1stBN/160th SOAR Mod ArmA III WIP

[RellyRell 36]

On 6/21/2019 at 8:42 AM, k4ble said:

I dont know if this would be a good idea. But maybe its interesting to add 4 Slingpoints to the helicopter for when the rotors get shredded ?

Cause there has never realy been a way to recover helicopters that dont explode on impact.

 

 

 

This is already possible with Duda's Advanced Sling Loading and works pretty well.

[k4ble 71]

1 hour ago, RellyRell said:

This is already possible with Duda's Advanced Sling Loading and works pretty well.

 

could be, but i dont see the point in getting a mod for a mod, to do something that is perfectly possible with a vannila fuction.

[warlord554 2065]

@k4ble

That sir is a damn good idea. Way to think outside the box.

 

*** slingpoints added to wreck models (I would totally model the actual recovery kit but it would look funky since BI slingloading provides it's own ropes)

 

*** Fully AUTOMATED rear stabilator animation added (will fold down below 27mph, and will fold up [level] above 27mph

[energeticsheep 37]

@warlord554 Very excited for this mod. However I've got a question about this screenshot:

is this an old texture which has since been changed out? The model looks phenomenal and the textures aren't by any means bad, but personally I feel like the flooring of the cargo-hold of the aircraft could be better than it is in this screenshot. I don't mean to come across as a shit-talker, I just want to voice a very small concern. I'm aware this is an old screenshot, and I'm also aware that the texture files will be included. Aside from the floor of the cargo-hold, everything looks perfect IMO.

[warlord554 2065]

Wow bro that was the original a2 sample edit from A3 alpha days. 

 

Absolutely disregard any picture up until my post a few days ago showing my meshes

 

*** and anyone is welcome to criticize anything, that's how we get better 😎 

[payne2010 53]

I don't know if this has been though of or if its even possible given arma's physics, but It would be cool for the Soar birds to have the option to carry a zodiac like this (go to 2:15 to see what im talking about)  

I couldn't find any pictures (probably looked up the wrong thing lol)

[warlord554 2065]

23 hours ago, payne2010 said:

I don't know if this has been though of or if its even possible given arma's physics, but It would be cool for the Soar birds to have the option to carry a zodiac like this (go to 2:15 to see what im talking about)  

I couldn't find any pictures (probably looked up the wrong thing lol)

 

Well sir your a bit late to the show. There will be a SOAR hawk variant with releasable raft

(Like this)

https://imgur.com/a/62CQadr

[warlord554 2065]

*** updated Engine Intake Filters.

https://imgur.com/Mv9L9pY

 

 

 

They now have option to hide/show bypass blockoff..

* blockoff removed

https://imgur.com/YDMyRDx

https://imgur.com/bIcdj5a

 

also added option to hide/show intake shrouds (also shows intake filter blockoff plate installed)

https://imgur.com/Ryg22Zd

 

intake shroud removed

https://imgur.com/BB802uU

[RellyRell 36]

What weapon system will be on the UH-60s?

[warlord554 2065]

@RellyRell

 

What do you mean? Door guns or pylon weapons?

 

Us army hawks use m240/m134d

 

Usaf use m3 .50cal/m134d (either system will use the same external mount/ammo can

 

Us navy will use m240

 

[b00ce 160]

18 hours ago, warlord554 said:

also added option to hide/show intake shrouds (also shows intake filter blockoff plate installed)

https://imgur.com/Ryg22Zd

 

intake shroud removed

https://imgur.com/BB802uU

Looking great so far, keep up the good work.

I think its worth noting that those covers on the inlets are to prevent direct line of sight to the engines (In order to better defend against IR missiles) and are integral to the Upturned Exhaust System (UES) and the Hover Infra-Red Suppression System (HIRSS). The only time you would conceivably see an inlet without those covers is with the OOOOLD school " straight pipe " exhaust.

 

15 hours ago, RellyRell said:

What weapon system will be on the UH-60s?

It depends. I don't want to speak for Warlord because I don't know what he has planned, so don't take this for anything other than establishing left and right limits for your expectations based on the real life.

Regular Army UH-60 Alpha - Mike

• M240H Machineguns

 

160th MH-60 Kilo, Lima, Mike

• M134 Miniguns

       ESSS Pylons:

• Hydra Rockets
• AGM-114 Hellfires (Laser guided variants)
• M230 Chaingun
• GAU-19/A
• ATAS (Stingers)
• M134 Doorguns Fixed forward, Pilot Controlled

HH-60W

• GAU-21 .50cal Machinegun
• M134 Miniguns

[warlord554 2065]

Absolutely booce thanks for dropping the knowledge.  I made it optional just to give players more immersive options (we all love clicking buttons adding kit to vehicles, even if it's only visual)  lol

 

[Jnr4817 215]

This is excellent work. Once you get ready to release beta, I'd like to show to one of my pilots I fly medivac for. He flew DAPs for many years and doesn't mind giving a small opinion on your progress.

Reed[

[yasotay 198]

I am putting this here as an FYI.  NOT as an argument for/against filters. They filters were designed due to the extremely fine dust particles of Astan and parts of Iraq and thier bad effects on the engine compressor and cumbustor turbine blades.  They do reduce the wear and tear on the 701 engines.  The bad new is that like any filter, they slow the airflow into the engine and thus reduce the power available.  The filters in question are optimized for the desert environment.  They are not used in other environments.  But since Arma does not worry about this sort of thing, it is trivia.  I am just excited we are getting closer to seeing the hard work come to fruition. 

Oh yeah thet weigh a lot too.

[Crew Dog Gamer 25]

we had similar filters on the T55's on the chinook. reduced power by about 20% but damn they saved the engines

[Jnr4817 215]

Our EC145's do not have filters.

[warlord554 2065]

Well gentlemen, these filters were manufactured by Tony stark in a cave, from a box of scraps. So have no fear 🍻

[gatordev 219]

On 6/19/2019 at 7:45 PM, Jnr4817 said:

 

From recent conversations, the Ghosthawk is way under powered compared to real life and not as responsive. 

 

Thanks

 

It really kind of depends on what you're comparing it to.  Is it a -60A that's super-light?  Is it a TF bird with all kinds of junk on it BUT also has 701 engines?  And what about filters and a -701C engine?  Or is it like what I flew, a 20K+ pound bird with older -401C engines and original chord blades BUT with upgraded I-EDCUs?  Lots of variables.

 

I think the biggest thing with the Ghosthawk is that it lacks a bit of inertia, which makes it feel over-powered, even though the power itself may be more accurate.  Kind of hard to explain, but if you can stop a helicopter quickly and have lots of power to arrest the descent, some of that could be power, some of that could be poorly modeled inertia.  What the Ghosthawk does have is a lot of the other "feel" of a -60, like a stabilized flight path and a less-than-maneuverable flight model compared to the H-6, but still able to maneuver.

 

My point is that comparing one series of -60 to another isn't anywhere near an apples-to-apples comparison.  Even the -60s I flew had varying levels of power response even though they were all technically the same engine (but they upgraded bits and pieces along the way...and our birds got heavier along the way, too).

 

On 6/24/2019 at 12:44 PM, b00ce said:

It depends. I don't want to speak for Warlord because I don't know what he has planned, so don't take this for anything other than establishing left and right limits for your expectations based on the real life.

Regular Army UH-60 Alpha - Mike

• M240H Machineguns

 

 

Just adding info for the Navy MH-60S:

- GAU-21 (.50 cal)

- Can carry the M197 on a wing, along with APKWS (or just substitute FFARs, if it's easier)

 

@warlord554 just adding that, since i wasn't sure how modular your configs were, along with your models.  Obviously the Sierras can carry Hellfire, as well.

 

18 hours ago, Jnr4817 said:

Our EC145's do not have filters.

 

They actually do.  They're called "IBFs" (Inlet Barrier Filter) and are in your intake.  I'm not super-savvy on the -145s, but the -135 (baby brother) can have either an OEM IBF or a Metro Aviation IBF (what I fly with now).  But either way, they're kind of hidden in the intake.

[Jnr4817 215]

15 hours ago, gatordev said:

 

It really kind of depends on what you're comparing it to.  Is it a -60A that's super-light?  Is it a TF bird with all kinds of junk on it BUT also has 701 engines?  And what about filters and a -701C engine?  Or is it like what I flew, a 20K+ pound bird with older -401C engines and original chord blades BUT with upgraded I-EDCUs?  Lots of variables.

 

I think the biggest thing with the Ghosthawk is that it lacks a bit of inertia, which makes it feel over-powered, even though the power itself may be more accurate.  Kind of hard to explain, but if you can stop a helicopter quickly and have lots of power to arrest the descent, some of that could be power, some of that could be poorly modeled inertia.  What the Ghosthawk does have is a lot of the other "feel" of a -60, like a stabilized flight path and a less-than-maneuverable flight model compared to the H-6, but still able to maneuver.

 

My point is that comparing one series of -60 to another isn't anywhere near an apples-to-apples comparison.  Even the -60s I flew had varying levels of power response even though they were all technically the same engine (but they upgraded bits and pieces along the way...and our birds got heavier along the way, too).

 

 

Just adding info for the Navy MH-60S:

- GAU-21 (.50 cal)

- Can carry the M197 on a wing, along with APKWS (or just substitute FFARs, if it's easier)

 

@warlord554 just adding that, since i wasn't sure how modular your configs were, along with your models.  Obviously the Sierras can carry Hellfire, as well.

 

 

They actually do.  They're called "IBFs" (Inlet Barrier Filter) and are in your intake.  I'm not super-savvy on the -145s, but the -135 (baby brother) can have either an OEM IBF or a Metro Aviation IBF (what I fly with now).  But either way, they're kind of hidden in the intake.

Good info. Make since the apples to apples is not anywhere close for -60's.

 

I asked my mechanic about the filters and he stated same you did, we have them. We also have them on our -135 and -130.

They were introduced on all -145 aircraft since 2008.

I, just a flight med crew, assumed they would be an addition on the outside. This is why I just save people.

 

The recent conversations were with all real -60 pilots; 1 alpha(transport) guy, 2 lima(dust off) guys, 1 mike(dust off) guy, and 1 TF(DAP) guy. All current pilots at my flight program, who fly the -145 for medevac.

From watching videos and flying a little bit on my laptop at work with HOTAS, peddles, and track IR is how we came to the conclusion. of not as maneuverable etc.

 

Thank you for the great conversation, should give warlord lots to think about.

 

This mod is going to be awesome.

 

Reed

[Wiki 1558]

On 6/24/2019 at 6:44 PM, b00ce said:

Looking great so far, keep up the good work.

I think its worth noting that those covers on the inlets are to prevent direct line of sight to the engines (In order to better defend against IR missiles) and are integral to the Upturned Exhaust System (UES) and the Hover Infra-Red Suppression System (HIRSS). The only time you would conceivably see an inlet without those covers is with the OOOOLD school " straight pipe " exhaust.

 

It depends. I don't want to speak for Warlord because I don't know what he has planned, so don't take this for anything other than establishing left and right limits for your expectations based on the real life.

Regular Army UH-60 Alpha - Mike

• M240H Machineguns

 

160th MH-60 Kilo, Lima, Mike

• M134 Miniguns

       ESSS Pylons:

• Hydra Rockets
• AGM-114 Hellfires (Laser guided variants)
• M230 Chaingun
• GAU-19/A
• ATAS (Stingers)
• M134 Doorguns Fixed forward, Pilot Controlled

HH-60W

• GAU-21 .50cal Machinegun
• M134 Miniguns

 

The regular UH-60 don"t have M134D as side MG? Really?

[odie0351 67]

31 minutes ago, Wiki said:

 

The regular UH-60 don"t have M134D as side MG? Really?

Miniguns are heavier and require more ammunition for a combat load. Regular Army birds don't need miniguns as they generally are there to just deliver or pickup troops and tend to have escorts whenever it's deemed necessary. The SOAR birds are often expected to need to support the troops they are delivering/retrieving and the AF HH-60s are expected to do search and rescue sometimes behind enemy lines and therefor require the extra firepower a minigun or electrically assisted 50. provides. Miniguns are not always the most appropriate weapon, M240s and other medium machineguns are perfectly adequate when the goal is purely self defense.

[b00ce 160]

1 hour ago, Wiki said:

 

The regular UH-60 don"t have M134D as side MG? Really?

Really. The primary door-gun for Army helicopters (To include the CH-47) is the M240H.

[gatordev 219]

3 hours ago, odie0351 said:

Miniguns are heavier and require more ammunition for a combat load.

 

Not to mention the amount of ammo needed for training to be proficient.  Albeit not Army, on the Navy side, it was very common for the Reserve helos to have 10x more allocation for training rounds than the active side, and that was just for the 240 and GAU-21.  The squadrons with M134s would get even more ammo.

[yasotay 198]

Weight is king!  When I flew Alpha's life was great because we did not have a lot of extra stuff and the infantry did not have lots of kit (not to mention I had been flying AH and UH-1).  Then we started adding things to the aircraft and it started getting more challenging.  Then we got Lima's and we got power back with the 701C.  Then I graduated the Army so I cannot speak for the Mike's.  I do know (think I posted before) that the MH-60 are running YT706 engines with way more power and they had to add extra steel to the roof of the aircraft for the increased torque and power.  The whole ITEP engine program is to get a new engine that will give the H-60 and H-64 more power and fuel efficiency.  Some real trivia for you;  helicopters, like people, tend to gain weight as they get older.  The average is about 100lbs a year.

[gatordev 219]

Part of the issue with increased power is what has to be added down the line.  A big reason why the Navy has stayed with -401C engines is because the transmission can't take anymore power.  The Mikes (and other upgraded previous versions) get away with that because they have modified blades (long-chord).  So they can take more power, give more lift, but not increase overall Tq, which is the limitation of the tranny.  I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the Romeos get a SLEP upgrade of new blades and engines, as it will continue to gain weight as they keep adding more sensors to it and the airframes continues to be in high demand by the COCOMs.

 

I know nothing about the YT706 engine other than what I read on Wikipedia, but that really is amazing what they're able to do with what is essentially the same engine design that's been around for 40 years.