Tornado f3 & gr4

[USSRsniper 0]

Tornado would be nice, but your model as of now, is not accurate. And 20k is enoguh for good looking model, for example BIS A-10 its only 13k...

[=LSA=Butcher 0]

You are right I don't give a shit about it who care about you or you’re comment as well But I do see a pattern reading back from the forums there always a smart ass in the group. That wants to talk shit to the new guy….. … you’re so full shit and any one can hop on and say spent a week at RAF Marham with the engineers too… sure  and evils is still alive right..

Week what cleaning the head

Here is another link about the  AGM-65 Maverick ASM

And just to help you out too since your adding your piss to this.

http://www.ukiworld.com/wiki-Panavia_Tornado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado

http://www.airramstein.nato.int/bold_avenger07_factsheet_tornado.pdf

That makes four site about your no shooting  Maverick  ASM    f_ing know it all right you know shit I did my homework…  Talk talk talk is chep hey here is the bacon where is your bacon to back up you Bull SHIT statement ……  yea just like  that can’t find it a …. Grow up your self…. Piss off….

Wow

You use my word “pompous “way to go bro and expand your vocabulary… Yea well I’m done building it if you’ve got ready to release..  And if there is an ADMIN  or Moderator

you could DELTE this thread and all posted Please … And Please…. people in Arma are so starved for new content I don’t think that they give crap or two shit about this bull shit that has happen…..

[USSRsniper 0]

You are right I don't give a shit about it who care about you or you’re comment as well But I do see a pattern reading back from the forums there always a smart ass in the group. That wants to talk shit to the new guy….. … you’re so full shit and any one can hop on and say spent a week at RAF Marham with the engineers too… sure  and evils is still alive right..

Week what cleaning the head

Here is another link about the  AGM-65 Maverick ASM

And just to help you out too since your adding your piss to this.

http://www.ukiworld.com/wiki-Panavia_Tornado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado

http://www.airramstein.nato.int/bold_avenger07_factsheet_tornado.pdf

That makes four site about your no shooting  Maverick  ASM    f_ing know it all right you know shit I did my homework…  Talk talk talk is chep hey here is the bacon where is your bacon to back up you Bull SHIT statement ……  yea just like  that can’t find it a …. Grow up your self…. Piss off….

Wow

You use my word “pompous “way to go bro and expand your vocabulary… Yea well I’m done building it if you’ve got ready to release..  And if there is an ADMIN  or Moderator

you could DELTE this thread and all posted Please … And Please…. people in Arma are so starved for new content I don’t think that they give crap or two shit about this bull shit that has happen…..

people in arma are starving for new good looking addons, and making good looking addon takes time. Trust me community doesn't want tornado that looks like "russian AA missiles"....

Also it looks like you did your homework poorly, because Maverick's are not used on Tornado....

[charliereddog 9]

I popped in here expecting to find a tornado. Didn't expect to find a windbag.

Think i'll wait till RKSL tornado's are released.

[=LSA=Butcher 0]

Hey USSRsniper  Yea I agree with you on not putting out shit addons and no way in hell is it ready to be an addon yet lots of time is still need at my pace I was looking at 3 months or long to get it ready but I was want the community to know that new stuff is coming stick with the game.... because like you said  they are starved for new content....

Did you read all of the posted or just the last ones but I sure I made this comment

Quote[/b] ]There is still lots of body work to be done. But with the right welder ,tools and a paint job. She just might turn out looking good...  

I could be wrong maybe I didn't put it in english

yes they are russian AA missiles if you would do your homework I answer that question on the first page….Not to be a smart ass...

Here is another one source about the AGM's

 

http://www.drivearchive.co.uk/xplanes/torngr1.htm

http://www.ukiworld.com/wiki-Panavia_Tornado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado

http://www.airramstein.nato.int/bold_avenger07_factsheet_tornado.pdf

This one from the RAF website on the Tornado

http://www.raf.mod.uk

that makes five

You show me or anyone.. Where it said the tornado can’t fire a AGM-65 Maverick.

[MontyVCB 0]

Quote[/b] ]You sir , are a f_ing Prick Punk.. you you can quote me on that....

Okay so I will, who are you to speak to someone in such a way, the gentleman was trying to help you make your future addon better. Keep this up and you will be visiting ban land very soon.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Hmm... how about slow down with "weapon vs. weapon" isn't it better if you make this plane "=LSA=Butcher Tornado f3& gr4" final?

FYI (read the text in your links )

Quote[/b] ]This weapon was procured for RAF Harrier GR7...

Same page search "tornado" bring up:

Quote[/b] ]Tornado GR4 - Armament: Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway, General Purpose Bombs, Mauser 27mm, Cluster Bombs

[=LSA=Butcher 0]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/tornado_ids/

Data below for Tornado

Last modified 11 April 2007

HISTORY:

First Flight 14 August 1974

Service Entry July 1980

CREW:

two: pilot, weapons officer

ESTIMATED COST:

unknown

AIRFOIL SECTIONS:

Wing Root unknown

Wing Tip unknown

DIMENSIONS:

Length 54.88 ft (16.72 m)

Wingspan unswept: 45.63 ft (13.91 m)

swept: 28.21 ft (8.60 m)

Height 19.52 ft (5.95 m)

Wing Area unknown

Canard Area

not applicable

WEIGHTS:

Empty 31,065 lb (14,090 kg)

Normal Takeoff 45,000 lb (20,410 kg)

Max Takeoff 60,000 lb (27,215 kg)

Fuel Capacity internal: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)

external: unknown

Max Payload

19,840 lb (9,000 kg)

PROPULSION:

Powerplant two Turbo-Union RB199-34R afterburning turbofans

Thrust 33,600 lb (149.5 kN) with afterburner

PERFORMANCE:

Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,450 mph (2,335 km/h) at 36,090 ft (11,000 m), Mach 2.2

at sea level: 915 mph (1,470 km/h), Mach 1.2

Initial Climb Rate unknown

Service Ceiling 50,000 ft (15,240 m)

Range typical: 1,500 nm (2,780 km)

ferry: 2,105 nm (3,895 km)

g-Limits unknown

ARMAMENT:

Gun two 27-mm IWKA-Mauser BK-27 cannons (180 rds ea)

Stations seven to nine external hardpoints

Air-to-Air Missile AIM-9 Sidewinder

Air-to-Surface Missile Wasp, Kormoran, AS.30, Alarm ARM, Sea Eagle, AGM-65 Maverick

Bomb nuclear bombs, 500 kg and Paveway Mk 13/18 LGB, GBU-15, 1,000 lb free-fall, BL.755 cluster bombs

Other Container Weapon System, MW-1 lateral dispenser, JP.233 dispenser, ECM pods, reconnaissance pods, laser pods, Napalm dispenser, rocket pods

[=LSA=Butcher 0]

Hey para-trooper I was talking that to RockofSL for his bs comment

Quote[/b] ]You don’t want anyone's help you want sunshine blown up your arse and a lollipop for producing something that looks like a half melted Airfix kit.

in short:.

You sir, are an arse.

Call me ass that ground for the after effect.......

I done with the mud slinging.... I did look online and there are some pages that don't have the AGM-65 . I think what is happen is they are listing for all of the Tornados stuff on one page but I know the the gr1 could and did.... I 'm going to  do this jet now. I'll do another jet like the Typhoon or Mirage 2000.  any

Quote[/b] ] I"LL SAY IT ONE more TIme IF I hurt anyone feeling I"m sorry...

 there I can say when I'm wrong..... By the why RKSL it does look good GR4...

[David 0]

I don't kow why you are carrying on with this attitude. Can't you see that at the start tht people were only trying to help you, and then you just turned around and started insulting them? I think you are being very unreasonable with RockofSL, and I can't blame him for being agitated after you kept putting down everyones help so aggressively.

In regards to the maverick, I'm not an expert myself, but I wouldn't disregard people such as RockofSL or Cobra. It's all well and good looking up articles on google, but you can't beat first hand knowledge that other people can provide from experience.

As for the Tornado: The back half of the Tornado doesn't look too bad, maybe could use a bit of detail in some places though. However, the front half looks a bit off, especially the nose (which needs re-working) and the cockpit. The engine intakes also need to be changed, as they currently look like they have been just stuck on the side and don't really look like part of the engines.

[MontyVCB 0]

Quick question, if that is the case and you are truely sorry. Why do you use words like "fuck, prick, punk, and pompus?" There is no excuse for such language and rudeness.

Going over the entire thread I can't see one example of anyone being hostile towards you. Just helpful hints and infomation. I would heed Rocko's advice as I do think he works (or works with) BAe systems, and they are the guys who look after the tornados in RAF service.

It's is you who taken the advice given to you the wrong way and it is you who are at fault. I would strongly advise you to apologise properly to rock and others.

Tis not cricket.

[=LSA=Butcher 0]

Well thanks David  thats I'll i wanted to hear in the first place..

Maybe I took their Tac wrong

Posted he took my last posted and tried to discredit it…. And My comment was to to him not rock and the shit hit the fan from there…

Quote[/b] ]

Two internal 27-mm Mauser cannon with 180 rounds per gun

Hughes AGM-65 Maverick

MW-1 munitions dispenser

Matra Apache

Nuclear freefall bombs

Since you've only mentioned doing Gr.4 and F.3 Tornados I assume you're only doing RAF variants, in which case:

GR.4 and F.3 Tornados only have 1 cannon.

Tornados don't carry Mavericks in RAF service, Harriers do. However the Brimstone missile is carried by both aircraft.

The RAF has never used MW-1. It used a similar dispenser called JP233 instead, but no longer does.

Apache was used by the French. The RAF use an updated version of it called Storm Shadow (SCALP EG in French service).

The only nuclear deterrent the UK currently has are Trident SLBMs carried by Vanguard class submarines. The weapon carried by Tornado, WE.177 was retired in 1998. IIRC Italian and German Tornados retain a nuclear strike role with B61.

havocsquad pointed out that the RAF used Skyflash missiles; these have now been replaced by AMRAAM.

 "aggressively" yea  

but I didn't call anyone aN ASS first... I know it need work....and the nose looks like shit i agree but it was the start of the project.... I have no respect for people  nit pick over small change or think there better that everyone around them... This all started with the stats on the jet. If you read da12thMonkey

Posted he took my last posted and tried to discredit it…. And My comment was to to him not rock and the shit hit the fan from there…

Because I do my homeworK.. That like calling me a liar.. You wouldn't like to be called a liar or and ASS would you???

[MontyVCB 0]

Even if it was the case, which its not. Its a case of "Stick and stones my break my bones but words can never hurt me". Just ignore them (Which I don't advise for the sake of your addon making future these guys can help you alot).

[David 0]

No one called you a liar at any point, they were just pointing out what could have been a potential mistake. The problem with doing research is that to carry it out effectively you have to go beyond the internet. There are so many ill-written articles online that it is easy to get incorrect information.

Also, if you do get insulted, the best idea is to just ignore it and not rise to it. I'm not going to argue whether you deserved it or not, but responding to it only escalates the problem and de-rails the thread.

Speaking of which, I think we should get back on topic before it is too late...

[Placebo 28]

There's far too much childish bickering and posturing, I really don't care who started it, as there are thousands of other forum users who my time would be better spent on than reading the drivel in this thread, but if it doesn't stop then people will be stopped from posting, cut it out please, if you can't act civilised then stick to discussing religion and politics.

[miles teg 1]

Well...even if you got the Tornado to look like the Queen's own, I definitely will not ever use it simply because of your attitude.

I will also recommend for the major ArmA websites not to mirror it.

In addition, in case you think of using it, I do not give permission for you to use my JP233 script for the original Tornado in OFP (which I believe works in ArmA). It is a simple script but it was my only script I ever developed in OFP and was a labor of love for me.

Rocko is welcome to use it however as he's always helped me and my mod out.

If there is one thing I don't like, it is arrogant jerks that blame others for getting mad when they are the ones that start the trolling. I hope the moderators lock this thread until you grow up a bit.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

Sorry placebo...you posted as I was typing my reply.

Anyhoo....I'll leave this thread now.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[da12thMonkey 1943]

If you read da12thMonkey

Posted he took my last posted and tried to discredit it…. And My comment was to to him not rock and the shit hit the fan from there…

Okay, since I'm now online and available to respond to Butcher's post myself, here goes:

My intention was not to discredit what you posted; I just wanted to point out that not all of the information you had collected regarding the Tornado was applicable to Tornado F.3 and GR.4(A) aircraft currently serving the Royal Air Force, while it is true to say that it was largely applicable to globally servicing Tornados. My assumption was that you weren't clear on differences in ordnance available to the RAF and other operators of Tornado; namely Italy and Germany: an easy mistake to make.

The fact that you checked which ordnance Tornados have carried in service indicated to me that you were attempting to create realistic loadouts for your Tornados; and therefore my input would considered be beneficial. You're entitled to reject my input and create your addon any way you see fit, and I don't consider it an insult to me, that you have.

Throughout my experience in working with OFP/ArmA addonmakers, and modifying games myself I've always understood that the author makes their addon for themselves, as they like it and that the thoughts and desires of other members of the community are in no way a necessity. I know full well this applies to you and your projects and apologise if you think I've taken any liberties with my input. I didn't mean to offend you.

[Warden 0]

Hello

.

My Dad was an Armourer in the RAF and the Tornado was never able to fire Mavericks, he recalls there was an upgrade program for an aircraft (he thinks it was the harrier) but the Tornado as already stated cannot fire the AGM-65.

And from what he remembers the Mighty fin still has its cannons but aren't loaded as standard (Gr4)

[blackjack-VS- 0]

i won't bother to coment your comments to rocko and others, with that attitude you won't have many help in the future here... instead i would like to know why can't i see any screenshots of your tornado model? did you removed them with those post edits? That would be really shamefull...

[Blackbuck 9]

Yes they were removed by him it would seem

[Prydain 1]

Here is another one source about the AGM's

http://www.drivearchive.co.uk/xplanes/torngr1.htm

http://www.ukiworld.com/wiki-Panavia_Tornado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado

http://www.airramstein.nato.int/bold_avenger07_factsheet_tornado.pdf

This one from the RAF website on the Tornado

http://www.raf.mod.uk

I think its time to retire Rock, he posted a wiki link. That totally voids your argument...

Anyway Butcher, shit model mate. I anticipate your next update. And don't try to repudiate what the guys here have said, some of them are so highbrow in the ways of aircraft, missiles and other aircraft systems.

[nephilim 0]

as if wikipedia would be the best place to get your infos from ... anybody can write into there...

very reliable source....

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Here is another one source about the AGM's

 

http://www.drivearchive.co.uk/xplanes/torngr1.htm

http://www.ukiworld.com/wiki-Panavia_Tornado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado

http://www.airramstein.nato.int/bold_avenger07_factsheet_tornado.pdf

This one from the RAF website on the Tornado

http://www.raf.mod.uk

I think its time to retire Rock, he posted a wiki link. That totally voids your argument...  

Anyway Butcher, shit model mate. I anticipate your next update. And don't try to repudiate what the guys here have said, some of them are so highbrow in the ways of aircraft, missiles and other aircraft systems.

If anyone can post a link of a real (ie not a video game, illustration or fantasy model) Tornado carrying Mavericks I will not only eat my own feet, but i will then streak down Whitehall (without using my feet as I would have previously eaten them), London naked as a Jaybird and dance on the main steps of the Ministry of Defence clucking.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Panavia Tornados cannot carry maverick.  Why not?

1 - The Tornado's targeting/weapon aiming system cannot provide the input required by the Maverick seeker head.

2 - The aerodynamic loads - if it could be fitted to the outer pylons - created by the maverick's fins while maneuvering would exceed the max load shearing them off. And the Maverick's own delicate seeker head prevents it from being carried below the airframe. ie vibration and being obscured by various bits of airframe blocking the head.

3 - No attempt has ever been made by the UK MoD, RAF or  BAe/BAE Systems (The design authority for the aircraft) to add them.  This also precludes German or Italian aircraft from carrying them.  Saudi aircraft are essentially RAF GR1 spec so also aren’t capable of carrying them.

4 - The source of this entire BS argument stems from a requirements document from the NATO press office released in the early 90's - most likely sourced from the internet - and anyone that has any dealings with NATO and the UK MoD press offices knows they cant find their own arse with both hands and a colour map let alone post accurate info.

5 - I have 2 very well informed friend's - One who is the involved in the Saudi Arabia Tornado Sustainment Program @ Warton. The other in the RAF Engineering Team involved in weapons development and integration for the Tornado.  They both said the same thing. "Thats B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T."

6 – I’ve worked with both the UK MoD and BAE Systems supply chains and know exactly what hangs or could hang off every marque of aircraft used in the British inventory.

7 - My own knowledge and experience doesn’t rely on Google or wikipedia.

There you go the gauntlet is thrown down… go for it make me eat my own feet!

[R0adki11 3945]

with the issue of the tornado why reinvent the wheel, why just not ask colourchanger for permission to bring over his ofp Tornados, simpler