Svetlin

Eduard are an excellent company for highly detailed model kits and model kit upgrade sets. Here is the photo etched set they used to offer for the MiG-21F-13 cockpit: Yes, it is not a picture of the real thing, but if Eduard went for these colours, chances are those would be close enough to the real thing. Using these colours as a base should be good enough I believe. The photo etched set came pre-painted, so it was just a matter of cutting, folding, and glueing.

Looks very, very nice! That centerline pylon though should disappear

Hi, the following video contains some close-up shots of the Shafrir 2, though I do not know if that could help from modelling perspective.

Could that be somehow hard-coded into the model during the construction in 3DS or Blender? Honestly, I have no practical knoweldge about 3d modelling. I am drawing my conclusions from my fiddling with data.ini files in trying to add or fix turning front landing gear and shocks. There are models where no matter what ini dancing I did, the front gear would not turn properly along the correct axis and/or the shocks would not function correctly. That made me believe such movements are somehow hard-coded into the model during the construction in 3DS or Blender. So, my guess is, that unless these movements are planned for and provided for during the model construction, the ini file alone will not help. I would put my bet the same applies also for rotors rotation axis. Of course it would be best if one of our 3D experts could confirm or reject that and shed some more light on the topic.

I apologize, Nyghfall, I did not realize the file was removed on purpose. I deleted it from my post above. I apologize once again.

Yes, that's logical. There is hardly any more evident example of this trend than the Hornet and the Super Hornet. On the other hand it seems to me the F-16E/F were labelled E/F instead of F-16C/D Block 60 simply in an attempt to convince the buyer they are buying cutting-edge technology and not something outdated. So, some play with blocks and versions - "Nah, no biggie, it's just another block." vs. "Oh, no, that's a brand new thing, look, it is not the C/D anymore, it is the E/F now", that kind of thing. And that is going further with the F-16V now.

Hi, will the canopy be animated to open/close? If it will, may I suggest that you used the same animation slot to animate the upward turning air-pressure-sensor mast? When the F-13 was parked on the airfield, the technicians would turn the mast up as a safety measure. It would be cool to have the canopy and the mast operating under the same animation.

Well, that is most interesting. I was not aware that other air forces also created locally and used recon pods based on the UB-16 rocket pod. I guess that was some Warsaw pact sharing of ideas and experience

I do not mean to argue, but it does not seem likely that those were modifed MFs. They have the MiG-21R wing with the radio-electronic warfare wingtip pods. Also they have the MiG-21R tube installed on the right upper side of the nose with just an air pressure sensor, whereas the MiG-21MF has other sensors added on the same tube. Why would anyone downgrade by removing some useful sensors to convert a serial MiG-21MF into a MiG-21RF? Some countries, Bulgaria included did have their own recon version of the MiG-21MF. Here it was labelled MiG-21MF-R and at the beginning it was planned to operate with the MiG-21R pods (after removal of the GSh-23L gunpod). That did not work out well, so later on, the MiG-21MF-R performed recon missions with a locally built small pod with camera, converted from a UB-16 rocket pod. That was the RFC-2 pod and shapewise it was something like this (this is just a shape, no skin):

Yes, exactly, Egypt made a local modification to the MiG-21R by adding permanently cameras in a fairing under the nose as in your picture. Sadly I do not have good reference for the recon pods, but it seems the old Eduard 1/48 MiG-21R model kit would be a good reference with respect to stencils and panel lines. Here is a review of the model kit: https://www.themodellingnews.com/2014/06/review-eduards-fishbed-mig-21r-in-48th.html

Having followed the different threads on the topic, I would say we are looking at the result of a cooperation between GKABS and yakarov79. The base models come from GKBAS (A-6A early and late already released here, the A-6B is yet to come) and yakarov79 is making fine-tuning and adding additional details to the models also adjusting his skins to the models.

I have read that the E-7R, which was the prototype for the MiG-21R, was based on the MiG-21PF and in fact it was a serial MiG-21PF that got converted. The first 2 MiG-21R were in fact serial MiG-21PFM (izd. 94) converted into MiG-21R. The MiG-21RF was the export version of the MiG-21R. Since the MiG-21R was based on the MiG-21PF, it did not come from the factory with the subject plates. I myself am more willing to take these plates as FOD protection measure. If you check a side profile of a MiG-21 with such plates installed, you will notice the plates are not simetrically placed under the auxiliary intakes, meaning if you find the center of the auxiliary intake and draw a straight line perpendicular to the plates, that line will not cross the center of the plates. The plates are placed slightly ahead and under the auxiliary intakes, which indicates they are meant to deflect stuff coming from infront below rather than from behind below. And if you connect the center of the auxiliary intake with the center of the plate below it and extend the line, the line will touch the front wheel. That may be just amateur logic, but to me it indicates the plates are meant to protect from debris, lifted by the front wheel.

I am sure Gepard knows better, but from what I have read, the Monsun dual rails were used on the PFM, not the PF and in Poland and in the DDR only. Oddly enough, here is a picture of what looks to me like a DDR MiG-21PF (judging by what appears to me as a PF forward-hinged, single-piece canopy and the narrower PF vertical tail) with the Monsun dual rail, that I came across. Mandatory screenshot - we also had MiG-21Ms , here in camo shortly before retirement.

That is interesting. This seems to be a picture from a training flight, proving the crews were trained into gunpod ground attacks with the A-6. What type is the gunpod and is it available as a stock weapon, or in any of the weapons packs?

Here they are. I just deleted the specific station code entry. RPK10.zip

I just downloaded TMF Mirage 5BA from the SFP1 downloads section and there is no RPK10 included, neither as a built-in rack (like the stock Mirage 5BA has), nor as a separate weapon. I also checked one of TMF weapons packs and found 2 versions of the RPK10 in it. M3_RPK_C M3_RPK_V As far as I can see, the difference is that the M3_RPK_V has the pylon built-in, whereas the M3_RPK_C does not have a pylon. I made a quick test with the M3_RPK_C and it shows just fine in game on TMF Mirage 5BA without any modification to SF2 standards (just for the test): All I did was: 1. Add SpecificStationCode=RPK10 in the M3_RPK_C_Data.ini file. 2. Edit the weapon stations of the TMF Mirage 5BA as follows: [LeftWingIntStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=3 StationGroupID=2 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=-2.155,-1.6,-0.805 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 LoadLimit=1000 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,RP,TER,BFT AttachmentType=FRANCE,NATO ModelNodeName=LeftInnerPylone PylonMass=72.58 PylonDragArea=0.02 RackSpecificStationCode=RPK10 [RightWingIntStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=4 StationGroupID=2 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=2.155,-1.6,-0.805 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 LoadLimit=1000 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,RP,TER,BFT AttachmentType=FRANCE,NATO ModelNodeName=RightInnerPylone PylonMass=72.58 PylonDragArea=0.02 RackSpecificStationCode=RPK10 I used the specific station code entry to make sure I am getting exactly the M3_RPK_C model loaded for the purposes of the test. Please ignore the fact that the RPK10 appears hanging in the air with no pylon. I just made a quick test to make sure the model shows up in the game and did not take care of which weapon station or which RPK10 version (with or without pylon) I was using. Hope the above helps.

A Grumman A-6A Intruder of attack squadron VA-165 Boomers from the aircraft carrier USS Ranger (CVA-61), armed with two AIM-9D Sidewinder air-to-air missiles on the inboard pylons. VA-165 was assigned to Attack Carrier Air Wing Two (CVW-2) from 4 November 1967 to 25 May 1968 to Vietnam:

Yes, both:

IMHO, the problem is with the pylons - they are a bit too high indeed. The cutout in the flap is there. If one would check the last but one picture and compare with the last one, one would definitely see the pylons are a bit too high. Just compare the position of right inner pylon lowest point at the front against the right main gear door as reference.

I guess you are talking about the Matra JL-100: Available thanks to Ravenclaw of course and this is the data ini: [WeaponData001] TypeName=JL-100 FullName=Matra JL-100 Rocket Pod ModelName=JL-100 Mass=422.500000 Diameter=0.410000 Length=4.449000 SubsonicDragCoeff=0.174000 SupersonicDragCoeff=0.514200 AttachmentType=FRANCE SpecificStationCode= NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1965 EndYear=0 Availability=3 BaseQuantity=4 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1965 ExportEndYear=0 ExportAvailability=3 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=SNEB68 NumRockets=18 ROF=18.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.150000 FrontCoverNodeName=Cover_Front RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE MirrorOffset=FALSE MaxFuelAmount=216.000000 Rocket01Position=-0.040000,1.411000,0.149000 Rocket02Position=0.039000,1.411000,-0.150000 Rocket03Position=-0.109000,1.411000,0.109000 Rocket04Position=0.109000,1.411000,-0.109000 Rocket05Position=-0.150000,1.411000,0.039000 Rocket06Position=0.149000,1.411000,-0.040000 Rocket07Position=-0.149000,1.411000,-0.040000 Rocket08Position=0.149000,1.411000,0.040000 Rocket09Position=-0.109000,1.411000,-0.109000 Rocket10Position=0.109000,1.411000,0.109000 Rocket11Position=-0.041000,1.411000,-0.149000 Rocket12Position=0.040000,1.411000,0.149000 Rocket13Position=-0.038000,1.662000,0.066000 Rocket14Position=0.038000,1.662000,-0.066000 Rocket15Position=-0.076000,1.662000,0.000000 Rocket16Position=0.075000,1.662000,-0.001000 Rocket17Position=-0.038000,1.662000,-0.066000 Rocket18Position=0.038000,1.662000,0.066000 In the aircraft data.ini, in the respective weapons station entry you have to add AllowedWeaponClass=RFT

A walkaround of an A-6A modified into an A-6E is available here: https://www.net-maquettes.com/pictures/grumman-a-6a-intruder-walkaround/ Just keep pressing "Load More" after the first 9 pictures as the walkaround contains a total of 157 images.

Hi, GKABS, hope you will be able to implement the different configurations of the Aero 1D 300-gal drop tank. Aero 1D single fin (to be loaded under the wings of the A-6A/B/C): Aero 1D with 2 fins (to be loaded on the centerline station under the fuselage during the early years of A-6 operations): Aero 1D with NO fins (to be loaded on the centerline station under the fuselage during the later years of A-6 operations): The models are not mine, but by one of the well-known, kind and generous modders here at CA and I am showing these only to illustrate my point.

The Scandinavian Front with the Viggen family included is available here at CA, but yes, a Viggen is not available as a standalone download, one has to download the full Scandinavian Front mod to get access to the Viggen. Unless I am mistaken, the Viggen family models were touched a bit by Ravenclaw at some point, so even if these and the DAT one originate from the same source file (which I am not sure they do), the models in the Scandinavian Front should not be affected by the said politics.

I support both an improved A-6 family (A-6A, A-6B, A-6C, KA-6D, A-6E, EA-6A, EA-6B) and a Viggen family (AJ-37, JA-37, SF-37, SH-37, SK-37, JA-37D). The stock A-6 has issues with the pylons - wrong size and shape. The drop tanks are wrong in size as well. The Viggen family available in the Scandinavian Front mod has issues with the control surfaces - these do not work correctly and I fear that may be more than just an issue with the data.ini.