PDA

View Full Version : 60lb rockets: how heavy are they?



Kernow
06-06-2005, 01:16 PM
In a Seafire LF.III I can get airborne from a static HMS Illustrious (DF mission with no wind) at 100% fuel load. I need to engage WEP and lower landing flap (incidentally, Seafires were modded to allow 18 degrees of flap to be selected, ie take-off setting), and I can get airborne from the front spawn point. In fact it just works on a CVE as well.

Seafire fuel capacity was 85 gals or about 590 lbs. If I add four 60 lb rockets I drop off the end of the deck like a brick. Fair enough, the extra weight might be just too much without any headwind. So I tried reducing the fuel load to compensate. However, even with 25% + rockets (nominally some 200 lbs lighter than the full tanks case) I still drop off the end of the deck like a brick. I've tried it many times now and with a full fuel load I always make it, but with rockets I always fail.

Is this a known bug? Something to do with these particular rockets? I'm not sure if similar things happen to other ac, although I have found that some do 'behave' (eg SBD) in that you can interchange fuel / ordnance.

Fixed in the patch, maybe... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kernow
06-06-2005, 01:16 PM
In a Seafire LF.III I can get airborne from a static HMS Illustrious (DF mission with no wind) at 100% fuel load. I need to engage WEP and lower landing flap (incidentally, Seafires were modded to allow 18 degrees of flap to be selected, ie take-off setting), and I can get airborne from the front spawn point. In fact it just works on a CVE as well.

Seafire fuel capacity was 85 gals or about 590 lbs. If I add four 60 lb rockets I drop off the end of the deck like a brick. Fair enough, the extra weight might be just too much without any headwind. So I tried reducing the fuel load to compensate. However, even with 25% + rockets (nominally some 200 lbs lighter than the full tanks case) I still drop off the end of the deck like a brick. I've tried it many times now and with a full fuel load I always make it, but with rockets I always fail.

Is this a known bug? Something to do with these particular rockets? I'm not sure if similar things happen to other ac, although I have found that some do 'behave' (eg SBD) in that you can interchange fuel / ordnance.

Fixed in the patch, maybe... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
06-06-2005, 02:11 PM
I'll double check but I'm sure I was able to get off the deck of a stationary aircraft carrier (online dogfight testing) with the 4 60lb rockets. I'm sure it has more to do with disrupting the airflow over the wing necessary for lift or changing the CoG more than anything else.

Aaron_GT
06-06-2005, 02:43 PM
Is 60lbs the rocket or warhead weight? Many planes were rated to 500lbs under each wing, or 4 60lb rockets, so I presume that the weight of rockets and rails must come to something close to 500lbs for 4 rockets.

ebonheart_2_329
06-06-2005, 02:50 PM
AND THE CORSAIR.... you cant get that thing off a deck hardly at all even with a head wind... you can only use one or two items from teh loadout list or you'll just stall and crash into the ocean everytime, right infornt of the carrier. >8-O

Maybe they just didnt use all those loads on the carriers for the Corsair... but the Wildcat wont hardly make it either, with just two 100lb. bombs... something cant be right.

I think ?:-)

hop2002
06-06-2005, 03:47 PM
The HE "60 lb" rockets weighed just over 80 lbs each, iirc.

canucksledge
06-06-2005, 05:13 PM
My gramps says they were heavier if they fell off and landed on a loaders foot...which apparently they did now and then.

He says he thinks they were packed in cases of four and the ship weight marked on them was a little under 800 lbs a case. He also said the propellant was heavier than the warhead, till after the war when they learned the art of fireworks from captured German scientist types...weight dropped by half and they could fit more on the wing.

PlaneEater
06-06-2005, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ebonheart_2_329:
AND THE CORSAIR.... you cant get that thing off a deck hardly at all even with a head wind... you can only use one or two items from teh loadout list or you'll just stall and crash into the ocean everytime, right infornt of the carrier. &gt;8-O

Maybe they just didnt use all those loads on the carriers for the Corsair... but the Wildcat wont hardly make it either, with just two 100lb. bombs... something cant be right.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the heavier loadouts, planes were launched via steam catapult. This was especially true on the short escort carriers, where getting airborne with even a clean aircraft when doing a rolling launch was a major challenge.

Getting a Wildcat / Hellcat off the deck of a CVE with fuel for a 4-5 hour flight (or more), plus bombs and / or rockets was nigh on impossible except when the CVE was steaming at flank speed--all 19 knots of it--into a typhoon.
I don't even want to THINK about trying to do it in a heavily loaded TBM Avenger, one of the Corsairs, or a SBD Dauntless.

My understanding is that, more or less, the majority of aircraft launches were done with catapults and rolling launches were the exception. What this means is that by leaving off the catapults, Oleg (not him personally) left out a crucial part of carrier flight operations.

I really, really wish that instead of adding a bunch of new obscure armored cars that will rarely be seen, they'd go back and add catapults.

In fact, I made a thread just about them here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3951090823)

p1ngu666
06-06-2005, 07:48 PM
think it was 60lb for the warhead, but im not sure..

but yeah, the seafire seems really heavy with the rockets on, no doubt about that

4x80 (hops figure) is 320lbs, thats 160kg ish i think

HellToupee
06-06-2005, 11:16 PM
i can get it airborne with the 500pound bomb but not with the 2x 250s under the wings or rockets from static carrier.

Kernow
06-07-2005, 03:08 AM
Thanks for the replies. I doubt 60 lb was the warhead weight; bombs and shells are usually quoted in total weight. However, I doubt the total weight was exactly 60 lb either and there would also be some weight in the rails. Modern 1000 lb bombs are just under that and contain much less warhead (about half).

From the Spit V manual (also covers Seafire) the bomb carrier and adaptor weighed 51 lbs, while a '250' lb bomb actually weighed 240 lbs (GP or SAP), and GP, MC and SAP '500' lb bombs weighed 420, 440 and 485 lbs respectively. Unfortunately, there is no mention of rockets in either the loading chapter or the handling notes (probably because RAF didn't use rockets on Spit V and, although they included a chapter on carrier ops & Seafire info, they left additional info to FAA docs). The Hurri II manual does mention rocket projectiles in several places, but doesn't mention bombs or rockets in the loading chapter & weight tables.

Yea, the Corsair.. was going to mention that. I've found that 'blind' weather helps a little with CV ops. I think that's the best weather which has some wind to it (10 kph from the north I reckon). 'Blind' is actually not that blind at all. I checked the viz in FMB and it is 7 km, which is more than enough for legal peacetime visual low flying nowadays. The difference between into wind and down wind was enough to make or break a take-off in several of the trials I did recently.

I'm pretty sure the wind - when there is one - is always from the north, so putting some 'poor' weather in (and, as we see, it doesn't have to be bad) and facing CVs north can help a little in DFs.

Interesting that a 500 lb bomb works but 2 x 250s doesn't. I also failed with the 2 x 250 loadout and assumed a single 500 would also fail (silly assuming that really, given the discrepancy between fuel weight & rocket weight I'd noticed). I'll have to try with a 500 lber, as I'm working on a mission and I need Seafire's to perform the ground-attack role. Maybe I'll have to make the weather worse.

Aaron_GT
06-07-2005, 05:17 AM
I checked on http://www.raf.mod.uk and it indicates that the rockets had 60lb warheads. 25lb semi armour piercing warheads could also be used on the same 3 inch back end, being the most common. I've seen references to a 90lb rocket too, but I don't know if that is accurate or not.

Aaron_GT
06-07-2005, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4x80 (hops figure) is 320lbs, thats 160kg ish i think </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Plus I would guess that the mount must have weighed at least as much as for a 250lb bomb, so that must make it close to 400lbs for the 4 rockets.

Kernow
06-07-2005, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Plus I would guess that the mount must have weighed at least as much as for a 250lb bomb, so that must make it close to 400lbs for the 4 rockets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But still less than the 440 lbs of fuel I threw out by going to 25% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I tried the single 500 lber and it certainly feels different. With 250s or roks the Seafire just drops from the end of the deck regardless of fuel load, but even with a full fuel load you can feel she wants to get airborne with the single 500 lber, although I didn't quite make it. When I dropped to 75% I made it, although I had to apply 20 key-taps of nose-up trim before rolling.

Still not sure whether it is weather type or cloudbase which determines the wind. Every time I've experienced a wind in FB/PF it seemed to come from the north, but if there is any wind with 'blind' weather (also had minimum cloudbase) it is light (parked on CVs facing N, E, S & W I had zero IAS facing E, N & W, but it flickered between zero and -10 kph when facing S). Would be good if the manual just told you what each weather type did...

Incidentally, small diferences in weight could make all the difference. For Op TUNGSTEN, one of the FAA strikes on Tirpitz (& the first op use of a Corsair from a CV), the Barracuda strike ac were loaded with a variety of bombs. Two of the planned loadouts were:

- 3 x 500 lb MC or SAP bombs

- 3 x 600 lb Anti-submarine bombs (similar effect to 500 lbers but near misses would cause underwater damage)

Due to light winds on the day the Barracudas could only carry 2 x 600 lb AS bombs, but it seems 3 x 500 lbers were still carried by the ac so detailed.

Kernow
06-07-2005, 10:35 AM
On Wind

It isn't always from the north. On the Gaudalcanal map with 'blind' weather there is indeed a light northerly. However, on the Gulf of Finland map that becomes a light southerly (which is why it seemed harder to get airborne when I changed the weather - thought I must be imagining things as I expected a northerly wind and an easier time). With 'rain' there was a definite southerly wind on the Gulf of Finland.

Guess I'll have to turn the CV and try again with 'blind' weather - may just do the trick.

woofiedog
06-09-2005, 01:49 AM
Air-Launched 3.5-Inch Rockets
3.5-Inch FFAR (Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket)
In late 1942, the Royal Air Force began to use air-launched rockets with some success in anti-submarine warfare (ASW). This eventually sparked the interest of the U.S. Navy, and in June 1943 a high-priority project was initiated to develop an air-to-ground rocket for use by fighters and light bombers. At that time, CalTech was already developing a new 3.25-inch solid rocket motor, and this was used as the basis of the Navy's ASW rocket. The result was a 3.5-inch diameter rocket stabilized by four tail fins. It was officially called the 3.5-Inch FFAR.

The rocket had a solid steel warhead designed to pierce the pressure hull of submarines. When launched by torpedo bombers in a shallow dive, it achieved a velocity of about 1290 km/h (800 mph) and could penetrate a submarine's pressure hull even after travelling through 40 m (130 ft) of water. The 3.5-Inch FFAR entered service in late 1943, and the first submarine kill with the weapon occurred in January 1944. At first, the rocket was fired from underwing rail launchers, but these induced a high drag on the aircraft and were therefore eventually changed to "zero-length" launchers (two posts to which the rockets were attached).

When fitted with an explosive warhead, the accuracy of the 3.5-Inch FFAR would have been good enough to be used against surface ships or land targets. However, a 3.5-inch warhead was too small to be effective, and therefore the 3.5-inch motor was fitted with a warhead of 5 inch diameter, leading to the 5-Inch FFAR.


Data for 3.5-Inch FFAR:

Length 1.38 m (4 ft 6.5 in)
Diameter 8.9 cm (3.5 in)
Weight 24.5 kg (54 lb)
Speed 1290 km/h (800 mph)
Range 1370 m (1500 yds)
Propulsion Caltech 3.5-inch solid-fueled rocket; (2340 lb) for 0.8 s
Warhead 9 kg (20 lb) solid steel


Data for 5-inch FFAR, 5-inch HVAR, Zuni MK 16, Zuni MK 71:

5" FFAR 5" HVAR Zuni MK 16 Zuni MK 71
Length 1.65 m (5 ft 5 in) 1.83 m (6 ft) 1.95 m (77 in) (motor only)* 1.94 m (76.3 in) (motor only)*
Weight 36 kg (80 lb) 64 kg (140 lb) 26.7 kg (58.9 lb) (motor only)* 36.1 kg (79.5 lb) (motor only)*
Diameter Warhead: 12.7 cm (5 in)
Motor: 8.9 cm (3.5 in) 12.7 cm (5 in) 12.7 cm (5 in) 13 cm (5.12 in)
Speed 780 km/h (485 mph) 1530 km/h (950 mph) 2600 km/h (1615 mph)
Range &lt; 1.6 km (1 mile) 5 km (3 miles) 8 km (5 miles)
Propulsion Caltech 3.5-in. rocket Solid-fueled rocket Solid-fueled rocket; 3.6 kN (800 lb) for 1.3 s Solid-fueled rocket
Warhead 20 kg (45 lb) HE warhead (& others) (various)

OD_79
06-09-2005, 04:19 AM
60lb's refers to the warhead and I am able to take off from HMS Illustrious with 50% fuel and 4 60lb Rockets with the ship cruising between 10-20kph. That is from the number one slot. You do get very close to the sea bu you have to get it just right.

OD.

Kernow
06-09-2005, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
60lb's refers to the warhead and I am able to take off from HMS Illustrious with 50% fuel and 4 60lb Rockets with the ship cruising between 10-20kph. That is from the number one slot. You do get very close to the sea bu you have to get it just right.

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I expect you can, but you can't have moving ships in dogfights. Heading into wind with 'blind' or worse weather does allow you to get airborne, however, as it also adds ~10kph headwind. Yes, you do get close to getting wet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aaron_GT
06-09-2005, 04:19 PM
is the issue of non moving ships fixed in 4.0, or is it going to be in 4.1?

Kernow
06-10-2005, 04:19 AM
I don't think objects will ever be able to move in DF servers. I'd guess it's something fundamental to the game code.