Tom Cooper

Nice to see you're persistent with this model, Jabba: I'm looking forwarding to help with painting - if necessary. Should have got some additional references regarding the camo pattern on top sides, recently (if my memory is serving me right). BTW, have you already decided what serial would you like to build? (Oh, and since you're still in the process of assembling your kit, don't forget: since this is an Iraqi Su-24MK... NO fences on wing-gloves [above inner underwing pylons], NO fences, please. )

We're in absolute agreement regarding the 'fun', John. It oughts to be fun, first and foremost. 'But', I think there oughts to be at least some trace of authenticity too. Surely, there are people who like to build 'what ifs', and they have my respect too. However, I think that was not what Albert wanted to do. To keep a long story about complex history and faulty reference materials short and without intention of offending anybody: most of models of Arab MiGs and Sukhois I saw so far look like if somebody would come to the idea of painting an F-14A in colours of RAF's P-40/Tomahawks from 1941, and then declaring the result for 'authentic', reasoning that 'Americans and British are speaking the same language'... The point is: there are specific sets of rules for Arab air forces 'too'; specific national markings for specific air forces/countries during specific periods of time; specific way of applying serials on specific types of aircraft during specific periods of time etc. 'The Arabs' know about such differences (just like they know an average Egyptian can barely understand the Arabic language spoken by an average Syria, not to talk about an average Iraqi), most of us don't. Surely, majority of us is never going to care. But, IMHO, that does not mean it's 'OK' to simply 'pile' camo patterns, serials, national insignia and weapons on any kit model in entirely unauthentic fashion. That's all I say in this regards. On the contrary, the actual history of various Arab air forces offers a huge number of lovely and perfectly authentic motifs. One just needs to dig a lil' bit deeper (than usually). Here one example: http://www.harpia-publishing.com/files/reviews/2012-AUT-IPMS-4-p12-17.pdf Sadly, that report about Chris Hahn's experiences from mating two of Trumpeter's kits to make an Egyptian MiG-15UTI in 1:32 is in German language. But, I would say that photos are 'speaking more than 1,000 words'. And, trust me, that was also fun to build. ;-)

NP. To be sincere, I'm rather surprised to see that Airfix kit looking that good. AFAIK, it's a very old mould (30+ years...?), and I don't have the memory of its transparencies being that clear. Really a very good build here.

After pleading guilty for co-authoring few publications related to the topic here, I'd like to add few comments: Actually, on 99% of Iranian air force aircraft the service title simply changed from IIAF to IRIAF. 'IAF' was used only for a very short period of time (late 1978 - February 1979), on few B707s that were flying abroad (for example: one of IRIAF B707s that brought the Iranian football team to the World Championship in Argentina wore only the title 'IAF' on its side. On the contrary, no Iranian F-14 is known to have ever worn the title 'IAF'. Except for this, there are few other minor differences too. I strongly suggest a closer study of the 'beaver tail' on photos of authentic IRIAF F-14s before assembling your replica. IMHO, they were actually rolled out with refuelling probe doors on. However, these were removed during delivery flights. Reason were 'iron maidens' - i.e. steel-baskets of USAF KC-135s that supported delivery flights. These tended to damage the IFR-probes. So, to avoid problems, doors were removed prior to delivery flight and were originally intended to be re-installed once in Iran. Then the Iranians found out they do not need them (Beech IFR-pods on their B707 tankers were 'soft', but nevertheless), and thus these doors are still where they were back in 1976-1978 period: stored in some underground shelter at TFB.8.. That's because they never bought any in the first place. Few years ago I've heard that they actually did buy a few sets of drop tanks, and then - sometimes during the 1990s - reverse engineered a few at home too. But, there are no photos of any of these being installed on their Tomcats (and this although there are meanwhile photos of everything, including test-fitment of R-73s and R-27Rs on IRIAF F-14s), so I have my doubts. On Fujimi's decal sheet, the title 'IRIAF' is applied in wrong (rounded) fonts, for example. As far as I recall, the font for serial 3-6020 is not entirely correct, and too thick. Fujimi's decals for IRIAF F-14 were 'OK' back in the 1990s, when nobody cared to build any Iranian F-14s, and there was nothing else available. But nowadays, especially since emergence of really excellent sheets provided by HiDecal (no, this is no advertising; I just happen to know how careful they are in preparing their sheets), they are 'wrong'. Then, somebody mentioned the flag: yes, ever since the service became the 'IRIAF' (instead of IIAF), the fin flash received 'the Onion' (the word 'Allah') in Red, applied on the white field. The same insignia is worn on bottom surfaces of left wing on all of IRIAF F-14s too. Finally, regarding the 80th - non-delivered - Iranian F-14: the usual story is that it was held back for testing of that USAF-style 'receptacle'. I've discussed that issue with several former Grumman test-pilots and engineers during the 'Tomcat Sunset' ceremony at NAS Oceana, back in September 2006 (that was the USN's farewell to the F-14): they indicated that was a 'cover story' (just like the story about Soviet MiG-25-overflights of Iran was a cover story to 'sell' the Iranian F-14 deal to the US Congress), and that the 'actual reason was something else'. But what exactly...? They wouldn't say. That's still 'top secret' - and that after all these years.

Great painting, Jens. Of course, I'm looking forward for that Iranian F-4E...

Generally very nice and tidy painting, and my congrats for selecting such a rare topic. My only remarks would be roundels (aren't they much too large?) and R.550s: the latter appear installed 90deg 'off' their actual position (i.e. their correct position would be to turn them 90deg around their axis, so that their wings are at 45deg off the ground, for example).

Very nice. BTW, should anybody come to the idea to make one of early Egyptian, Iraqi, or Algerian Su-7BMKs - i.e. one still painted in 'bare metall overall': please, take care to leave out the outboard underwing pylons and also the mirror on the top of the cockpit hood. All Su-7BMKs were originally delivered without either of these. Outboard pylons and rear-view mirrors were added only on Egyptian insistence, in 1968 (i.e. by the time Egyptian planes were already camouflaged; Iraqi and Algerian examples followed the fashion by 1973).

I know, ever since that happened, everybody was talking about a Mirage F.1EQ. But, hardly anybody went to the Iraqis and asked them what plane flew the attack. And since nobody asked, the Iraqis didn't say. Surely, the Mirage F.1EQ-5 could carry two Exocets. That config was flight-tested in France, but the plane proved to be a flying brick in that configuration. It was barely flyable, and only capable of reaching 350kts. But, attack on USS Stark was flown by 'Susanna', i.e. that modified Falcon 50.

My pleasure, really. Regarding MiG-23 with Exocet: that modification was undertaken only after the end of the war with Iran, and only on one MiG-23ML. It proved extremely complex (mainly because of necessity to instal an additional power generator, required to power-up the Exocet). For similar reasons, the idea of installing the Kh-29 on Mirage F.1EQs was abandoned after only one modification. More successful - so to say - was the idea with installing two Exocets on a Falcon 50 business-jet: nick-named 'Susanna', the plane in question holed USS Stark (FFG-37), in May 1987...

Cool, looking great! Finally an 'Arab Fitter' that's not causing any pains (on the contrary). Well done - and should you decide to make any Arab helicopters, let me know, of course.

...actually, the range can be 'stretched by quite a bit', but only with help of techniques not used - and technology not available - to/by your friends back then. Namely, ATLIS pod can lase from out to 20km (in good weather, of course). And: when the Su-22 is deploying the Kh-29 in this fashion, the entire system works differently than the way your friends used to deploy it. KLON/KLEN acquires the aiming point, the pilot locks on, and can fire. 'Bang, that's it'. There is no need for the Su-22 to keep on flying in direction of the target in order for its own KLON/KLEN (installed in the shock cone) to lase the target, and thus expose itself to enemy air defences: this is done by the ATLIS pod carried by the Mirage. The Sukhoi can turn around and fly straight back home (in order to bring more, for example). Which brings me to the next point: except for a 'buddy lasing' Mirage, and top cover provided by two other Mirages, or two MiGs (often both), such ops were usually supported by one or two Mirages carrying stand-off jammers. Primarily Caimans, sometimes also Remoras (both are French-made; Caiman is better-known under its Israeli designation, 'Yabelet' or something like that). Although unable to 'beat' the MIM-23B I-HAWK, these were sufficient to shorten its effective engagement range. Read: the MIM-23B can hit a target out to 30-35km, but if jammed, the range goes down to about 10-15km, and when all of what I said above was put together, it meant that the Mirage could safely lase from 15-20km, and Sukhois could release from 10-12km. Chances of any of them getting hit by the HAWK were minimal.

That was the point: there was no need for any kind of pods (less drag- and weight penalties, more range/endurance) if one carried only one Kh-29 - and Mirages did the lasing. Keep in mind: Iraq is no small country, and the battlefield with Iran was stretching over 2,000km. Correspondingly, Su-22s needed range to get to the target and speed (to run away from those pesky F-14s and F-4s that were always unfriendly and hunting at every opportunity). KLON was used for acquiring the aiming point 'painted' by Mirage's ATLIS pod: this enabled the release from stand-off ranges: why flying into the middle of the MIM-23 HAWK's envelope (in order to hit the target with help of the KLON), if it's safer to stay outside of it, and one can still 'pick' the target with help of MIrage's ATLIS? (With other words: what the NATO began doing only in 1991, the Iraqis were doing already years before.)

An alternative would be to build an Iraqi Su-22M-4K armed with the Kh-29L (i.e. 'ignore' the APK-9 pod): they deployed these weapons with help of 'buddy-lasing' - usually from Mirage F.1EQ-5s.

Check the link here, please (it's the third volume from the top, September 2011: the Iraqi MiG-17 in the background won a price): http://www.ipms.at/index.php/rueckblicke

My most sincere apology (and that's serious): have been away for much too long - in part because I simply could not log in to my account here, in part because of my various research/write/publish obligations. Though, if I might brag a lil' bit: I paid back some of my dues to modell-builders too. Ed Okun's Syrian MiG-21MF won the 'Best of Show' price at IPMS USA Nationals and Chris Hahn's Iraqi MiG-17 won a similar price in Austria.

Regarding - for example - USN aircraft with folded wings and weapons on them: this is a regular practice. It comes from the following situation: when the plane is parked on the ground or on the carrier, wings are folded. Nevertheless, the ground crew is installing weapons prior to flight. Wings are unfolded only prior to 'last-chance' check, i.e. a minute (or less) prior to cat-launch/take-off. BTW, Albert, I've got the reference for your THK F-84. I'll try to send it per e-mail. And of course, I'm looking forward for your authentication-work on this Su-7!

Excellent built, Arkady. Great painting too: I especially like your fantastic weathering on bottom surfaces. If you don't mind, I would have few reservations regarding markings and armament (as always, this is not meant internally, but exclusively as help!): - Iraq has got only 18 Su-22M-3Ks and 3-4 Su-22UM-3Ks, and they served only with al-Bakr AB-based No.69 Squadron (in the West, al-Bakr is better known as 'Balad'). Although this sub-variant proved highly successful in combat, no additional examples were purchased: the Iraqis instead went for the more advanced Su-22M-4Ks and then Su-25s. Anyway, this means that practically 'everything' is known about Iraqi Su-22M-3K/UM-3Ks - except for their original serials. Namely: before 1988, the IrAF was applying serials in sequence with aircraft's delivery date. And since Su-22M-3Ks arrived in Iraq only in early 1984, they received serials somewhere in range 49xx-51xx. In 1988-1989, the IrAF began applying 5-digit serials. First two digits denoting the type, the third the variant, and the last two individual aircraft. That means: as applied on your modell, these serials would show an aircraft as from the times after the war with Iran, but before the times of the 1991 'Gulf War' (or 'Second Persian Gulf War'). Then: on 15 January 1991, on order from Saddam Hussayin, all the IrAF aircraft have received the 'Takbir' inscription ('Allah-u-Akhbar'), in green, on the white field of their fin flash. Now, known serials applied on surviving IrAF Su-22M-3Ks around that time were in range 22516-22672. Obviously, they were applied randomly, with plenty of gaps in between. Few aircraft were already missing due to losses from war with Iran and attrition in training, and some of serials in this range were also applied on their Su-22Ms (meanwhile locally-modified to standard designated 'Su-22M-2K'). Serials of Iraqi Su-22UM-3Ks were in range 22521-22529, again, with many gaps in between. That means: provided 22662 ever existed (there is no definite evidence), then it was a Su-22M-3K. Namely, 22661 and 22663 did exist and both were evacuated to Iran, in late January 1991 (where they remain until today). Ditto with Su-22UM-3K with serial 22521, just for example. - Application of the 'roundel' (i.e. 'triangle) on top wing surfaces: this was applied when the aircraft was parked on the ground, with wings fully-swept, and with its top corner pointing straight ahead. Obviously, when wings were fully spread forward (like on your modell), then the national marking was pointing some 40 degrees inwards. This might appear 'awkward' to us, but was 'standard' for IrAF ever since they've got their first MiG-23MS', in late 1973 and early 1974. Furthermore, these triangles were applied much further inwards (their inner corner nearly touching the unpainted wing surface on Su-20/22s, 'hidden' when the wing was fully swept back) - and this on both, top and bottom wing surfaces. So, sorry, on your modell, these are 'too far away' from the wing gloves, and in wrong position. - The use of Kh-25 ASMs is a great idea, then the Su-22M-3K was Klyon-equipped and delivered together with Kh-25MLs and Kh-25MRs to Iraq. Plus, when deployed in combat (rarely, but still), Su-22UM-3Ks and Su-22UM-4Ks were either used as 'Wild Weasels' (i.e. for SEAD), or as PGM-carriers (armed with Kh-29s). - But, the use of B-8M and gun-pods... 'unheard of', at least in Iraq. They simply never ordered nor ever got such weapons. UV-32-57 rocket pods, SPS-141MVG, above-mentioned Kh-25s and Kh-29s, and then various sorts of FAB-500 GP-bombs, and 800-litre drop tanks, yes, but sorry: nothing else. In summary: you've got a fantastic build. Really, my hat is off for detailing. Just, as so often when it comes to 'Arab' aircraft, it's breaking my heart to see un-authentic serials and markings in un-authentic positions...

Excellently done. And regarding 'conditions in some countries': these planes are simply flown a lot. They are primarily used to fight PJAK-insurgency along the border to Iraq, and drug-traffickers along the borders to Afghanistan and Pakistan (some of bands in question are armed with very advanced MANPADs) - and thus have a lot to do, i.e. are flying combat sorties (or the likes) almost every day, and that since years.

If it's about a Phantom: I haven't seen any photos showing the MER with more but four BL.755s under the centreline (similarly, no photo showing more but two BL.755s under either of two underwing-installed TERs). From what I've heard while researching about Iranians (their F-4Es used plenty of BL.755s during the war with Iraq), BL.755s were much too heavy but for more of them to be loaded at once. The total looked something like this: Otherwise, the few old photos of RN Phantoms operating from 'Ark show them carrying TERs with 454-Pounders underwing and under the centreline 'only' (alternativelly: TERs underwing, and centreline drop tank). Regarding 'precision': if you mean that of BL.755s.... that weapon was a CBU (cluster bomb unit), designed for deployment from low altitudes. So, it was not really necessary to hit 'precisely'. From what I've heard (mainly about their deployment during the Iran-Iraq War), they proved to have a very good pattern of bomblet-spread, and Iranians used them with considerable success against concentrations of Iraqi armour and artillery. Major difference between them and contemporary US-made CBUs was that the latter would spread their CBUs - literaly - in a circle 'around' the aiming point (i.e. the aiming Point itself was not hit, but other objects around it were), while the BL.755 'neatly' covered 'everything' within the spread pattern.

Albert, if you want to keep it SyAAF: Yes. Yes. Yes. If you're going for a Syrian example, then the serial has to be applied on the front fuselage (in front of auxiliary intakes) AND on the top of the fin. If Egyptian: then the front fuselage (behind auxiliary intakes) only. Yup. Definitely. Kind of... For better understanding: The 1st United Arab Republic (UAR) was established when Syria joined Egypt as its 'Eastern Province', in February 1958. At that time, two things happened in regards of aircraft insignia: - The Egyptian Air Force (EAF) was re-named United Arab Republic Air Force (UARAF) and it introduced the pan-Arabic flag (red-white-black) with two green stars on the white field. - Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF) was disbanded and became a part of the UARAF (could now add lenghty details about what happened with its aircraft etc. but that would only cause more confusion). Original SyAAF insignia of green-white-black was removed and replaced by UARAF insignia. UAR was dissolved in September 1961: following a coup in Damascus. Syria separated from the UAR and the SyAAF was re-established. It introduced a new version of pan-Arabic insignia with red-white-black and three green stars on the white field. The 2nd UAR was only announced (in September 1971) but never established as such. Nevertheless, the Egyptian, Libyan and Syrian air forces have all introduced the same insignia: red-white-black, with that crest (Hawk/Eagle of Sallahaddin) on the white field. This resulted in following changes of national insignia and titles: - UARAF was re-named back to EAF, in 1972 (in response to failure of establishing the 2nd UAR). Many of roundels were left as they were, i.e. they retained two green stars, but the official line was to overpaint green stars. - As of September 1971, the LAAF introduced the same pan-Arabic insignia like the EAF, without any stars (and, often enough, without the crest) on the white field - Sometimes in 1972, the SyAAF introduced the same insignia like the EAF, without any green stars on the white field. 'Chaos', I know, but that's the history of Arab politics... Anyway, for best description of historic SyAAF insignia available online, see: http://flagspot.net/flags/sy%5Eaf-mk.html#am4

If you go for an Egyptian Su-7BMK, then a four-digit serial should be applied on the forward fuselage, right behind auxhilary intakes (i.e. below the cockpit, but slightly ahead of it) - only. Egyptians were never applying serials on fins of their Su-7s. But, 'to make it intersting' (and more authentic), you can then 'repeat' the serial (though much smaller) on drop tanks. A good example - and probably the most famous of all the Egyptian Su-7BMKs - would be 7664 (photographed while wearing the same camo pattern like on your modell, and flown by probably the most famous Egyptian Su-7-pilot, Abdel Moneim el-Shennawy [5 wars, 6.850+ hours on fast jets, 3 kill-claims, 3 times shot down). Serials of Egyptian Su-7s were applied in very different dimensions, but in that case they were precisely of the same size like on your modell. So, I think if you practice a little bit, it shouldn't be a problem to apply them with hand and brush. That would 'easily'... (well, that's relative, of course) ... 'transform' your modell into something 'exclusively authentic': Shennawy was not only the CO No. 55 Squadron (first Egyptian Su-7-unit) in period 1967-1968, but also the 'pionier' of them using FAB-500M54s. In such case, you can also correct the problem with national markings: just paint out all the green stars with white, and that's it. The photos I've got show that plane as sometimes in late 1971, when green stars were painted out, but the Hawk of Sallahaddin not yet applied (they do show that plane in flight, so it was 'flown in such markings'). Re. THK F-84G: I've already sent an inquiry to Ole. Hope to hear from him soon.

I must admit, I'm relieved you took it that well. Actually, it nearly broke my heart to see your modell. It's so obvious how much time and effort you invested, it's a shame the damn references are that way off (grrr!). Now, let me ease your (and mine too!) pain over all this: Syria has got only some 20 Su-7BMKs (delivery occurred around the turn from 1967 to 1968 and then for a very 'strange' reason: apparently, the Soviets wanted to 'quieten' the then Syrian MoD, certain Hafez al-Assad, so he wouldn't remove the president and the entire government right away; namely, Assad was a fierce anti-Communist, and in clinch with Moscow (of course, he did so, nevertheless, but only two years later)... In all these years, I haven't seen one clear photo showing an operational SyAAF Su-7BMK. This even though I once interviewed a former Syrian Su-7-pilot. At least he confirmed that the plane 1813 (the one put on display at the Military Museum of Damascus) was 'authentic' in regards of the serial - and of colours used by the so-called 'Factory' (that was the SyAAF overhaul facility at Nayrab, which is the Military side of Aleppo IAP). It seems 'the Factory' was painting in these same colours whatever was overhauled there, MiG-15UTIs, MiG-17s, MiG-21s, Su-7s, Su-22s, Mi-8s... you name it. So, Kopro's instruction sheet might be OK in regards of the camo pattern. It seems that majority of Su-7s delivered to export customers from around, say, 'second half of 1967' were painted that way. I know for sure that Egypt has got a number of Su-7s painted that way (there are very clear pictures in this regards). But, it could still be that Syrian Su-7s were delivered in 'natural metall overall' and camouflaged only in Syria. Just for comparison: that was the case with the only MiG-21PFMs ever delivered to Syria (24 aircraft that arrived in the second half of June 1967). In such case, it was so that every single plane has got its own camo pattern, and then the example from Museum remains the 'most authentic trace for original look of SyAAF Su-7BMKs'... Anyway, Kopro's serials are 100% surely, certainly and definitely off the mark. Now, sorry for the following (too), but I only now observed another mistake on your modell: Arabic is written from right to left. BUT, Arabic numbers are written from left to right. That's 'madening', to put it mildly. But, it sadly means that - as applied on your modell - the serial is 'double wrong'. Regarding weapons: the problem was the purpose of the aircraft. 'OK', so the Syrian (and Iraqi) Su-7 pilots were trained in Czechoslovakia. But, this does not mean that the Czechoslovaks knew what their Su-7s were looking like or how were these marked. It even less so means the Czechoslovaks knew how were Syrian Su-7s armed. Contrary to Soviets, Czechoslovaks were excellently accepted by the Arabs (especially in Syria, where Czechoslovakia played a much more important role than even the Soviet Union). But, in Czechoslovakia, the Su-7 was actually a carrier of nuclear weapons. In the case of a WWIII, CzeAF Su-7s would've been armed with tac-nukes and go for specific targets in southern Germany and Austria. Boom. So, why should they have paid attention at how were Syrians arming their Su-7s...? Eventually, I think that this is actually easiest to correct: just find yourself somewhere four FAB-250M54s or FAB-500M54s, and attach them instead of what is there now - and you'll be fine. Regarding the THK F-84 that shot down one IrAF Il-28 (sorry, not two; just one, the plane in question was Il-28 serial 432 operated by No.8 Squadron IrAF, c/n 566065040, manufactured in Factory No. 166, in Omsk): sincerely, no clue what the Thunderjet in question looked like. Turks are 'Europe' for me, and thus 'not my sphere of interest'. Right now I do recall it was an F-84G from 181 or 182 Filo. The only photo reference of a Turkish F-84G I've got shows the plane with MAP-serial 19953 on the fin (in black), directly below quite a large fin flash. The photo shows no other markings (not even the then used 'roundel' in form of a red square outlinned in White), and even the usual 'anti-glare panels' in front and behind the cockpit are missing. But, I think to know where we can ask. I used to be in contact with a gentleman from Denmark who is the person to ask about historic THK aircraft (don't know if you've heard about Ole Niklajsen?). Let me check if he's still receiving on the same e-Mail address like few years ago. If I don't call back in a week or so, feel free to remind me about this question.

Hello Albert, first the good news: your Su-7BMK is marvelously done. Especially painting: fantastic application, superb weathering, really great care about details. Most sincere congratulations! Sadly, I do have a lot to criticise about its markings and weapons - even though I strongly doubt this is your fault: there is so much wrong information about Arab air forces 'flying' around, especially when it comes to modelling references and decals, that I'm more than happy that you didn't paint your Su-7 in sand and brown (or Stone). Therefore, please, do not take the following internally. Namely, the decals you applied are simply not those of any Syrian Su-7BMKs. SyAAF Su-7BMKs were serialled in range 18xx. Means (for example), 1807, 1819 etc. Sometimes (like on that example serialled 1813 that used to be exhibited at the Military Museum of Damascus until 2010, when that Museum was closed), only the 'last three' were applied on the forward fuselage (full serial was applied on the top of the fin, at least in 95% of cases). Then, no Syrian MiG-21s, Su-7s or Su-20/22s have ever got any roundels applied on their fuselages. Anybody telling you something else should provide a photo 'up front' (and after nearly 30 years of researching about the SyAAF, I'm yet to find such photo). Application of a Syrian national marking in red-white-black but with three green stars on the white field for October 1973 War is 'wrong'. In September 1971, Egypt, Libya and Syria announced their decision to create (new) United Arab Republic. Ever since that time and until Sadat's trip to Israel, in 1976, their aircraft wore the same national markings, including the 'Hawk of Sallahaddin' on the white field. That means: decals on your model would be representative for period 1968 (first Su-7 delivery to Syria) - September 1971. Weapons configuration: combining bombs (especially what looks like FAB-250M62 GP-bomb) and rocket pods... The Su-7s were delivered to Egypt and Syria armed with little-known launch rails for 7x S-3 unguided rockets (and internal 30mm cannons) only. These proved a desaster in service, but the Soviets would not deliver anything else for this type of aircraft, and thus the Arabs either used these rockets (that were - literaly - falling apart after being fired) or bombs. When it comes to bombs: the Soviets would not deliver any of 'slicks' from M62 series to any Arab states before the 1973 War. Therefore, Egyptians and Syrians used the older M54 series. These created so much drag, and the Su-7 was so short-ranged, that there was no fuel for second attack run. Plus, the air defences they were facing were so strong that 'one pass, haul bottom' was the motto of the day. Therefore - and contrary to Egyptian and Syrian practice when it came to their MiG-17s - their Su-7s never carried a combination of bombs and rockets (except for 'display purposes', of course): four FAB-500M54s (or at least four FAB-250M54s) would have been a better idea. Finally, the photo below is showing wreckage of an UARAF (United Arab Republic Air Force: that's the official title of the Egyptian Air Force for period February 1958 - September 1971) Su-7BMK shot down during the June 1967 War: In total: your modelling and painting are fantastic (really 'eye-watering'), but your reference materials and decals need plenty of update. If you - or anybody else - wish to correct this model, or do something else in this direction (Arab air forces), please, kindly let me know. I would be delighted to help with provision of colour references and details about markings (including kill markings). I used to be a modeller, and started researching about little-known air forces precisely out of desperation about poor authenticity of various reference sources. Thus, I'm simply happy to help whenever I can. Best regards, Tom Cooper

From my info on Iraqi Su-22, Su-22M-3K and Su-22M-4K operations during the war with Iran, such configurations are OK, with following 'reservations: - If the SPS-141 was added, then there was always a rocket pod added on the other side of the aircraft, as counterweight. - R-60s were next to never carried - top cover was provided by Mirages and MiG-23MLs. - Addition of the SPS-141 during recce sorties with KKR-1 was a 'must'. - Carrying the SPS-141 in combination with Myetel targeting pod for Kh-28s and Kh-58s was 'possible', but this was never done in practice. The SPS-141 was jamming the Myetel.