Gunrunner

Great, especially since we could use them in ODS... Just one thing though, the commander's cupola seems a tad too high.

C5> OT, but has anyone tried to explain to Lindr2 how obnoxious he end up being, and why ? I think he sincerely doesn't understand the errors of his way... tempbanning him won't do any good if he doesn't understand why, it will only make him frustrated and either drive him out of the community or make him even more obnoxious and neither of those options are benefits.

AFAIR, the A-7D took over the Sandy role during the Vietnam war, and probably would have done so until the service entry of the A-10/AV-8.

Next TMF project... Is that a moon ?

Well, if I'm not mistaken, it's the new "in" method to get them out of hovercrafts, one might say there are more efficient methods, but one has to admit it's got a certain je-ne-sais-quoi, style, or flair, for lack of better word. And it might help us solve the ultimate question for rivet-counters, how many eels does it take to fully infest an hovercraft (a worthy intellectual quest if there ever was one) ?

A Tu-126, that's wonderful Europe was lacking red HVTs

Kindly ask FastCargo (he has a real life and other projects), IIRC he's the one coming up with the ALE-50 (the towed decoy) for the Super Hornets.

Those things are monsters... A dream to fly (had to check twice I really was in Hard FM, as they are a really smooth ride), and a nightmare to face in knife fight, even worse than the Flankers.

Pros : - Lighten the load and bandwidth requirements on CA hosting, which is a good thing. - Allows to share on other forums easily. - Makes it possible to see pictures while not logged in. Cons : - Makes it more work to include pictures respecting the width/height limits of threads. - Might preclude pictures from showing in some environments/with some security settings. - More work to post pictures. Looks like a tie to me

Amazing... It will make life over European and Parani skies... interesting in the mid-80's. As for the polemic on details, guys, it's a simple .INI job to "correct" these things to your liking, live with it, it's not as if the 3D model wasn't top-notch, the FM wasn't convincing or the pit was an A-4 repaint. -_- I never understood the need to fuss about things requiring only a text editor and 5mn of your time to "correct".

It is suitable for XP/Vista, you just have to right-click on the .EXE, and in compatibility settings, set it up for Windows 95 (under Vista, depending on your setup, you should also check Execute as Admin). Save the changes, and it will work. Be aware that if you bought the download version and/or are patched up to date, you MUST use the newest weapons editor (the 2.x branch). If you have more specific troubles, please try to post more informations on what seems to be going right and what doesn't work.

Another hunch (hey, I'm no aeronautic engineer), since you removed the dog-tooth from the wing, the variable incidence is gone, the intakes are moved and you apparently diminished the anhedral of the wing, I'd suggest that the stabs now have no good reason left to be dihedral, in fact, in addition with the large and tailfin I'd be willing to bet the present configuration is more subject to yaw-roll coupling than the original design. I'd also add ventral fin(s) to help yaw stability (most planes of such a configuration had fins or quickly adopted them). If you're going for a dirt cheap plane, you could also remove the avionics hump inherited from the bullpup-capable Crusader. It couldn't be used to store enough fuel to be interesting, and the lack of need for advanced avionics in such a cheap plane would not justify the presence of spare space. Oh dear, next I'll suggest a smaller tailfin, a moving intake cone and an angled landing gear to improve the ability to use centerline plyons, and we'll end up with a Mirage F1, except you could have your plane up in the air in the early 60's, whereas the Mirage entered service in the early 70's.

Thanks for the confirmation... too bad, I'll just have to migrate to SF2, won't be a complete loss of time though (except I'll lose the very few props still (half-)working).

Everything's in the title... I've tried backporting the Hunter F.5 (using parts from the F5 from SF2 and the FGA9 from WoE) into SFP1 (fully patched), to no avail so far... Any clues, ideas or simply confirmation it's (im)possible ? PS: Ok, seems "impossible" as the SF2 LODs seem to map textures differently than SF1 ones.

Oh yes, that's a Rapier. ^^ Except that in the comic version it seems to have the canards of the early version. Anyway, that already looks sweet. :)

Amazing job

First off, with some planes it only happens with the legacy shadowing system, and it's easily solved. 1) Open the [plane].ini file 2) Search for the [shadow] section 3) Replace the whole [shadow] section (or add, in case the section is missing) by [Shadow] CastShadow=TRUE ShadowCastDist=10000 MaxVisibleDistance=800 That's the default for TW's planes 4) Save the changes It might happen that the line still exists even after doing that, it is the result of a "flaw" in the 3D model and can't be fixed by an .INI change. The obvious solution is either to correct the model, if you have the 3DS file, but there is another, using the pilot method to patch new 3D objects to correct these shadow problems, however it requires quite some work to get it to work as intended. Some planes I know with this Peter Pan effect due to the 3D model are : TMF SD Mirage F1s Geo's F8F All F-15 based on the early F-15C/E model by Flying Toaster (only visible when going below 45° roll) Keep in mind this is not a "bug" of the engine, or a fault of the modders, as in the early days of SFP1 the shadow system was rudimentary, buggy, required to create a separate 3D model for the shadow, and had a toll on performance (for an unconvincing result most of the time). So, most players played without shadows, and most modders couldn't test their model properly (as they couldn't determine whether the fault was one of the engine, of their original 3D model, or of the shadow 3D model).

Interestingly enough, the "mystery" missile seems to be lacking something ahead of the fins that the AIM-26A/B have... On the other hand, the training Rb-27 also seems to be missing these parts. I'm trying to find pictures with good enough angles for size comparisons.

As someone pointed out, the HARJ inscription on the finnish model indicates it's an exercise round (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=251813), so it's not really a useful picture... A quick research brings up the GAR-5/6 project, of larger derivatives of the GAR-1/2/3/4 (AIM-4) family. The GAR-5/6 research eventually led to the GAR-9/11 (AIM-26) family. The GAR-5 was to be a radar guided version, the GAR-6 would have been the IR guided version, it would have looked like what's on your pictures. As you can see on your second picture, with a Sidewinder for reference, the missile seems longer than the AIM-9 (even accounting for the seemingly wide angle). Since an AIM-9 is roughly in the 3m length, and an AIM-26 is 2,2m... it can't be an AIM-26... However, the GAR-5/6 would have been 3,5m long... The only picture I can get of a "large" Falcon with "optical" head is always from the same source, the USAF Armaments Museum at Eglin AFB... On the one hand you can think that they, better than anybody else, would know what they are displaying. On the other, you can't seem to find any other picture of such a configuration with clear nose. Here is a picture of a real AIM-26B/GAR-11A with an AIM-4, it's very different from your pictures. Just in case, here's an AIM-26A/GAR-11, you'll notice it seems shorter, and doesn't fit your pictures either. If I were to take a bet, I'd say that what you have is a GAR-6. Now, it does seem to be the same airframe in the first picture... how it did end up as a training round in Finland I haven't got a clue... After examination, on the first picture the missile is too short to be 3,5m, it is simply a Rb-27, with the seeker head in a different color, as seen on the GAR-11A picture above. For your second picture, you'll also note that the mention of AIM-24A is made into the remarks (http://marvellouswings.com/Aircraft/Missile/M-026/M-026.html), now if only someone could translate the chinese part, it probably would make more sense.

You're basically right... IIRC, the F-2 was mostly a way to keep the industry up to speed, and his main duty would be anti-shipping and CAS (at least they replaced primarily the F-1 units and the F-4 units with this role first), with air defense coming only second, the F-15 assuming the air superiority role. So, going for subsonic lift rather than supersonic drag makes it better at his first duty, allowing more payload, farther, at the cost of raw supersonic performance, of little use in his primary mission, a similar compromise to the F/A-18 indeed.

Apart from some alarmist anti-militarist Pulitzer-winning crap (http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722), I never saw anything with hard data on the IR problem. The same paper make "interesting" arguments on reliability and accidents rates, but never seems to try to explain the reasons of these discrepancies, instead concluding the plane is just a flying widow-maker... It's the F-104 all over again, blaming the plane instead of the circumstances... Pathetic... What puzzles me is to see mppd, usually one to research meticulously (at least when it comes to F-4s) to buy wholesale into that pile of b*******... Maybe the fact it replaced the Phantom explains the bias

There is another (related ?) problem with airbrakes... they won't deploy manually but will deploy automatically at certain speeds/AoA.

What next ? An A-12 (OXCART), hurriedly converted into a YF-12A (at least one year in advance) comes to the rescue ?

AFAIR it's more the efficiency of weapons than the "softness" of targets. Just try it with weapons set on hard and it'll settle it. ^^

As long as it's clear I'm a wombat and not a gopher... Damn, haven't seen caddyshack for years.