What happened to the SAAFOPS theater
-
nm
-
it would be cool to have Gripen, Mirage F1AZ, MiG-21MF and MiG-23M 3D pit…the format is still the same I think
-
it would be cool to have Gripen, Mirage F1AZ, MiG-21MF and MiG-23M 3D pit…the format is still the same I think
MiG-21 and MiG-23 are so old AC with so old avionics which cannot be modeled with current code, the only result they would be ridiculously over modeleld. Even the '80s MiG-29 (9.12, 9.13) or Su-27S are on the edge considering the MFD and RWR modeling limitations.
-
I expected your reaction Molni…. I see your point, but flying MiG-21 in AF was the best Falcon fun for me… If you would try it …you would not call it overmodeled due to weak radar, missiles, etc. guess…
I think you can set shitty RWR as well, or turn it off completely in db (mig 19, 21F13 in AF). BTW, there were alternative MiG FMs posted over this forum… -
I expected your reaction Molni…. I see your point, but flying MiG-21 in AF was the best Falcon fun for me… If you would try it …you would not call it overmodeled due to weak radar, missiles, etc. guess…
I think you can set shitty RWR as well, or turn it off completely in db (mig 19, 21F13 in AF). BTW, there were alternative MiG FMs posted over this forum…Not only the avioncs over modeled, the MiG-21 has such flight control which comparing to F-16 FCS means literally do not have at all…
…while you can fly as safe and careless with MiG-21 as with F-16.I rather spend resources upgrade the core DB a much higher level as current. Sadly the DB upgrade always lags way, way behind the code changes. Even after almost 20+ (!!) years of development Falcon still does not have such DB which just barely could model / mimic the structure at least the red side…
-
but these pits and models are already done…just sitting on someones HDD…and perhaps disappear one day by disaster or HDD failure…
-
but these pits and models are already done…just sitting on someones HDD…and perhaps disappear one day by disaster or HDD failure…
Are we talking about fully 3D cockpits…?
-
Most probably yes but don’t expect 3d switches and buttons I believe.
Sent from TapaTalk
-
Something I have given some thought about was working on a common DB for theaters. I worked on this idea with FF a few years back - the idea was to keep Korea DB somewhat simplified and then put a lot of effort towards maximizing options with a “master DB” which I worked on for ITO2. This DB could then be used for multiple theaters and possessed a lot of models and skins to allow for a lot of possible theaters. If something isn’t there it can be added. I didn’t have the opportunity to fully develop the idea or test it but the test of ITO2 suggested that despite a lot of models and skins things didn’t seem to be adversely affected to the extent that ITO2 was tested.
The obvious limitation is that the BMS database is what is currently available in the Korea DB plus whatever is also available but doesn’t meet KoreaDB requirements. An example would be Jan Has C-130 or Phantoms. There are lots of other examples but for now it is probably safe to say there are a fair number of models, skins, and pits from contributors that could be added.
Having something like this, in effect, places one master DB with all the toys at everyone’s disposal. Given what I read so far - this kind of DB might have some issues for MP as well as not provide the idea environment for the F16 Centric development - but if folks can live without MP ( or with some aggravating crashes until all theaters DBs adhere to a set of universal files so that MP will work as intended then maybe that would be okay. I also sense there might be some reluctance in that some theaters may already have everything they need/want so adoption of a master DB carries not added value to them. However, for others it would be a way to enjoy the benefits of a robust DB without having to manage it themselves, at least not initially. The down side is, of course, being beholden to someone else’s time schedule, for example a DB might not be ready for one theater with all the bells and whistles desired, but ready for another. One upside, I believe, is not being restricted to the rigid requirements of the Korea DB - so things might progress more quickly. If theater developers can accept some risk in stability and frame-rate hits - then a master DB might just be the ticket.
One of the major departures for theaters, will likely be the airbaseses - depending on how sophisticated the theater becomes, a master DB can, at some point perhaps become rather restrictive. So, one permutation of the master DB idea is to have a fairly robust master DB which forms the basic starter set of files form which a theater developer can then move forward with a less intensive workload of DB manipulations to get a DB where its intended end state. If the KoreaDB is already at that point - then further discussion of an improve DB is moot.
-
Two points:
First, Molni did a fantastic job on the DB for his Korea 1980’s theater. I have consistently thought that his DB should be the standard for 80’s theaters. If you try his campaigns, you’ll find BMS is a completely different beast.
Second, anyone working on DB edits MUST, MUST, MUST be either working closely with, or be within the inner BMS development circle. Too much of what the development team is doing changes the DB and without collaborating with them closely, your work is doomed to the recycle bin.
Third- so I guess three points- while Molni has valid points regarding the fidelity of red jets, I repeat what I have always said. What we have now is still the best, even if it’s not very close to reality. What I mean is that barring the DCS MiG-21, and a few red FC3 level jets, there aren’t many options for flying red jets. It’s the few DCS, Strike Fighters, and whatever we can put into BMS. From that perspective, BMS is a viable alternative. So, Molni, with all respect, please understand that while you might roll your eyes at the idea, some of us really enjoy the challenge of playing this sim from the red side…even if the red jets are terribly overmodeled. There just aren’t many other options, so until there are, just let us have our fun and accept that it IS fun for some of us.
-
For me and with no mp compromises the best way for the dB would be a tool like file commander (remember Norton commander? ) have the ability to open two databases at the same time, tick what you want and merge them. The killer here mostly is 3d database the part which is mostly handled by lodeditor.
Tbuc (IIRC) tried to create such a tool but long time no see.
Falcon editor helped - helps with import export allot but… You still face the lodeditor with 1024x768 resolution and a ui and features from an era wich now is overcome.A master dB with all in would greatly help for reference.
Problem here would be lack of reference. Where is what.
Also file size would be enormous.
But for actual use I believe all the ppl that worked on such things had their share of crashes or Falcon going nuts and start all over from day zero with LODEditor. In my humble opinion problems originated from lodeditor with the major lack of the feature to erase a bogus entry, either totally or replace it and fix it.Sent from TapaTalk
-
Two points:
First, Molni did a fantastic job on the DB for his Korea 1980’s theater. I have consistently thought that his DB should be the standard for 80’s theaters. If you try his campaigns, you’ll find BMS is a completely different beast.
Second, anyone working on DB edits MUST, MUST, MUST be either working closely with, or be within the inner BMS development circle. Too much of what the development team is doing changes the DB and without collaborating with them closely, your work is doomed to the recycle bin.
Third- so I guess three points- while Molni has valid points regarding the fidelity of red jets, I repeat what I have always said. What we have now is still the best, even if it’s not very close to reality. What I mean is that barring the DCS MiG-21, and a few red FC3 level jets, there aren’t many options for flying red jets. It’s the few DCS, Strike Fighters, and whatever we can put into BMS. From that perspective, BMS is a viable alternative. So, Molni, with all respect, please understand that while you might roll your eyes at the idea, some of us really enjoy the challenge of playing this sim from the red side…even if the red jets are terribly overmodeled. There just aren’t many other options, so until there are, just let us have our fun and accept that it IS fun for some of us.
Yes, the problem are the unique DB objects for 3rd party theaters but at least for Korea it could be make a new DB. I have made a doc about how should look the red side, you can find it in the suggestion thread.
In case I do again '80s MOD I would follow that, DB will be more accurate and better usable comparing what I released.I’m not against playing campaign red side, in fact it would be great. But gameplay and balancewise currently this should be limited 4th generation jets to be avoid over modeling. So in an '80s scenario flying against F-16C B25/30/32 with Su-27S and MiG-29 9.12 / 9.13 won’t be so strongly sci-fi, at least you can cound an alternate universe where the avionics of these jets are little more advanced what were in RL. But doing this with MiG-21/23? At least to me it is pointless and not fun.
The main problem to me always the very strange modeling values which make pointless too many defense tactic and they are simiply do not match what happened in RL wars.
-
For me and with no mp compromises the best way for the dB would be a tool like file commander (remember Norton commander? ) have the ability to open two databases at the same time, tick what you want and merge them. The killer here mostly is 3d database the part which is mostly handled by lodeditor.
Tbuc (IIRC) tried to create such a tool but long time no see.
Falcon editor helped - helps with import export allot but… You still face the lodeditor with 1024x768 resolution and a ui and features from an era wich now is overcome.A master dB with all in would greatly help for reference.
Arty, the reason why I stopped working on the DB manager was because there was no guarantee from the DEVs that the work would get any kind of support by them in the future. As Toonces wrote, it does not make any sense to spend a lot of time writing a DB manager (and perhaps a master DB) for 4.33, to see a different DB structure in 4.34. I tried in several posts/PM in the past to get some kind of feedback from the DEVs in this regard, but the general response was they could not guarantee anything or share any information with me (not a DEV). Unless that happens, i.e. some kind of cooperation can be established at least regarding DB structure etc, it is pointless to do ANY work toward a DB unification or whatsoever of that kind.
From my end, if I could work faster than I can do right now, I could show what a DB manager/master DB could do for BMS, and hopefully convince the DEVs to share info (DB strcuture, functionallity, etc) before the next BMS version comes out. The problem is, I don´t know when the next update will be, and I don´t know if my work right now would be compatible. So, I´d rather keep flying and coding for other personal projects.
The last >incomplete< version of the DB manager was able already to copy complete CT entries from one DB into another one (or do a comparison). It was able to check the whole DB to see if a given unit/vehicle etc was present in two different DB but had different CT/ect numbers. I started working ona master DB idea by generating a new “CDTSS number” for each unit/vehicle in this new master DB.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?14734-BMS-Database-Manager-(WIP)
-
Is there a link for WIP version?
-
No, Molni. Still some bugs there when I stopped working on it. For example, some problems with updating the rack information correctly when copying between DBs.
-
Well tbuc thanks for the time and effort.
I believe u should be more persistent on continuing on the tool.
Specially now that 4.31.1 is out. Sure they can’t promise or give info but hey how do you think new members join the team?
Do your magic have a good character (as you already show) and the rest will follow I believe.
I believe u understand what a great help your tool will be.
In the process and if u ask in public or with pm’s i believe the devs will respond. Maybe not in a zap but will or maybe some other members. Don’t be so sure they know and remember all by heart… They might have no idea and maybe have to look at the code and still not be 100% sure. It’s a chaos the Falcon code they have zillion outstandings and your requests just add to the bottom of it with no priority at all…
I believe I’m close to how it is.Sent from TapaTalk
-
Well tbuc thanks for the time and effort.
I believe u should be more persistent on continuing on the tool.
Specially now that 4.31.1 is out. Sure they can’t promise or give info but hey how do you think new members join the team?
Do your magic have a good character (as you already show) and the rest will follow I believe.
I believe u understand what a great help your tool will be.
In the process and if u ask in public or with pm’s i believe the devs will respond. Maybe not in a zap but will or maybe some other members. Don’t be so sure they know and remember all by heart… They might have no idea and maybe have to look at the code and still not be 100% sure. It’s a chaos the Falcon code they have zillion outstandings and your requests just add to the bottom of it with no priority at all…
I believe I’m close to how it is.Sent from TapaTalk
This is the fate of all developers Theatres and tools for Falcon. We live here and now. And here and now we give the best of ourselves.
-
@Joe:
This is the fate of all developers Theatres and tools for Falcon. We live here and now. And here and now we give the best of ourselves.
The problem until I had lots of free time for Falcon I had time what I could spend to make again and again my MOD. Now I simply do not have time for it…
I could make relatively fast a “'80s lite” MOD - quick sensor changes, only small OBB changes in campaigns - but such a full MOD what I did last time… I’m not even enough brave to start.
After I finshed any new release could ruin the whole and I have no idea how can be updated and applied fast to new release. I have no idea how solved the compatibility issues all the 3rd party makers so fast even they are work in team…
Since I knew the key issues of DB I simply do not fly with core DB. I have to say I did not fly at all with 4.33 only for testing…
-
Gentleman, another possible solution is to have full theater switching - ie totally independent theaters from Korea. Baldeagle did that for his Cobra and RV Team did for FreeFalcon.
Theater development without complete theater switching of all files introduces possible unintended conflicts and puts all he burden for deconfliction on the theater developers who really have no say in what goes on in Korea. Cutting the dependency on Korea could resolve some issues for theater devs and might really spur a resurgence in theater work if folks know stability and reliability will be increased.
It is somewhat ironic that I had this same discussion on the Freefalcon forum and was initially rejected. When Baldeagle was moved out of being the head coder at FreeFalcon, he joined up with F4ITDG and took up the task for making theater switching occur - took maybe two weeks to get it running. Later, when I moved to FreeFalcon team, RV Team took it up and I think it took Biker about 2 days to work it out … so, I know from a coding standpoint it is doable and doesn’t take that long. It is really more a matter for BMS leadership to consider one way or another. It wouldn’t hurt to ask.
-
More historical info I located.
4Falcon4 Website - Intro Page
The Angolan Theatre (4F4-AT) is a 96 x 96 campaign (Korea being 64 x 64), that means double the airspace, and stretches from Walvisbaai, Namibia in the south up to the Cabinda enclave in the north of Angola. 4F4-AT will represent two scenarios, the first based on the 1965-1990 war between South African and Cuban-led Angolan forces in the south of Angola.
Basically the first campaign fires up with South African cross-border raids against SWAPO guerilla camps and positions in the South of Angola, as witnessed during Operation Protea, and following history, South African forces being sucked deeper and deeper into a full scale conventional war in support of Savimbi’s UNITA against Soviet-backed and Cuban led Angolan Brigades (Operation Modular). What most people don’t realise is that, whilst most of the west was still fighting a theoretical Cold War, South African forces were facing the latest Soviet weapons technology in the African forests and savannahs. MiG-23’s and Mi-24 Hinds backed by the entire SAM series from SA-1’s to SA-18, against ageing Mirage F1 fighters and Buccaneers.
What most people don’t realise is that, whilst most of the west was still fighting a theoretical Cold War, South African forces were facing the latest Soviet weapons technology in the African forests and savannahs. MiG-23’s and Mi-24 Hinds backed by the entire SAM series from SA-2’s to SA-14, against ageing Mirage F1 fighters and Buccaneers.
On the ground T-55’s and Olifant tanks locked down into conventional and mortal combat, whilst back “home” in Namibia, regular infantery and Alouette-III gunships were engaged in a classic hit and run counter-insurgency campaign against SWAPO guerillas. Remember this was not a high-tech BVR “lock up and shoot” war, dogfights were up close and personal and over in a jiffy. Unlike the USAF, bear in mind that both teams did not have a basically “unlimited” source of weapons supply. For example lets say that South Africa only had about 15 Buccaneers (thumb suck) to their availability - this means every mission has to count or the campaign is in peril !
The second campaign is basically a “what if” scenario to depict “what could have happened” if the war was still continuing today i.e., 1990 to today. This will bring aircraft such as the Denel Cheetah to the front, pitted against later supplied Mig-29’s of FAPA-DAA.
// latest LODS …
An-22 .zip 01AEC4DB01AEC4DC
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon 4.0/Models/an-22.zipAn-14 .zip 01B1E6EB01AEC4DD
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon 4.0/Models/an-14.zipAn-26 Curl .zip 01B326BE01AEC4DE
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon 4.0/Models/an-26.zipIL-62M .zip 01C98B3901C98B3A
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon 4.0/Models/IL-62M.zipShackleton MR.3 .zip 051DE7FF051DE7E1
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon 4.0/Models/Shackleton%20MR3.zipAM.3C Bosbok .zip 051F69AE051DE7E2
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon%204.0/Models/AM.3C%20Bosbok.zipC4M Kudu .zip 0033E3EF00297643
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon%204.0/Models/Atlas%20C4M%20Kudu.zipImpala Mk.2 .zip 0035321A00297644
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon%204.0/Models/Atlas%20Impala%20Mk.2.zipC-47A Dakota .zip 003825C700297645
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon%204.0/Models/C-47A%20Dakota.zipMirage IIIR2Z .zip 0039B63B00297646
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205231357/http://www.666th.com/uploads/ModelBase/Falcon%204.0/Models/Dassault%20Mirage%20IIIR2Z.zipAM.3C Bosbok.zip
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603222702/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=17AM.3C Bosbok
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603222702/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=18Ratel-90 IFV
ratel90.zip
http://web.archive.org/web/20050122003535/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=21Cessna 180
_Cessna 180.zip
http://web.archive.org/web/20050122004603/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=22http://web.archive.org/web/20040622001046/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=28
_SA-330 Puma.zip
http://web.archive.org/web/20040523091929/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=295010.zip
http://web.archive.org/web/20040523091929/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=30SA-321 Super Frelon
_SA-321 Super Frelon.zip
http://web.archive.org/web/20040523072502/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=31Mi4
_Mi4.zip
http://web.archive.org/web/20040523072502/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=32An-12
http://web.archive.org/web/20040523072502/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=335009.zip
Matra JL100 Rocket/Fuel Tank
http://web.archive.org/web/20040523072502/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=341155L External Fuel Tank
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603222702/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=35SA-330 Puma
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603222702/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=36SA-321 Super Frelon
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603222702/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=37SA-316 Alouette III
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603222702/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=38Atlas Impala Mk2
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603222702/http://www.666th.com/uploads/4downloader.asp?ID=39http://web.archive.org/web/20041228002557/http://www.666th.com/uploads/map.gif
// news …
January 26, 2004
4falcon4 - Remodelling Falcon 4.0 Well for starters most of the aircraft used in the Angolan Theatre of Operations don’t exist in Falcon 4.0 - especially those propeller driven. Soviet equipment is extensively modelled, but no South African produced weapon systems such as the G6 155mm SPG, the Ratel IFV, the V3B Kukri AAM, and some older aircraft such as the Shackleton MR.3.Secondly, most of the models were designed a few years back when a Riva TNT2 equipped Pentium 3 was still hot stuff… meaning they are generally of the least detailed models found in any sim today. Computing power has increased radically since Falcon was released.
By the time the Angolan Theatre is released SP4 would be out for sure, and we want our models to still be leading edge. Have a look at say FS2002 or FS2004, LOMAC, Strike Fighters or ground shooters such as Battlefield 1942. Models are well detailed and look real, not JUST feel real.
BOTH are important if you are SIMulating reality. That is why we are remodelling weapon systems and aircraft used in the Angolan Theatre.
If you have a look at the flyable F-16 in Falcon today, you would see it contains about 6000 polygons, now look at the existing Mirage F1 and you see the difference.
All our flyable aircraft are rebuilt from scratch, to 6000-7000 spec polygons, all with 2D/3D cockpit modelling.
Frame hits won’t be an issue as the “amount” of aircraft or ground vehicles in the campaign is vastly less and scattered amongst the vast plains of Africa.
Unlike heavy air activity campaigns such as the Korean Theatre, things in Africa happen over a much bigger horizon, and available aircraft does not come close to that of the Korean Theatre. You are going to be more alone out there, hugging the ground at 50ft, going full AB. Africa is all about serious mud moving, pinpoint strikes, BDA and off course top cover work.
Official 4falcon4 Site : http://4f4.666th.com/
–-###—
January 12, 2004
High-Res Models in Falcon 4Have managed to inject some high res (polycounts 6500-7500) models from FS2004 into Falcon 4.0. I have managed to find a plugin that does this easily if you follow my video tutorial on the subject…
Basically I import via an extra step, and what you end up with is a very detailed model in F4. Sure LODediting is going to be a nightmare, BUT especially with Falcon 4.0 growing in heaps and bounds, getting some good high res aircraft modelling would not be work wasted in time.
These models are intended for FLAYABLE aircraft in Falcon 4.0 and certainly outshine even the current F-16 in Falcon 4.0 when it comes to modelling detail. They all include full cockpit interior 3D modelling including instrument panels, pilot, ejection seat detail and cockpit controls on most)
At the 4F4 site I have uploaded Level 1 LODS of the;
Mirage IIIR2Z
C-47A Dakota
Cheetah C
C4M Kudu
Impala Mk.2 (Aermacchi MB-326KC)—###—
January 12, 2004
New LODS ex-ccc ccc has contributed LODS of the following equipment (see TOE list at
the F4F Site.G-5 155mm
G-6 155mm SPG
Ratel-20 IFV
M-46
MTU-20 bridgelayer—###—
Pitworx \saaf\dassault mirage IIIr2z
Mirage IIIR2Z cv.001
Work is currently underway on the 2D panels (see pics), built from scratch using Photoshop 7 and original photos taken of a R2Z cockpit at the SAAF Museum, Ysterplaat.
In order to get 3D and 2D view perspectives correct, all panels are first imported into FS2004 for testing using the free utility cfgedit.
3D pit Based on the original model built by Denis and Daniel da Silva for MSFS 2000. [email protected]
[email protected]Format : MDL
Model converted & optimised by ‘Mad Dog’ McEwan.
model 1700 polygons (currently)
LOD level 3SAAF Service : 1967 - 1990 (RZ)
SAAF Service : 1974 - 1990 (R2Z)A number of reconnaissance variants were built under the general designation of “Mirage IIIR”. These aircraft had a Mirage IIIE airframe; Mirage IIIC avionics; a camera nose and unsurprisingly no radar; and retained the twin DEFA cannon and external stores capability. The camera nose accommodated up to five OMERA cameras.
The AdA obtained 50 production Mirage IIIRs, not including two prototypes. Interestingly, the Mirage IIIR preceded the Mirage IIIE in operational introduction. Export versions of the Mirage IIIR were built for South Africa and Switzerland. The Swiss only bought one, designated “Mirage IIIRS”, as a prelude to license manufacture, and built 17 more. Like the Mirage IIIS, Switzerland’s Mirage IIIRS aircraft were later upgraded to feature fixed canards and new avionics.
The AdA also obtained 20 improved “Mirage IIIRD” reconnaissance variants, essentially a Mirage IIIR with an extra panoramic camera in the most forward nose position, and the Doppler radar and other avionics from the Mirage IIIE.
Export variants were purchased by Abu Dhabi, Belgium, Columbia, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and South Africa. Some export Mirage IIIRDs were fitted with British Vinten cameras, not OMERA cameras. Most of the Belgian aircraft were built locally.
The Dassault Mirage IIIR was a development of the Mirage IIIE fighter which saw distinguished service with a number of countries, most notably the IAF during the Six Day War in the Middle East.
Designed as a dedicated reconnaissance aircraft to replace the RF-86F in the Armee de l’Air, the aircraft eventually equipped 3 squadrons 3/33, 2/33 and 1/33.
The main difference between this aircraft and the fighter version involved the removal of the Cyrano radar from the nose and replacing it with up to 5 Omera Type 31 optical cameras configured for either low, medium or high altitude photography. The IIIRD version was equipped with a chin bulge for doppler radar, a gyro sight and a modified nose pack containing Omera Type 40 and 33 cameras. The 5R version was a similar conversion of the Mirage 5. Since 1071 the SAT Cyclope 160 A5 Infra Red Linescan was often installed in the nose.
3D model by Denis and Daniel da Silva
Mirage IIIRZ
Reconnaissance model for South Africa fitted with Mirage 5 engine and upgraded avionics; 8 built
Mirage IIIR2Z
Version of Mirage IIIR for South Africa with improved engine (Atar 9K-50 engine)The Mirage IIIR2Z was retired from SAAF service in 1990. Denel proposed a Cheetah R reconnaissance conversion and #855 was used as the prototype, but in the end Cheetah C fighters with sensor pods was the preferred option of the SAAF.
Country of mfr: France
Length: 50 ft 10 in (15.50 m)
Wing span: 27 ft 0 in (8.22 m)
Wing Area: 375 sq.ft (34.85 sq.m)
Height: 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m)
Weight, empty: 14,550 lb (6 600kg)
Weight, max t/o: 30,203 lb (13 700 kg)
Power plant: 1 x SNECMA Atar 09K50 turbojet 6200-kg (13,668-lb) thrust (60.8 kN) with afterburner
Max speed: 863 mph (750 kt) Mach 1.14 at sea level; 1,460 mph (2,350 km/h) at 39,370 ft (12,000 m), Mach 2.2
Max range: typical: 1,294 nm (2,400 km)
ferry: 2,160 nm (4,000 km)
Initial Climb Rate: 16,400 ft (5,000 m) / min
Service Ceiling: 55,755 ft (17,000 m)
Fuel Capacity internal: 880 gal (3,340 L)
Armament: option of carrying two 30-mm DEFA 552A cannon with 125 rounds per gun and, in exceptional circumstances, air-to-surface armamentPitworx \saaf\dassault mirage IIIBZ
SAAF Service : 1964 - 1990
While Dassault kept their sales department busy taking orders for the ever more refined Mirage fighters, the company did not ignore the need to provide trainers to help pilots learn how to handle the fast aircraft.
The Mirage IIIB trainer, had tandem seating, with a fuselage stretch of over a meter relative to the Mirage IIIA and the cannon deleted to accommodate the second seat. The IIIB also did not have radar nor provision for the SEPR rocket, but it could carry external stores.
The AdA ordered a total of 63 Mirage IIIBs, including:
- the prototype and 27 similar production aircraft
- 5 “Mirage IIIB-1s” as dedicated trials aircraft.
- 10 “Mirage IIIB-2(RV)s”, with a dummy refuelling probe replacing the nose pitot to operate as inflight refuelling trainers for Mirage IV bomber pilots.
- 20 “Mirage IIIBEs”, matching the multirole Mirage IIIE single-seat fighter. The Mirage IIIBE had a distinctly different nose from the Mirage IIIB, lacked the ventral fin extension of the Mirage IIIB, and was fitted with a set of strakes on the lower fuselage, below the cockpit. It was also fitted with the improved Atar 09C-3 turbojet of the Mirage IIIE, instead of the Atar 09B of the Mirage IIIC / IIIB, and so had the “petal” style exhaust instead of the “eyelid” style exhaust.
One Mirage IIIB was fitted with a fly-by-wire flight control system in the mid-1970s and redesignated “Mirage IIIB-SV (Stabilitie Variable)”. The scheme ended up in the Mirage 2000.
Some export customers obtained the Mirage IIIB with designations only changed to provide a country code. However, other customers obtained the Mirage IIIBE under the general designation “Mirage IIID” or “Mirage 5D”, reflecting the fighter variant operated by the user, though the trainers were generally similar to the Mirage IIIBE except for minor changes in equipment fit.
In fact, in some cases they were identical, since two surplus AdA Mirage IIIBEs were sold to Brazil under the designation “Mirage IIIBBR”, and three were similarly sold to Egypt under the designation “Mirage 5SDD”. New-build exports of this type included aircraft sold to Abu Dhabi, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Egypt, Gabon, Libya, Pakistan, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, Venezuela, and Zaire. Australian and Belgian aircraft were locally assembled.
3D model by Alpha Simulations
A total of 1,422 Mirage III/5/50 aircraft of all types were built by Dassault. There were a few unbuilt variants:
A “Mirage IIIK” that was powered by a Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan was offered to the British Royal Air Force.
The “Mirage IIIM” was a carrier-based variant, with catapult spool and arresting hook, for operation with the French Aeronavale.
The “Mirage IIIW” was a lightweight fighter version, proposed for a US competition, with Dassault partnered with Boeing. The aircraft would have been produced by Boeing, but it lost to the Northrop F-5A.
South Africa purchased 3 x Mirage IIIBZ’s as conversion trainers for the IIICZ.
Country of mfr: France
Length: 50 ft 6 in (15.40 m)
Wing span: 27 ft 0 in (8.22 m)
Weight, empty: 13,570 lb (6 155kg)
Weight, max t/o: 27,777 lb (12 600 kg)
Power plant: 1 x SNECMA Atar 09B turbojet (6 000 kg static thrust)
Max speed: 1,460 mph (2 350 km/h) (M 2.2)
Max range: 808 miles (1 300 km)Aircarft that were flyihg in F4:
Buccaneer SMK50
C-130B
Impala Mk.2
MiG-21bis/MF
MiG-23ML
MirageIIIR2Z
MirageF1CZIn the Angolan theatre, the Mirage F1AZ becomes the main flyable a/c replacing the F-16 Falcon alltogether, other flyables are the Buccaneer S.50, Aermacchi MB-3326KC Impala 2, and the Mirage IIIR2Z. OPFOR flyables planned are the SU-22 and Mig23.
The Angolan Theatre makes exclusive use of satellite photography for terrain modelling and photographic aircraft textures. The Beta is anticipated for release at AAD2004 and available on CD/DVD only (initially), featuring a complete online multimediabook on the war itself in Angola.