I was on another site last night, and someone made the comment about American modellers going OTT in relation to ordnance loadouts. I thought it was a bit insulting, with the poster saying it seemed to be an American obsession, this need to fill up every hardpoint and pylon. Personally, I think a jet looks better loaded for bear. What do you think ? When it comes to weapons,who goes above and beyond what comes included with the kit ?
It depends. I agree that some planes look cool with a full load-out (the A-7 comes to mind).
On the other hand, it’s usually not realistic to load every hard point, particularly with carrier aircraft where weight is so critical.
Mark
I tend to load them for a specific mission. If the jet is loaded with air to ground it wouldn’t carry a full air to air load. Also if it is loaded air to air, than what type of mission (MIG CAP, Buff escort, Short/Long escort, ETC) would depend on how it is loaded. To carry something on every pylon isn’t always needed. Carry enough to get the job done, be able to fly the distance and fight your way out if needed.
Agreed Berny, I like finding photos of actual loadouts and going from there. I’ve done that for my last couple of builds and I find it enhances the historical accuracy of the models.
I’d tell yer mates that the USAF learned the hard way during Vietnam about loading aircraft. There was a so-called “Bomb Shortage” in the late 60’s, but that didn’t deter the USAF from splitting up one aircraft’s load among 4 aircraft and putting 4 jets and 8 guys at risk instead of say, two jets and four aircrew… Just to keep the sortie-rate up…
I base mine on actual load outs or most probable according to the specified mission or if I saw one that’s different.
An example would be a F-15D with two tanks and a 119 ECM pod center.
Maybe they’re just jelous.
Quite to the contrary, Mark, carrier aircraft are typically launched off with a full weapons load and less than full fuel. Then, they plug the tanker before going on with their mission–that way they can get the most out of the sortie. Go back and look around at some old shots of A-4’s, A-6’s, and especially F-4’s to see what I mean on this one. As long as youre talking about a plane that can refuel in-flight, this is common practice on USN aircraft.
Leaving refrences aside for the moment, for me it realy depends on the jet. An F-15c with nothing but a couple Aim-9s looks fine too me. An F-15e has to be bristling with dropable death or it looks empty somehow. Some F-4s look fine empty some with a couple missiles and tanks, and some need Iron. A-6s and A-7s should NEVER be bare, F-105s sometimes, F-100s look great empty. Then for the prop guys there is the A-1. If it’s not compleetly jacked it’s only because the crew isn’t finished or the pilot has already pickeled something. [:D] If you have 15 hard points to fill your only complaint should be that there isn’t a 16th. [}:)]
Andrew
Well, that depends on the kind of aircraft, if there is a specific diorama or scene the modeler is trying to create, etc etc. For example, the A-10 Warthog to me just begs to be fully loaded. Same with the Skyraider–these aircraft would be loaded for bear when flying operational sorties. At the same time, you dont want to put Sidewinders on pylons of an F-4 Phantom where they never carried sidewinders. I guess the key is realism–one model that comes to mind right off the bat is Trumpeter’s 1/32 USN F-8 Crusader. They included Shrike missiles…the Crusader did not at any time carry that missile, so why would you put one on your bird? In fact, the Navy crusaders carried sidewinders and zuni pods, and thats basically it. The kit includes weapons that were never carried or couldnt even be used on a Crusader. From that point of view, I can understand the complaining if someone threw all those weapons on the model.
By comparison, if I were building an F-15C, I would have AIM-120’s and AIM-9’s, and of course the obligatory centerline tank. Like I said, it depends on the plane. I guess the best advice is to build what you want to build. Sometimes I look to build a specific pilot’s aircraft, or one from a specific mission. Other times, like the 1/32 A-10, I just want to hang every last thing on there I can get. I once even built up an old Skyraider kit with a scratch-built kitchen sink hung on it–at least one USN LT did this because they said the plane could carry “everything but the kitchen sink”.
If you’re talking about Viet Nam where they dropped everything no matter what, yes. But in Iraq and Afganistan with expensive smart weapons, where they might not have have targets to drop on, no. Trap weights bringing ordinance back aboard was/is a significant issue. F-14A’s could launch with heavier loadouts because they were lighter than F-14D’s and still come back and trap.
Mark
I must be one of the few that don’t hang ordnance or tanks. Looks fine to me.
sorry, I should have clarified that one better. I thought that by mentioning only those old birds that my point would be stated better than I did. Yeah, the Tomcats could only trap with one GBU on the rail as I recall, sorry about the confusion there. I also remember that the Super Bug has a max bringback of 10,900 pounds stores and fuel, which puts it better off than the Tomcat and the old Intruder too…
I do not really have a standard for my loadouts. It depends on the plane, what I am trying to depict, my mood, etc.
Some look better with ordinance (A-10, A-6, Su-25 (notice a pattern?)) some are prettier without (or with little) loadout like the F-104 or the Hunter, some look good either that (F-16, Su-27)
What I do not like are loadout with are not acurate, either by type of ordinance or quantity (alltough you could depict a publicity shot which are often at a max. loadout)
If I am doing a load out, it will usually be the full load as would be carried by that particular version of the A/C, by the specific A/Cs operating unit & in the correct timescale. I find that the load out options will often decide for me which version of a specific kit I will build. I do not appreciate stuff hanging that is out of context - Spitfires were never fitted with Sidewinders - you know what I mean.
An aircraft with no loadout, in the used / empty state looks rather purposeless & impotent to me - it’s an expensive ferry bird that is only heading for home looking for more weapons to hang & another mission to do.
Conversely, all of the above would however not apply to larger bombers which have the option of having one / many ridiculous bombs / missile hanging or protruding from them, if their is an option for a sleek look where everything is internal - I would go for that.
Horses for courses.
Did anybody mention the A-1?
Happy modelling and have a nice day
Pawel
I’m an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Marine Corps and only ‘load’ my models with what that particular aircraft would carry for a specific mission.
I don’t have a problem with modelers going all out on their ordnance loads (sometimes it just looks cool), I just don’t do it myself.
Dave
Fighters look great with missles
A ground pounder, load it for bear!
However, by the time I get to that stage in a build, I just say I will get back to the loadout, and somehow never seem to…
well I never was a fly guy, and actually am still not comforable inside an airplane (but I still fly). Still I used to have to goto the flight line every now and then, and saw lots and lots of planes headed to the pit to have all those flags and whatever else removed. These planes had so much stuff hanging on them that it took forever for them to get off the ground! Ever seen a picture of an A6 headed downtown? This thing looked like dump truck! Looked like it had as many bombs attached to it as a WWII B17 carried. Anyway this was an everyday thing
gary
mine vary quite a lot depending on what I’m building
if I am using an OOP decal sheet, on a hard to find kit, after a conversion (MAW decals ATARS Hornet) it’s going to be as accurate in the loadout as I can get
since the ordnance is as much a part of my collection as the aircraft and units, I only match up the era with the correct station on airframes that “could” have carried it, on the correct LAU
my favorite thing to do is to match up to a photo for oddball loads, ie: Genie on a Phantom, dual Zuni’s on a Phantom’s inner wing pylon,3000# on a Skyhawk centerline, asymetrical LGB’s with Pave Knife on an F-4E
but, I make sure not to put Maverick on a plane from a cruise before Maverick was invented, things like that
if I only used “actual loadouts” all the time, I’d have to expand my collection just to cover those variations,and I don’t have space right now for all the planes I’ll be building
I think, as others have said, it depends on the plane… I recently built the Academy F-18D, and put on 3 tanks, a JDAM, and a GBU, and no its not accurate, from what I have read, they only carried gas in the center pylon, and on the right (I think) because the other tank blocked the laser, but I hate the look of the asymetrical loudout like that. I Built one that had sidewinders, amraams, a maverick, a tank, and a JDAM, after I put all that on there, it looked really dumb… but you learn from your mistakes, I guess!?