Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I noticed that stock Kfir C2 has in its data.ini file, on wings, a LGB setting, which is consistent with the real potential of the real Kfir C2 of carrying it and deploy it but...looking into Kfir C2 avionics.ini file, there is no "trace" of TV support for that. Also on its wings settings there is no LP device specified. Is this a slip or is it just me ? I looked into SF1 Kfir C2 files and checked, it works for both Mavericks and LGBs with some modifications into its avionics.ini file. I tried the same trick into SF2 Kfir C2 and it doesn't work for LGBs, it works for Mavericks only. Any suggestions ? Real Kfir C2 carried Mavericks and Shrikes too, I checked.

 

[ShoulderStationL]
SystemType=WEAPON_STATION
StationID=5
StationGroupID=4
StationType=EXTERNAL
AttachmentPosition=-0.89,1.99,-0.72
AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,20.0
LoadLimit=500
LengthLimit=2.5
AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB
AttachmentType=NATO,FRANCE,UK,ISRAEL
ModelNodeName=shoulder_pylon_L
PylonMass=18.0
PylonDragArea=0.02

[ShoulderStationR]
SystemType=WEAPON_STATION
StationID=6
StationGroupID=4
StationType=EXTERNAL
AttachmentPosition= 0.89,1.99,-0.72
AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,-20.0
LoadLimit=500
LengthLimit=2.5
AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB
AttachmentType=NATO,FRANCE,UK,ISRAEL
ModelNodeName=shoulder_pylon_R
PylonMass=18.0
PylonDragArea=0.02

Edited by UllyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, It's not that, I checked, GBU-12D for instance is 2.25 length and 275Kg. Also diameter is not specified on wing so it works any value here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UllyB said:

stock Kfir C2 has in its data.ini file, on wings, a LGB setting,

stock data is not always accurate and in many cases in this game overlooked - for more playability io guess

 

1 hour ago, UllyB said:

which is consistent with the real potential of the real Kfir C2 of carrying it and deploy it but

Source of that info?

1 hour ago, UllyB said:

there is no "trace" of TV support for that.

Kfir C.7 could carry and deploy LGBs only after installing under nose Pave Penny tracker. BUT! Still, it could only attack targets designated from other sources. Pave Penny is not a laser designator. It is a laser spot tracker.

 

1 hour ago, UllyB said:

Real Kfir C2 carried Mavericks and Shrikes too, I checked

Source of that info?

I guess image from guide system is displayed on iPhone as C.2 has no display... 

 

Do not take stock data seriously. There is a lot of mistakes there. 

 

there is in Download Kfir family package. It has new hi-res skins, correct decals, and serial numbers, correct weapon stations, etc...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, yakarov79 said:

 

 

Source of that info?

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Kfir

Specifications (Kfir C2)

Orthographically projected diagram of the IAI Kfir
220px-IAI-Kfir-hatzerim-1.jpg
 
An IAI Kfir with its typical weapon loadout as displayed at the Israeli Air Force Museum, Hatzerim Airbase

Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1982–83[52]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 15.65 m (51 ft 4 in)
  • Wingspan: 8.22 m (27 ft 0 in)
  • Height: 4.55 m (14 ft 11 in)
  • Wing area: 34.8 m2 (375 sq ft)
  • Airfoil: 3.5&[53]
  • Empty weight: 7,285 kg (16,061 lb)
  • Gross weight: 11,603 kg (25,580 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 16,200 kg (35,715 lb)
  • Powerplant: 1 × IAl Bedek-built General Electric J79-J1E turbojet, 52.9 kN (11,900 lbf) thrust dry, 79.62 kN (17,900 lbf) with afterburner

Performance

  • Maximum speed: 2,440 km/h (1,520 mph, 1,320 kn) above 11,000 m (36,089 ft)
  • Maximum speed: Mach 2
  • Combat range: 768 km (477 mi, 415 nmi) (ground attack, hi-lo-hi profile, seven 227 kg (500 lb) bombs, two AAMs, two 1,300 l (340 US gal; 290 imp gal) drop tanks)
  • Service ceiling: 17,680 m (58,010 ft)
  • Rate of climb: 233 m/s (45,900 ft/min)

Armament

Edited by UllyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Usually repeating old sources' mistakes. 

In museums, aircrafts are often displayed only guided by a vision of museum not necessarily always correct. Believe me, been there done that. 

On photo attached, there is no lgbs. By the way. 

529 was C.7 Kfir not C.2

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, yakarov79 said:

In this case, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Usually repeating old sources' mistakes. 

In museums, aircrafts are often displayed only guided by a vision of museum not necessarily always correct. Believe me, been there done that. 

On photo attached, there is no lgbs. By the way. 

529 was C.7 Kfir not C.2

I found additional sources which confirms , except the Mavericks , the wikipaedia Kfir C2 loadout. Please take a look.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=152

This one confirms/supports 100% what Wikipaedia says:

https://military-wiki.com/iai-kfir-the-lion-cub-of-israel/

By the way , how do you know that Wikipaedia is wrong ? What is your argument except that YOU think that they are wrong ? I am just asking to be able to make an opinion about the whole thing. Also could you indicate a source which supports your saying ?

Edited by UllyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, UllyB said:

By the way , how do you know that Wikipaedia is wrong ? What is your argument except that YOU think that they are wrong ? I am just asking to be able to make an opinion about the whole thing. Also could you indicate a source which supports your saying ?

Wikipedia is often enough wrong on details...especially on possible weapons, that can be used on planes. Writers don't recognise, that variants of a plane can have different possibilites to use weapons and everything is mixed together. As was said already...old sources aren't always reliable too. Struff was not known for sure but estimated and are now in books as facts. Or upgrades for planes were planned, when a book was written, but never happened afterwards (ARBS for malaysian skyhawks...never actually happened, but there are enough sources stating, that the planes had it installed)

2 quick examples as an argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

in Specifications:

- there are no 370gal tanks for the Skyhawk....it's either 150gal, 300gal or 400gal.

- A-4E wasn't cleared for Mavericks

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_58

it's a german wikipedia entry, that ususally contains even more errors, than the english one:

- Users: Iraq (never in use), Mauretania (never in use)

 

So it is known, that wikipedia entries can, but not have to be correct.

Edited by Nyghtfall
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nyghtfall said:

Wikipedia is often enough wrong on details...especially on possible weapons, that can be used on planes. Writers don't recognise, that variants of a plane can have different possibilites to use weapons and everything is mixed together. As was said already...old sources aren't always reliable too. Struff was not known for sure but estimated and are now in books as facts. Or upgrades for planes were planned, when a book was written, but never happened afterwards (ARBS for malaysian skyhawks...never actually happened, but there are enough sources stating, that the planes had it installed)

2 quick examples as an argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

in Specifications:

- there are no 370gal tanks for the Skyhawk....it's either 150gal, 300gal or 400gal.

- A-4E wasn't cleared for Mavericks

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_58

it's a german wikipedia entry, that ususally contains even more errors, than the english one:

- Users: Iraq (never in use), Mauretania (never in use)

 

So it is known, that wikipedia entries can, but not have to be correct.

 

I understand what you are saying. In this case what source can one rely on ? It's a pertinent/fair question for me now. I think you will agree that not everyone is ex pilot, worked in military aviation industry or have a military pilot friend, to know all these better than  anyone else, right ? Tweaking my planes has to rely on real information otherwise I can't see why I should do it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way is to crossreference available data.  Different sources. In this case, Kfir C.2 - better do not rely on wikipedia. It is wrong - believe me. 

Some guys did research already. 

There is forum (here) and other places. You can always ask questions. You did. And I answered the best way, based on my knowledge. 

I am telling you. C.2 has no capability of delivering guided weapons. There is no even display in the cockpit. There is no laser tracker nor laser designator. Even mighty F-22 can not drop laser-guided weapons. Because there is no system for that. 

Only C.7 could drop guided weapons. But only if lasered from other aircraft or more commonly from the ground. It could not designate own targets.

Based on my information C.7 was not wired for Mavericks (not Shrike also) You can not just hang weapon on the pylon and fly away to nail bad guys. It needs an interface between weapon - aircraft - pilot. 

 

But in this game, you can do anything with aircraft / weaponsystem. As you wish. You just need a notepad. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, yakarov79 said:

 

 You can not just hang weapon on the pylon and fly away to nail bad guys. It needs an interface between weapon - aircraft - pilot.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UllyB said:

I understand what you are saying. In this case what source can one rely on ? It's a pertinent/fair question for me now. I think you will agree that not everyone is ex pilot, worked in military aviation industry or have a military pilot friend, to know all these better than  anyone else, right ? Tweaking my planes has to rely on real information otherwise I can't see why I should do it anymore.

As Jarek noted...crossreferencing. Try to find as many sources as possible...books, magazines, photos of actual planes in use by an Air Force, Navy, whatever are often helpful. It is not always easy to find good pictures, that show the piece that interests you in good quality, but nobody said it is an easy task. Sometimes you will find pictures that focus on something else, but show important pieces in the background or whatever. Just keep searching and you will often find enough information to prove your point or not.

Not always a reliable source are planes shown in museums (as noted before) or aircraft model kits and such stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nyghtfall said:

As Jarek noted...crossreferencing. Try to find as many sources as possible...books, magazines, photos of actual planes in use by an Air Force, Navy, whatever are often helpful. It is not always easy to find good pictures, that show the piece that interests you in good quality, but nobody said it is an easy task. Sometimes you will find pictures that focus on something else, but show important pieces in the background or whatever. Just keep searching and you will often find enough information to prove your point or not.

Not always a reliable source are planes shown in museums (as noted before) or aircraft model kits and such stuff.

I checked model kits too, for Kfir C2 and they have LGB mounted on wings LOL so maybe they are not such a good source. Thanks I'll see what I can do. The way you put it is not easy at all. You can't lose time and search more than 10 sources for one plane. The first ten sources on Google are, most of the time the ones which tells you that Kfir C2 has Mavericks and LGBs. What I am saying is that it is confusing to just search something you don't know for sure and find sources that are faulty. What crossses to your mind is to QUIT, not to keep going. I don't like the idea that something that was supposed to be solid  is in fact wrong. For instance who the hell did the Kfir C2 page if they obviously don't have a clue what the real plane was loading on its wings ??? Why nobody tell them they are wrong ? The same goes for the A4 fuel tank etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UllyB said:

You can't lose time and search more than 10 sources for one plane

Yes, you can. And this is the most exciting part of creating a mod/model/skin set -  At least this is what I am doing when preparing some skin pack, model etc. Recently I've uploaded Phantom ANG skin pack. 3 months of research and composing data. Not gonna say how long already I've been on VooDoo or Cobra.  When I am building the model I am buying books, manuals (yes buying from bookstores using my own, real money - then upload model for free...illogical isn't it? ) It is just way how you want to present your work. Not everyone needs to do it the same way...but for me. 'This is the way'.*

But going back to C.2

Just going a logical way. 

LGB - need laser designator/tracker -C.2 has none - conclusion...Can not deliver.

I believe that to guide TV guided weapon you need some kind of display in the cockpit to know where are you guiding your missile. C.2 has none. - conclusion...

 

20 minutes ago, UllyB said:

I checked model kits too, for Kfir C2 and they have LGB mounted on wings LOL so maybe they are not such a good source.

model kits - often this is the worst source of information. Scale modelers are a different story - they are crazy enough to research 'thingies' for years. 

 

Funny thing is, I know a few guys who worked on aircrafts in the air force, in my country and some other. Often for them piece of equipment is was just a piece of equipment, often nicknamed as techincal designations were too long or not good enough to memorize.  And often they do not recognize if it was ver.A or B, block 24 or 52...

 
 
👕
1
Quote

-oh yes - those rockets we were hanging them on MiGs...

- these rockets or maybe that other one..

.- oh?..maybe that other one...you know for me all look same

 

* yes....'This is the way'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the problem  is not that Kfir C2 has no laser on board (it could add a laser Pod on its wings couldn't it?) , but that it lacks support TO SEE what the Laser is transmitting. The same goes for Mavericks where it needs an optical system to get the images transmitted from the TV pod to show them to you on plane's display. That is the logic, not that it doesn't have one. Even if it could have it, it would lack the transmitting system. I think TK knew it lacked optical/Laser system, otherwise why would he design the cockpit without a MFD display ? Maybe he put that LGB function on its wings just to inspire the ones who wants to change something or tinker with his toy.

Edited by UllyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, UllyB said:

I think TK knew it lacked optical/Laser system, otherwise why would he design the cockpit without a MFD display ? Maybe he put that LGB function on its wings just to inspire the ones who wants to change something or tinker with his toy.

Or perhaps he was reading wikipedia a few days earlier. 

He did not design a Kfir cockpit. That pit is more or less representation of a real one. 

Yes of course anyone can tinker with toys - as it is easy. That is why we can easily correct all mistakes and errors from stock files. And it is not only Kfir.

One can add mega-missile-cruise-laser capability and Mach 3. number to Meteor, others want to have historical accuracy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..