+Smith+24+May+1982.jpg)
Harrier GR3:
![Image](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f_TiAqdkqU4/TUiAyM4yD-I/AAAAAAAABjA/mTnplsSq38o/s1600/Harrier+G.R.3+landing.jpg)
Both will be featured in PR Falklands, but both will only (for now at least), be reskins of the Harrier GR9.