Svetlin

Well, these are definitely F-5 275 gal drop tanks: The fact that all pictures from various angles represent just 1 airframe (3-6403) supports the theory that this could be just an experiment. I was unable to find pictures of other airframes fitted with such tanks. On the other hand fitting F-5 drop tanks to Mirage F1 in Iran makes a lot of sense considering how much IRIAF is exploiting the F-5 models, even to the extent of making their own variants - Azarakhsh, Saeqeh and Saeqeh-2. I would vote to implement both types, so players could choose on their own what to fit during a mission. In my opinion that would not be what-if territory. Can't wait for the Mirage F-1CT though, I am so happy it is its turn now.

For the NAVY F-4s, you will not find a better drop tank than the one, which is built into the stock models. All other drop tanks, that come from one of the weapon packs are actually older and not much of an improvement. Same stands for the stock USAF F-4C/D. Now, for the F-4E variants we are lucky to have the Ravenclaw's models and these come with excellent built-in drop tanks (could it be otherwise with a Ravenclaw's model!?).

MiG-21MF with APU-13U launch rails for the R-3R missiles, oh I do like that! Nice touch there.

I would love to see and fly in SF2 a better MiG-21U/US/UM model than the one available.

I guess a very brief description of the differences would be that provided in Wikipedia for EQ-6 - new Sherloc digital RWR, new Cyrano IV-SP1 radar, and capable of carrying two Exocet missiles at once. 30 built Mirage F1EQ-5 is capable of carrying a single Exocet under the fuselage. Other sources indicate Cyrano IV-MR radar with terrain avoidance capability for the EQ-6. An interesting piece of information on the EQ-6, that I came across, is that back in 1989 those were equipped with rails to carry and launch Kh-29L soviet/russian laser guided A2G missiles. On a different note, I am happy to see new Mirage F1 variants with later cockpits and more recce, ECM, etc. pods included in the weapons list, so I hope we are close to the moment when it will be time for updated Mirage F1CT/CR versions.

Thanks for the mod, Kevin, greatly appreciated. I am by no means an F-16 expert and I may be wrong, but I think there are a couple of errors with the new models of the F-16A/B ADF variant - I would say the shape of the tail fin is wrong on both the A and B ADF models. F-16A/B aircraft had the shorter and narrower triangular base for the tail fin. The wider and longer triangular base was introduced with the F-16C/D Blk25 aircraft. By looking at the F-16A/B ADF models in this mod, I would say they have the F-16C/D longer and wider triangular base for the tail fin with the ADF specific side bluges added and blade antenna removed. On a second note, according to the F-16.net site, the F-16B ADF differed from the F-16A ADF not only in being a 2-seater, but also in the lack of a Bendix-King AN/ARC-200 high freqeuncy single-sideband radio. The radio, being installed in the leading edge of the tail fin of the F-16A ADF lead to the flight control accumulators being relocated to the side of the tail fin. To provide sufficient space for the flight control accumulators, 2 long bulges appeared to the side of the F-16A ADF tail fin. Since the F-16B ADF did not have a Bendix-King radio installed, the flight control accumulators were kept in their original location and so no side bulges were needed for the tail fin. It means, that the F-16B ADF looked much like the F-16B Blk15 OCU with just the "bird-slicer" antenna added in front of the cockpit and in front of the front landing gear well. I have attached a couple of pictures of real F-16B ADF and a few screenshots from Mue's tool - of the F-16B ADF from this mod, of the previous F-16A ADF model from TMF, of the F-16C Blk25 with the blade antenna hidden for the purposes of illustrating my point, of the F-16B Blk15 OCU model and a couple of scrreenshots from the front to illustrate the incorrectly shaped wider triangular base of the F-16B ADF model compared with the F-16B Blk15 OCU model. I think the older F-16A ADF from TMF had the correct size and shape of the triangular base of the tail fin and the F-16B ADF should have the same size shape but without side bulges. I hope I will be excused for the nit-picking. Kind regards, Svetlin

That's great. Love to see 2-searers. I wonder what kind of mischief the guys in the cockpit did to deserve a no-seat-flight punishment. Technicians must have been mad at them.

No disrespect, but if I were you, I would not take all pictures as pure truth. I do not mean you are looking at a fake picture. It seems to me the aircraft on the picture is being prepared for an exhibition or something similar and is being loaded for show purposes, not necessarily for practical purposes in an actual warfare. I am not an expert and I might be wrong, but there seems to be too liitle clearance between the AIM-9s and the rocket pods. The other thing that is making me look with a suspicious eye is that in the picture you have a TER loaded with 2 rocket pods and a bomb at the same time. I have not seen other examples of such mixed load on a TER. Until someone knowledgeable or experienced says otherwise, or until I saw inflight pictures of such load on an aircraft during a real mission, I would rather consider this load as an unrealistic one, just for show purposes. Again, I mean no disrespect.

Take a look at that picture: You will notice that the Matra Magic missile is loaded on an angled rail. As far as I know the anlgled rail was for French IRMs and the straight one was for AIM-9s. Probably the Magic missile needed bigger separatiion from the inner pylon stores. I am thinking of those bomb-carrying fuel tanks, that had bombs hanging on the sides, designation RPK-10.

OMG, absolutely love it! Please apply the same magnificent treatment also to the RPL-501/502 and the RPL-522, if you have the time of course.

Looks gorgeous, ludo.m54, hope you could repaint also the drop tanks for the M2000, so that they match the excellent skin.

May be it would make more sense to follow this IAI Sa'ar scheme with respect to the shape of the bright yellow areas on the wings and the tail: The Mirage F1AZ looks fantastic in that what-if Israeli camo, brilliant idea!

Nice! There is a small typing error though in the text between the 2 black squares. ЗАМКИ ЛЮКА ЛЕРЕД РАБОТОЙ ЗАКРЫТЬ Should be: ЗАМКИ ЛЮКА ПЕРЕД РАБОТОЙ ЗАКРЫТЬ I hope you do not mind me pointing this out.

Oddly, I could not find many more pictures of this load setup. In fact I found just 1. Judging by the length of the bombs, I would say those are Mk.83 indeed. I have already editted the wonderful MER created by Ravenclaw to allow such setup as per my needs. Just needed to be sure of the type of bomb.

Hi, guys, could anyone confirm if the bombs in the picture are Mk.83s? I assume that odd arrangment on the MERs is to provide enough separation. I also wonder if TERs could have been used instead. Thank you in advance!

Hi EricJ, In the aircraft data.ini of the FA-18G: [RightMiddleWingStationA2G] //SUU-80 Pylon SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=12 StationGroupID=3 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=3.6136,-0.5421,-0.28 AttachmentAngles=4.0,-3.0,0.0 DiameterLimit=0.742 LoadLimit=1501 LengthLimit=5.181 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,EOGR,LGR,FT,2BR,EOGB,CGR,MER,TLR,ASM,NUC AttachmentType=USN,NATO,WGermany,USAF,Australia ModelNodeName=USN,NATO,UK,SWEDEN,Italy,Spain,WGermany,USAF,Australia <--- should be RightMiddlePylon PylonMass=140.9 PylonDragArea=0.03 LaunchRailNodeName=RightMiddleAGMRail LaunchRailHeight=0.169 FuelTankNodeName=RightMiddleDT FuelTankName=Tank480_FA18EFG MinExtentPosition=3.75,-2.43,-0.347 MaxExtentPosition=3.395,0.297,0.337

Hi, sophocles, great news. The refueling probe can be treated and set as a drop tank type of weapon. One would be able to select it and load it through the loading menu in the game. It would require the NoJettisionTank=TRUE line though so as to prevent it from being jettisonned in flight.

Hi, I think I found the data entry, which is causing this effect. Open the aircraft data.ini, go to the sections for LeftMainGear and RightMainGear and find the following line in each section: CompressGearOnRetraction=TRUE You may either change TRUE to FALSE, or comment out the line (//CompressGearOnRetraction=TRUE), or simply delete it. That will solve the sinking-wheels problem. It will result though in a slight visual oddity on gear retraction to where the landing gear will not compress and the wheels will pass through the aircraft fuselage, because the landing gear compartments are shorter than the fully extended landing gears. So not perfect, but works and so far I have not noticed any negative effect.

Anyone care to guess today's mission?

As NIELS said above, I would check Ravenclaw007's weapons pack 1 and 2, but also the WIP page for weapons pack 3: Weapons pack 3 has not been released yet, but Ravenclaw007 was generous and kind enough to share some of the weapons from it in the WIP thread above. I am not sure though if the bombs you are looking for have already been released or are yet to be with the weapons pack 3.

Just make sure to keep TK's typo - jettision instead of jettison. If you typed NoJettisonTank, it would not work. It must be NoJettisionTank as Crusader wrote. I myself keep forgetting that.

Yes, these are the stock Intruders and rails from Nightfall's A-4 packs and not only. Luckily Nighfall has modelled the AIM-9 rail with an adapter.

The odd part is that only the main gear of the static Intruders appears sinking in the flight deck, while at the same time the player's aircraft and the AI aircarft appear with main gear spot on.

You can use an invisible weapon, such as the attached. You can modify this to any type you want - bomb, LP, IRM, etc. EmptyBombPylon.7z