A-4C/A-4E/A-4EM/A-4H /A-4M/A-4N /A-4PTM/A-4SU/A-4AR
-
A-4K was a major upgrade…
-
A-4K was a major upgrade…
Yes, this was a very nice variant! Many aspects were close to A-4SU.
-
For those who requested and are interested, you can see that landing trim works well!
regards,
Radium
-
Hello,
tonight, I made, unwrapped and backed A-4 pilot. I assume, it will be used for most A-4 variants, even this one was especially made for A-4SU.
Regards,
Radium
-
Hello,
Pilot is done!
I go to sleep!
Regards,
Radium
-
Nice work, well done!
Nikos. -
+1.
And, Radium, if for any reason in need, I would volunteer for testing.
With best compliments and regards,
-
Hello,
Some news there, I am working on a muti-version system for A-4…
Not that easy, as there is a lot of differences between them…
Then, I will be able to integrate more variants…
Regards,
Radium
-
Amazing work on the A-4.
-
Hello,
Thank you Stratos!
I am finishing the last details before unwrapping.
I might offer to some of you a beta test copy… Just thinking of it. Do not send any PM, it’s far too early.
Regards,
Radium
-
Multi-version. can you add the A4-AR version?
-
Totally AWESOME!!!
It would be extremely cool if we can have the RNZAF A-4K “Kahu” upgraded Skyhawk in a future BMS release.
Why? Because the RNZAF pretty much stuffed the internals of the F-16A into their A-4K Skyhawks during the 1980s, complete with AN/APG-66, two MFD screens, a wide-angle HUD, full HOTAS controls, giving these super Skyhawks the ability to carry AGM-65s and even GBU-16s.
-
Like the AR version.
-
Like the AR version.
Makes me wonder why the FAA didn’t purchase the RNZAF A-4Ks? They’ve been in storage for years before they were sold at bargain price to Draken International in the USA.
-
Makes me wonder why the FAA didn’t purchase the RNZAF A-4Ks? They’ve been in storage for years before they were sold at bargain price to Draken International in the USA.
Matter of governments. I would not know what to answer
-
Hello,
I am happy to see reactions on my A-4 topic, thank you for your interest in that project.
To tell you the truth, I had been thinking to make a cockpit for this A-4. But, it is an issue when thinking about which variant to represent. Anyway, for now, nothing was decided, including if I will make a cockpit of not.
What is sure is that I started this project with A-4SU. Why A-4SU? Because Republic of Singapore is in Asia, because I have deepest sympathy for this country, and, because I often saw A-4SU and TA-4SU at the place I used to live when I was a child.
A-4SU cockpit is interesting, as it incorporates some new features like HUD, MFD, without losing legacy A-4 look. I would say that A-4K re-used many solutions developped for A-4SU.
A-4K is also interesting. But, it is not in Asia, and very very far from KTO.
Just as a reminder, if I take Fukuoka as the South limit of KTO, and my reference point for measurements :
Fukuoka → Pyongyang : 400 nm
Fukuoka → Singapore : 2,400 nm
Fukuoka → Kuala Lumpur : 2,400 nm
Fukuoka → Jakarta : 2,700 nm
Fukuoka → Wellington : 5,100 nm
Fukuoka → Paris : 5,100 nmWhy did I mentionned this? Because I think it’s interesting to remind that while Singapore is already far from Japan (and KTO), New-Zealand is much further. Also, While Japan is a frontier between Asia and Oceania, New-Zealand is indeed far Oceania. Also, as a conclusion, I may be wrong but I don’t think New-Zealand could be implied in an Asian conflict. Singapore, Malaysia are much more likely to get. So, even A-4K is very attractive, to me, it’s too national to have a real relavance in KTO.
It’s the same with A-4AR. While I don’t like the cockpit, as I feel it’s a forceps inserted F-16 avionics suite into an A-4, there is no theater for now ready to welcome her. So, I am not willing for this reason to take time to make her.
But you can rightly ask me why did I make A-4N of Israel and Aggressor A-4E? I would simply reply that A-4N could be used for the excellent ITO theater, while Aggressor A-4E is a nice asset for everyone who wish to use it for realistic training prupose, like what existed at NAS Miramar or NAS Oceana.
Thank you for commenting this topic,
Kindly yours,
Radium
-
AFAIK,
the aggressors in service today are operated by external contractors
ATSI has bought A-4N and TA-4J from the IAF.
Drakken got A-4K from NZ.A-4Es are AFAIK long gone. the IAF has even upgraded the A-4Ns around 2002, and they have received and updated cockpit and avionics. can’t find a photo of the pit anywhere unfortunately.
-
Please keep the version numbers as LOW as possible in the core DB. Select versions wisely. Don’t want to see the half list of a/c with tens of versions populating the DB like for the F-4.
Other versions can be added later in 3D party theater if needed.
-
Matter of governments. I would not know what to answer
Please keep the version numbers as LOW as possible in the core DB. Select versions wisely. Don’t want to see the half list of a/c with tens of versions populating the DB like for the F-4.
Other versions can be added later in 3D party theater if needed.
This is why I chose :
→ A-4SU, Singapore, in use till 2011
→ A-4E, USN, Aggressor, in use till 1993
→ A-4PTM, Malaysia, in use till 1999
→ A-4N, Israel, in use till 2002→ A-4K, New-Zealand, is close from A-4PTM (for external model). I can make something. But I don’t know. I need to know if it’s a good idea.
→ A-4C/H/L, USA, Indonesia, are then not mandatory.
Dee-Jay, what do you think?
Honestly, I am not interested in civilian operated A-4. I will let people to their repaints if they want to later from A-4N or PTM/K.
For those who are interested, unwrapping has started!
Regards,
Radium
-
→ A-4SU, Singapore, in use till 2011
→ A-4E, USN, Aggressor, in use till 1993
→ A-4PTM, Malaysia, in use till 1999
→ A-4N, Israel, in use till 2002→ A-4K, New-Zealand, is close from A-4PTM (for external model). I can make something. But I don’t know. I need to know if it’s a good idea.
→ A-4C/H/L, USA, Indonesia, are then not mandatory.
Dee-Jay, what do you think?
Well … I think “nothing special” … as a team member I trust your choices. But six variants (talking about database entries, not talking about skin variants) is IMHO way enough (even a bit too much, four would be from my POV more reasonable). But concerning theaters using the core DB, my favorite choice among yours is : A-4E, USN, Aggressor & A-4N, Israel.
Not saying that, over A-4 I, would have preferred an C-17 or C-130 or IL76/78 or UH-1 … etc … as you know my personal POV is => refreshing older/ugly models existing in core database … But as you know also … I love all your models anyway …
Cheers my friend! (swimming pool today? :D)
EDIT:
as you know my personal POV is => refreshing older/ugly models existing in core database
… I mean : refreshing older/ugly models existing in core database … and intensively used in existing campaigns