Look for the F-4G wild weasel preview on check-6 by the MF

[+drdoyo 2]

So maybe we shouldn't release it after all?

 

I don't see anyone in the thread saying that or even suggesting anything remotely similar. Please!!... release it as you see fit based on what information you have!!

[+NeverEnough 78]

Hopefully, we narrowly avoided another self-inflicted wound here!

Please Mirage Factory, ignore our inconsequential ramblings.......

[+Brain32 265]

Darn "Sparrow counters"

[+streakeagle 864]

Sparrow counting is a tedious hobby.

Pouring over hundreds if not thousands of combat sortie photos trying to glimpse a Sparrow fin in the forward bay is challenging.

First, there is the camera angle: most inflight F-4 photos are shot from an angle where the Sparrows are not visible.

Then there is the loadout: bombs/missiles and wing tanks frequently block the view as well.

 

The number of shots where you can actually see a full 4-Sparrow loadout are quite few compared to the number of photos available.

Most of those show no centerline store.

The exception seems to be RAF Phantoms, which have been frequently photographed with 4 Sparrows and either a centerline tank or gunpod.

Last night, after reviewing every book I have with F-4 photos, I found maybe 4 showing USAF/USN F-4s with 4 Sparrows and a centerline tank.

While the quantity was low, they were combat sortie photos: aircraft taking-off or en route to assigned CAP/escort missions.

I don't know why the number of photos showing this is so low, but clearly F-4s could and did fly combat missions with centerline tanks and 4 Sparrows.

There were only about 5 or 10 more showing 4 Sparrows with no centerline stores.

These photos were mostly publicity photos, though some may have been cases where the centerline tank had been jettisoned.

 

It would seem that only 2 Sparrows are carried for several reasons:

1. Forward bay(s) may be occupied by ECM and/or targeting pod(s).

2. Aircraft's mission is not air superiority: 2 Sparrows are a bare minimum defensive load, saving 1,000 lbs+ for fuel/ground ordance or lower drag/higher speed.

3. To reduce maintenance costs: Sparrow reliability falls off rapidly with captive flight hours (flying multiple sorites without ever being fired). Carrying fewer Sparrows when they are not needed means less time/money wasted working on them.

4. The actual supply of Sparrows may not have been high enough to easily equip all available aircraft with a full loadout, so only MiGCAP planes may have gotten priority? While researching F-4 Sparrow loadouts last night, I discovered that flight leaders received AIM-9Js while wingmen continued getting AIM-9Es during 1972 due to shortages of AIM-9Js.

[+Sundowner 4,515]

Darn "Sparrow counters"

 

 

[+Crusader 2,050]

[+Viggen 516]

Sparrow counting is a tedious hobby.

Pouring over hundreds if not thousands of combat sortie photos trying to glimpse a Sparrow fin in the forward bay is challenging.

First, there is the camera angle: most inflight F-4 photos are shot from an angle where the Sparrows are not visible.

Then there is the loadout: bombs/missiles and wing tanks frequently block the view as well.

 

The latter is hard when it comes to USMC Phantoms during Vietnam- between Zunis, MK82s, napalm, fuel tanks etc. Streakeagle, if you need them I have some pictures of F-4s that show the Sparrows on USAF Phantoms.

 

Anyway, Sony Tuckson don't think at all that this what was ment out of this. Mearly just confusion on AA loadouts.

[column5 62]

So maybe we shouldn't release it after all?

 

I agree Sony. Let't just tell the team to ditch this project entirely. I mean we can't release it to Mirage Factory standards if there is some dispute over Sparrows. Perhaps we can get Digital-Overload to arbitrate this. He did get the mahogany canopy rail in the F-5 correct, after all, when everyone else said it could not (should not?) be done.

Edited November 20, 2007 by column5

[Guest Sony Tuckson]

Now, I'll explain myself a bit

 

First thing, it's being released right now...so no big deal

 

Second, I was dissapointed at comments made on a plane that was not released, only a few screenshots, and people were making comments regarding stuff that we all know are "selectable", so why making those comments before having had the chance to check it by yourself?

 

I consider myself a rivet counter (or AIM7 in this case ;) ), but at least I judge on stuff I can examine closely myself...

 

and no, I didn't work on this model, so I wasn't reacting because I felt attacked.

[+allenjb42 4,114]

The F-4G pack is up at Checksix, along with a new weapons pack.

 

Thanks a lot Mirage Factory.

 

Presumably these will be coming to CA too?

[+Dave 2,318]

The F-4G pack is up at Checksix, along with a new weapons pack.

 

Thanks a lot Mirage Factory.

 

Presumably these will be coming to CA too?

 

In about 5 mins....

[+Dave 2,318]

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...;showfile=5545#

 

Here you all go....

[Silverbolt 104]

whoow!

88mb!

[+Viggen 516]

Wow, first to download it off of CA. Putting it in WOE right now.

[+Dave 2,318]

Being the F4 lover that i am, This is lookin so good! I wouldn't care if the G carried rotten eggs :yes: , It still looks great!!

 

 

I guess the problem was though, the very first post was a criticism of it. Namely how many Sparrows it can carry. I couldn't believe it and so couldn't other members of the Mirage Factory. And some of you wonder why we modders get irritated. You wonder why we take so long to release stuff, because of stupid crap like that. Constructive criticism is fine but rivet counting like this is just plain dumb. The post was about the plane not the damn missiles. So I can tell you this, anymore rivet counting and those posts are going to disappear. Period. If the community keeps it up, you all are going to be responsible for the death of it because no one is going to want to mod it.

[+Dave 2,318]

I guess the problem was though, the very first post was a criticism of it. Namely how many Sparrows it can carry. I couldn't believe it and so couldn't other members of the Mirage Factory. And some of you wonder why we modders get irritated. You wonder why we take so long to release stuff, because of stupid crap like that. Constructive criticism is fine but rivet counting like this is just plain dumb. The post was about the plane not the damn missiles. So I can tell you this, anymore rivet counting and those posts are going to disappear. Period. If the community keeps it up, you all are going to be responsible for the death of it because no one is going to want to mod it.

 

.

[+Julhelm 266]

Lemme get this straight:

 

Photos show Plane A usually carries X amount of missile B on hardpoints 3 and 4, which means it can never ever carry missile B on hardpoints 1 and 2 despite these hardpoints being specifically designed for missile B except if it happens to be a british jet, because they talk funny and wear women's clothes.

 

That's some of the most retarded logic I've ever seen.

[jazz5150 0]

except if it happens to be a british jet, because they talk funny and wear women's clothes.

 

That would be the lumberjacks ??

 

Seriously though, great plane: thanks MF!

[+Dave 2,318]

Here is a good example of constructive criticism.

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showt...mp;#entry111934

 

Well thought out, not nit picky of this "only carries this". A fay cry from what went on in this topic.

[+Jimbib 677]

It's getting to the stage that there are those in the community that are taking it for granted there will always be a steady trickle of mod add-ons to the 3rdW sim series regardless of their behaviour. Seriously, some of the mods coming out of the Mirage Factory are better than any of the aircraft released by sim companies themselves. But the kicker is they get thanked by bitching and moaning. That may seem harsh, but in a lot of cases, its the scenario Jules and Dave illustrated, either someone will try and find something to slur the thing, or it'll be the classic whine with no hint of method of improvement. Before people kick off, it's not just implied about this instance, this has gone on for bloody ages, since all the original moaners came in to tell the SF fans the sim would never last. Christ, to think people give up their time to try and better the game for the many masses out there. Can see why a lot have left already.

[Badfrank 5]

Good work, guys!

 

Very nice!

[+Gunrunner 313]

The most retarded in the present situation is that it focus on the single point requiring the least level of expertise and work to suit to your tastes.

 

Unhappy with skins and templates ? Well, that may require talent, expertise, access to the model and/or time.

 

Unhappy with the 3D model ? That may require expertise, software, talent, eventually access to the original model and time.

 

Unhappy with the flight model ? That may require expertise and knowledge, experience and a lot of time.

 

Unhappy with the loadouts ? All it requires is a text editor and a handful of seconds or minutes if you're not sure what you're doing.

[+drdoyo 2]

Guys, I've been gone 3 days. I see the direction this has gone and I appologise if my post added fuel to this fire. I never ment it in that manor. Having worked on F-4s I only wanted to add my personal experiance to the conversation reguarding the first post. My post was never intended to be a proclamation of limitations.

 

I guess the only point I was trying to make is you can't use just photos as a definition of capability. The photo research I did on my unit's birds made me realize that even though I found photos of all the jets in the squadron, ALL the photos were taken on about 5 different days.......out of 5 years of flying the jet. I, for one, didn't express myself very well at all.

 

Again, my appologies I didn't intend what I posted to sound the way it did.

[+Dave 2,318]

And the thing that gets me the most was the fact we ended talking about what it could carry, instead of talking about the model itself. It became a complete after thought.

[+Dave 2,318]

Guys, I've been gone 3 days. I see the direction this has gone and I appologise if my post added fuel to this fire. I never ment it in that manor. Having worked on F-4s I only wanted to add my personal experiance to the conversation reguarding the first post. My post was never intended to be a proclamation of limitations.

 

I guess the only point I was trying to make is you can't use just photos as a definition of capability. The photo research I did on my unit's birds made me realize that even though I found photos of all the jets in the squadron, ALL the photos were taken on about 5 different days.......out of 5 years of flying the jet. I, for one, didn't express myself very well at all.

 

Again, my appologies I didn't intend what I posted to sound the way it did.

 

Wasn't anything you said at all. It was the very first post after the screen shots were posted. Everything else was a result in which we all were a part of.