Remember than all a/c are subsonic at low level so that the Scorpion is as fast as any fighter for low level defence.

Perhaps the Scorpion’s potential opposition is a bit behind the times and only has MiG-21bis: good for 730 knots at sea level, transonic.

Step it up a generation: a tankless MiG-29 can do 810 knots at sea level, an F-16C isn’t far behind. Both random examples and both supersonic.

Now none of those will be doing those speeds as routine, and certainly not with ordnance, but a Scorpion realy doesn’t have the potential to intercept any competently-flown fighter without fluking the interception.

Those are 76mm Sakr rockets, not 210mm.

Polish LiM-6 carried combined rocket & bomb loads, latter 100kg inboard or 250kg outboard.

Just for entertainment, here’s a beautifully-flown barrel roll by a German Transall crew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qDHyKi8PY

Barrel rolls are also ‘common’ in big-Boeing simulators, I’ll ask a colleague to watch the g-meter next time he does one.

lol t-birds giving a more realistic airshow dropping sticks of snakes on the flightline?

Not sure if it’s still the case but all Thunderbirds aircraft used to be on the active inventory and had to be restorable to operations within a certain time-period. During off-season periods they’d occasionally exercise that requirement.

Edit: more pics of armed Thunderbird 10 from 1988

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album38/album71/81-0679_001_001

Yeah I just assume at this point that only the export variants had the wing pylons plumbed.

I think that’s correct.

Certainly when the Red Arrows were deploying to Malaysia and China on tours they weren’t fitted with tanks. The latter trip required more than 40 stops for refuelling in total.

Not Python 3, it’s a Kentron V4 R-Darter

No, look at the rear fins. Set forward from the nozzle and quite high-aspect.

This is an R-Darter / Derby. Trailing edges flush with the nozzle and low-aspect ratio.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]254530[/ATTACH]

Some quirks of the design were discussed previously, but there is a lot that mystifies me about the choice of the F-84F for NATO.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?317-F-84F-Thunderstreak

It was said to be a sluggish aircraft with unfriendly handling, which killed many pilots. In contrast the NA FJ4 Fury was praised for its handling, as well as being much longer-ranged ( 3000+ litres internal fuel versus 2100 ) on the same engine and equally competent in air-to-ground versus air-to-air.

Even the F-86H would seem to have been a better all-round multi-role choice than the F-84F for smaller nations.

So why was was F-84F selected for provision to NATO? Reminds me somewhat of the P-47 being selected for MDAP after WW2 whilst the P-51 was primarily retained for USAF use.