Stil needs the outer pylons for bombs
think smin said that the airframe we have in game was built as a C model, would need be an A model converted to a C
1 Like
Really wished the F111s got the popeye. Still a welcome change nonetheless
is there a way to visually identify f111a and f111c/g which both are based on the longer f111b wings?
Probably only by reverse lookup of the Tail code since they are all known.
ps the g/f can be identified by the missing plate infront of the engine intake
but the c still has it
wing span f111a 19.2m
f111f 19m
f111b/c/g 21.3m
1 Like
Currently these are not planned. The report is on further review until it can be clarified. But it seems the aircraft(s) pictured were converted F-111As that retained that option and are not necessarily reflective of standard F-111Cs with the later equipment fits we have in game.
3 Likes
If this is all that is stopping the addition? There are a bunch of reports that could probably be filed to remove ordnance from a multitude of airframes; For example.
Do we know upon what basis the A-7E has the GPU-5/A, since the Navy wasn’t involved in the Pave Claw program (and the relevant brochure that would qualify the A-7 airframe isn’t good enough for the F-15A &-C to receive the same)? Or is it just that the A-7D could mount other gunpods, so it gets to keep it?
Is there going to be a declaration of which Mission / MLU tape each F-16 is being held to, because there are a few issues (like the “F-16C-50” M6.5 w/ both AIM-7 & SDB in US service).
1 Like
there is another issue with your view
the f111A that got converted to f111c standard were bought to replace crashed f111c in 1982 so its the later models that should have the 8 hard-points if you are correct with only ex f111a having said option
1 Like
If you wish to submit them, please feel free and the developers will respond to each one. This is simply the answer specifically for the F-111C.
At the moment it’s simply a lack of clear information to show it was anything other than converted A models.
2 Likes
Sadly it needs to be proven clearly that non converted A models have this function. So far all evidence points towards A conversions to Cs.
2 Likes
this plane above is not a converted a model its a c model that got converted to a RF-111c reconnaissance plane in 1980 2 years before converted A models were a thing
4 Likes
This image is still under consideration. As mentioned above, once it can be properly clarified what medications this aircraft has, a decision will be made. Just at the moment, this is not clear.
1 Like
I can prove that the Yak-141 never had an IRST installed, and yet it gets planned features.
The F-4E (e.g. GBU-15 w/ lack of TISEO) / F-14A Early ( Beaver tail, IRSTS) / F-15A (Flares) / F-16 etc. all remains a non-specific Block, Franken airframe making reports pointless since they are held to seemingly arbitrary standards to maintain the BR not actually represent any specific configuration.
I get making allowances for cockpits and assorted 3D modeling errors, but not ordnance and features since they have a much greater impact.
The issue is that there seems to be no consistent guidance differentiating the rules for prototype, (Non-flying) demonstrator, limited production and (Non-)Service Airframe / ordnance options.
Let alone where liberties have been taken.
The lack of referenced sources for what I would assume to be edge cases like the A-7 getting the GPU-5/A doesn’t help.
As an aside is there any hope that the GPU-5/A (finally) gets implemented for the F-16A-10?
It turned up in the files way back, and my report on it on the old forums got accepted but nothing seemed to eventually be implemented.
2 Likes
Each matter is taken on a case by case review. No two situations are generally 1:1. The Yak-141 follows the same rules as others like the Mirage 4000, Swift F.7, Ho 229 and many more.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with the F-111C.
A suggestion report remains open for this.
2 Likes
👍
(This is a sentence)
Man, even planes have to worry about being investigated for roids these days. =)
Spoiler
Sorry Smin, I know it was your autocorrect that goofed, but this was too good an opportunity not to take lol.
5 Likes
The AGM130 and GBU15 use the same wiring and pylon, and have a similar shape. Any location where GBU15 can theoretically be used can use AGM130. I think the manual does not list the use of the AGM130 on the inside simply because there is not enough demand for an F111 to carry 4 ammo, and this would require additional separation testing. It’s not that the aircraft doesn’t physically support the use of the AGM130 on the inside, it’s just that the USAF has no need to use the AGM130 on the inside pylon in actual operation.
Personally I believe you are right, but this is the argument used by Gaijin… maybe a more modern manual has even lifted the restriction. There are quite some pictures of it carrying 4, but possibly only just for the photo. Perhaps part of the restriction to 2 is also due to employment, as having 4 would limit your sweep angle and release speed, which isn’t something you want if you really want to get maximum range out of the weapon.
Regardless, at least in game it doesn’t matter too much, the GBU-15 is plenty good enough and the lack of a prominent smoke trail makes it also harder to spot and shoot down.