• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

And then there were two (Aerosoft cancels A-10)

rvn817j said:
See above for my selections. If anyone does an S-3A, I have the Weapons Systems (Unclassified) NATOPS (for what little worth it is). Since there are potentially 2 A-10s soon to be out, if someone does an S-3, the TF-34 engine will be very well represented! This is like the 'Golden Age' of FSX...great planes, great scenery, great systems to run it. Wow......
icon22.gif
Click to expand...

Didn't IRIS do an S-3 ? or say they were making one or rebuilding ?, it does fit the guidelines, but not on the current short list I'm afraid, good choice and appeals to my USN side a lot, always did like the Viking.

Kindest

Michael
 
Yes - S-3A FS2004 Freeware

michael davies said:
Didn't IRIS do an S-3 ? or say they were making one or rebuilding ?, it does fit the guidelines, but not on the current short list I'm afraid, good choice and appeals to my USN side a lot, always did like the Viking.

Kindest

Michael
Click to expand...

Yes, Iris did the S-3A in FS2004 and knowing what I know about converting to FSX I will need someone to do it for FSX! I'm not a complete naboob, but the next best thing.
 
The IRIS S-3 had some issues such as the wings cutting into each other when they were folded.

Without hesitation I would purchase a good S-3 and a S-2F.

VCN-1
 
michael davies said:
...Tell you what and playing devils advocate just a little :), list all the high interest jets between 1950 and 1980, single seat or side by side maximum, two engines max (B-47 is an exception due to the cockpit layout) and see what you come up with, then cross reference that with other developers and see what your left with LOL.
Click to expand...
LOL, do you remember the time when Carenado and Aerosoft were throwing out one civvie prop after the other and the military guys were limited to shabby FS9 ports? Not so long ago and now we are hard pressed to find a military plane that is NOT already out or in development. :d :d

Paradise, if you think about it...

To add something constructive: disregarding the jet limit I would propose C-123 or C-160 (hey remember, Aerosoft is German). These titles could also interest some civvie pilots, well I guess so at least.
An IDS Tornado with the system depth of the F-16 would also be imaginable for me (it kinda worked in FS9 for a certain company as Mathijs will surely remember :d ).
 
michael davies said:
Now you know full well why thats in the list ! LOL, all that behind the scenes work you've been doing wasn't for nothing :), in fact it was that 'little' project that kicked all this off, so hats off to you for putting me in contact with the 'relevant' parties :salute:.

Kindest

Michael
Click to expand...



Anyone is welcome to build an EE Lightning, my production line is currently blocked up for various reasons.

David.
 
michael davies said:
You know I had to go and look up what a T-37 was last night LOL, quite a dinky little affair really.

Best

Michael
Click to expand...

T-37 i got no respect for. its an ugly little tadpole. But the A-37?? thats a whole nuther bird and story.. yeah sure, its based on the same airframe, but theres where the likeness stops.. the A-10 uses more powerful engines and well, the loadout is staggering..

uru2.jpg


df-st-86-11659.jpg


It also appears they lengthened the nose and made it a little but more pointed.. a grrat improvement in appearance i must say..
 
I have to confess, it is amazing what they hang on the little itty bitty plane :), Like the A-4, its payload belies its size.

Best

Michael
 
Aaaaaaaaactually, those are napalm bombs..
She could carry more than her weight..


The military at first had no interest in her, but after too many sandy's got shot down, they reconsidered and learned that the little T-37 was an excellent close support platform. With its mini gun and its six to eight hard points, the A-37 became one of the best aircraft to fly during vietnam..
 
Aaaaaaaaactually, those are napalm bombs..
Click to expand...

You sure? Look more like practice bombs to me...

Does seem to be carrying a lot of drop tanks mind, probably should have put in some internal fuel!
 
It's mostly the fact they're blue which is generally used to denote practice ammo, light red is used for napalm. Generally on live ammo they just use coloured bands and paint the rest olive drab.
Obviously this doesn't include BAe's marketing ideas (riot control Sea Dart anyone?) or fibreglass dummies (Yeovilton's gate guard is not 'that' tooled up!).
 
SkippyBing said:
It's mostly the fact they're blue which is generally used to denote practice ammo, light red is used for napalm. Generally on live ammo they just use coloured bands and paint the rest olive drab.
Obviously this doesn't include BAe's marketing ideas (riot control Sea Dart anyone?) or fibreglass dummies (Yeovilton's gate guard is not 'that' tooled up!).
Click to expand...


That might be just an anomaly with the first picture. Even the wing looks blue, and the one blue piece of ordanance in the picture is reallllly blue.. in the second picture taken in Nam, they are definately what the military at the time called green..
 
I think theres some crossed wires here LOL, I believe Pam is talking about the tanks, where as y'all others are talking about the little bomblets on stations 1 and 2, in the second image they are practice bombs and the tanks could be either Napalm or fuel, though I'm tending to side with Napalm as they apprear to have a filler connection or something and you dont tend to fill the pylon fuel tanks with their own entry point, its usually done via the aircraft single point filling station, I think ?.

Best

Michael
 
you dont tend to fill the pylon fuel tanks with their own entry point, its usually done via the aircraft single point filling station, I think ?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's definitive either way, I've stood by a Strikemaster where each fuel tank was individually gravity refuelled which took an age! Similarly I know some naval aircraft had two filler caps on the pylon tanks so you could fuel them with the wings folded or unfolded. I 'think' it may be something to do with pressure refuelling and/or the complexities of the fuel system where it may just be easier to fill the external tanks separately, rather than add extra float level switches and sequencing valves.

Agree with you on the crossed wires! To clarify, if it looks like you could pick it up in one hand, I think it's a practise bomb, under one arm I'm not 100% and a two man lift fuel tank or napalm. Certainly the early napalm bombs were converted fuel tanks so you can't really say!
 
definetley crossed wires.. i was referring to the tanks.. Unless thats an OA-37 my bet would go to napalm.. Nam is a tiny lil country ( 50 miles from saigon to the coast and 20 miles from Nha trang to Camh Ranh ). and that little plane wouldn't need but her internal tanks to make it from one end to the other and most of the way back.. I'm not sure quite who's responsibility it was, but they'd fill the tanks, then pour in this powder that jellified the gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top