View allAll Photos Tagged 28's
©MikeOrazzi All Rights Reserved
Evangeline photographed at Black Point in Rhode Island.
SB 28's 1/4 power, bare, right and left set off with a Quantum radio Slave 4i.
11 Ene
Información para: Lleida, Catalonia, ES
Valoración Media
(4 / 5)
Valora el contenido de esta página
226 personas han valorado el contenido de esta página
955.841 vistas
Calendario lunar
S: Hora de salida de la Luna; P: Hora de puesta de la Luna
Enero 2017
Dom Lun Mar Mié Jue Vie Sáb
1
S: 10:21
P: 21:01
2
S: 10:57
P: 22:04
3
S: 11:31
P: 23:08
4
S: 12:04
P: 00:14
5
S: 12:37
P: 01:00
6
S: 13:11
P: 01:20
7
S: 13:47
P: 02:29
8
S: 14:29
P: 03:39
9
S: 15:15
P: 04:50
10
S: 16:08
P: 05:58
11
S: 17:07
P: 07:03
12
S: 18:11
P: 08:01
13
S: 19:18
P: 08:52
14
S: 20:25
P: 09:35
15
S: 21:29
P: 10:14
16
S: 22:33
P: 10:48
17
S: 23:33
P: 11:18
18
S: 00:32
P: 11:48
19
S: 01:00
P: 12:17
20
S: 01:30
P: 12:47
21
S: 02:27
P: 13:18
22
S: 03:23
P: 13:52
23
S: 04:18
P: 14:31
24
S: 05:12
P: 15:13
25
S: 06:04
P: 16:01
26
S: 06:53
P: 16:54
27
S: 07:38
P: 17:51
28
S: 08:20
P: 18:52
29
S: 08:58
P: 19:55
30
S: 09:34
P: 21:00
31
S: 10:08
P: 22:06
Jueves, 05 Enero 20:47:41: Cuarto creciente
Jueves, 12 Enero 12:35:12: Luna llena
Jueves, 19 Enero 23:14:21: Cuarto menguante
Sábado, 28 Enero 01:08:19: Luna nueva
Zona horaria: Europe/Madrid
After the delayed arrival of the MC-130, the three U-28's finally were able to resume their journey home.
With light conditions somewhat tricky to photograph these light grey machines, ' the crew of '597 kept it pretty low at least.
5 light sources:
sb-28's left and right in front, right side bounced I think
2 strobes behind creating the rim lighting
1 sun from the back giving some fill for the background
1995 Mercedes E320 auto estate.
Anglia Car Auctions, King's Lynn -
"Auto. Has 28 S/H stamps, V5, many receipts dating from 2001-2017, various MoTs from 2000-present, data-card, handbooks. Last owner reg'd since 2014. MoT 09/2018. Unused for some years. 206K miles.
Guide price: £2250 - £3000."
Barnardius zonarius zonarius sometimes called Port Lincoln Parrot.
They are called 28's due to them calling 28, 28, 28 as they fly.
"28’s are noisy and inquisitive. When disturbed may only fly a very short distance and stop to investigate the cause. Their alarm call will quickly attract others.
They feed on a variety of plant foods – blossoms, seeds, grasses – feeding both on the ground and in the trees.When the maree trees (red gums) fail to flower, hungry 28’s can be a major vineyard and orchard pest."
www.birdgard.com.au/articles/28-parrot-port-lincoln-parro...
Two EMD units bring a stack train out of Pokey for the climb, it was nice to get a break from 28's and 29's.
God's Window
View a little bit above the official viewpoint
Aussicht etwas oberhalb des offiziellen Aussichtspunkts
The Panorama Route is a scenic road in South Africa connecting several cultural and natural points of interest. This route, steeped in the history of South Africa, is situated in the Mpumalanga province. The route is centred around the Blyde River Canyon, the world’s third largest canyon, and features numerous waterfalls, one of the largest afforested areas in South Africa, and several natural landmarks. The route starts at the foot of the Long Tom Pass just outside Lydenburg, following the natural descent from the Great Escarpment to the Lowveld, and ending at the border of the Mpumalanga and Limpopo provinces near the Echo Caves.
This route is deeply entrenched in the history of South Africa. From 1871, parts of the route were used as a transport road between Lydenburg and Delagoa Bay. It is also on this route that General Louis Botha fled from the English during the Anglo Boer War, and houses one of the most famous Victorian age canons in the world, “The Long Tom”.
Many towns on the route, such as Pilgrim’s Rest, were established during the Transvaal gold rush in the late 1800s. Thousands of fortune seekers crossed the treacherous mountains and rugged terrain in the search of gold. One of these was a former storekeeper from Pilgrim’s Rest, Percy Fitzpatrick. He wrote the popular book Jock of the Bushveld, recounting some of the adventures he shared with his faithful bull terrier Jock, whilst traversing this famous route.
(Wikipedia)
God’s Window 24°52′28″S 30°53′29″E is a popular vantage point along the Drakensberg escarpment, at the southern extremity of the Nature Reserve.
Here, sheer cliffs plunge over 700 metres to the lowveld. From this escarpment—a mostly unbroken rampart of cliffs—opens a vista into the lowvelt expanse and escarpment forests, the Eden-like aesthetic appearance of which prompted the name. On a clear day it is possible to see over the Kruger National Park towards the Lebombo Mountains on the border with Mozambique.
God’s Window features prominently in the plot of the 1980 cult film The Gods Must Be Crazy. Near the end of the movie, the Bushman character Xi (played by Namibian bush farmer N!xau) travels to God’s Window, and due to some low-lying cloud cover believes it to be the end of the Earth.
The original Window is a rock that is set further back on a private farm and due to Quarry operations and tree plantation farming this actual rock that looks like a square window could not be used, therefore the site was moved by the government to the edge of the escarpment.
A viewing platform 24°52′35.8″S 30°53′19.6″E near the car park gives extensive views down the gorge to the plain below.
(Wikipedia)
Die Panorama Route (deutsch: Panoramastraße) ist eine Touristenattraktion in den Transvaal-Drakensbergen in der Provinz Mpumalanga im Osten Südafrikas. Sie ist wegen der steilen Abhänge mit Aussichten weit ins Flachland des Lowveld und interessanter Felsbildungen entlang der Straße eine Region mit touristisch bedeutsamen Sehenswürdigkeiten. Die als Panorama Route bezeichnete Streckenführung verläuft auf der Regionalstraße R532 und auf einem Teilstück der R37. Das Informationszentrum für Touristen befindet sich in dem Ort Graskop.
Entlang dem in Nord-Süd-Richtung verlaufenden Steilhang bricht das südafrikanische Hochland (Highveld) in das bis zu 1.000 Meter tiefer gelegene Flachland (Lowveld) ab, wo sich unter anderem der Kruger-Nationalpark befindet. Die Panorama Route bietet weite Ausblicke in die Ebene, beispielsweise bei God’s Window. Zu den bekannten Canyons entlang der Strecke gehört der Blyde River Canyon, der an den bizarren Erosionsformen der Bourke’s Luck Potholes seinen Ausgang nimmt.
Daneben entstanden durch Erosion zahlreiche Wasserfälle wie die Macmac Falls, Lisbon Falls und Berlin Falls.
Im Nahbereich der Panorama Route liegen auch die historische Goldgräberstadt Pilgrim’s Rest, die seit 1986 ein Nationaldenkmal ist, sowie die Sudwala Caves.
Der Steilhang ist durch dieselben geologischen Prozesse entstanden wie die gesamte Kette der Drakensberge. Zu einer starken Erosion führen die über das Lowveld aus Osten heranziehenden Regenwolken, die sich an dem Steilhang abregnen.
Neben dem Tourismus wird das Gebiet entlang der Panorama Route vorwiegend forstwirtschaftlich (Anbau von Nadelhölzern) genutzt. Daneben gibt es zahlreiche Farmen zur Fischzucht.
(Wikipedia)
God’s Window (deutsch etwa: „Gottes Fenster“) ist ein Aussichtspunkt in Südafrika in der Provinz Mpumalanga.
God’s Window liegt in der Nähe der Panorama Route nördlich von Graskop an der R 534. Von drei Aussichtsplattformen am Rand der dichtbewaldeten Hänge kann man ins Lowveld sehen, das rund 700 Meter tiefer liegt. Nahe God’s Window steht The Pinnacle – eine freistehende Felsnadel.
(Wikipedia)
The northern giant petrel (Macronectes halli), also known as the Hall's giant petrel, is a large predatory seabird of the southern oceans. Giant petrels are large fulmarine petrels with a large wingspan and huge bill. They have two large tube nostrils that are joined together on the top of the huge bill, in contrast to those of albatrosses which are smaller and separated, lying one on each side of the bill. There are two species of giant petrel, both with circumpolar distributions, and both of which occur in New Zealand waters. The northern giant petrel and southern giant petrel have been recognised as separate species since 1966, when it was realised that they bred alongside each other on Macquarie Island, with different breeding schedules and no hybridisation.
Macronectes giganteus can be broken down as makros a Greek word meaning "long" or "large" and nēktēs meaning "swimmer". Northern giant petrel starts with "northern" referring to their habitat being further north than their counterpart the southern giant petrel, and "petrel" refers to Saint Peter and from the story of him walking on water, which refers to how they run on top of the water as they are getting airborne.
The northern giant petrel averages 90 cm in length, with a range of 80 to 95 cm, possessing a wingspan of 150 to 210 cm. Adult northern giant petrels have a mainly dark grey-brown body with a pale grey face. The eyes are pale grey to whitish and the bill (between 9 and 11 cm long) is pinkish-yellow horn with a red-brown tip. The sexes look similar although males are markedly heavier with larger bills. The legs and feet are dark grey. Juveniles are dark sooty black with a yellowish bill, and become paler-headed with age. The traditional seafarers' name for this species - "stinkpot" - is apt. Adult birds and chicks have an intense, foul smell like putrifying flesh.
Aggressive and opportunistic, giant petrels (both species) are the main scavengers in subantarctic and Antarctic waters where they eat penguin, albatross, seal and whale carrion. Northern giant petrels also take live prey (fish and squid) by surface-seizing, surface-diving and pursuit plunging down to 2 metres, along with fishing waste and some kelp. Northern giant petrels are noisy when feeding in flocks; they whinny, growl and snap their bills. Unusually for a petrel, adult birds walk strongly on land where they aggressively compete for carrion and prey; they are the only petrels that will feed while on land. They are capable of opening large intact seal and whale carcasses on land and at sea, using their huge bill to make a hole. Once the hole is large enough they insert the bill and head into the carcass to access internal organs, often blooding the head and neck feathers in the process, hence the old mariners' name of "sea vulture". The pecking order at carcasses is enforced with threat displays, with wings spread, tail raised and fanned, neck arched, and bill held open and pointing downward.
They produce a stomach oil made up of wax esters and triglycerides that is stored in the proventriculus. This can be sprayed out of their mouths as a defence against predators as well as an energy rich food source for chicks and for the adults during their long flights.
Northern giant petrels are pelagic and circumpolar, generally found between 30-64°S. In summer they range from subantarctic to Antarctic open oceans; in winter to early spring they range throughout subtropical seas to 28°S. An estimated 2,570 pairs of northern giant petrels breed in New Zealand annually, before dispersing to temperate and subtropical seas during winter. The world population of northern giant petrels was recently estimated at between 11,000 and 14,000 pairs. This number has been increasing over the last two decades, though it was forecasted to decrease. The main threats to northern giant petrels are being caught and drowned on commercial longline fishing hooks, and fatal collisions with the heavy metal cables that attach trawl nets to commercial fishing vessels. Other marine threats include eating marine plastic debris, oil spills and shooting by commercial fishers to reduce bait stealing.
Sources: Wikipedia, nzbirdsonline.org.nz
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background
The Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.
These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.
Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.
In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.
Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.
The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.
Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.
Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.
Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.
Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.
After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.
Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.
Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.
The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).
The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.
From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.
BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:
Crew: 4
Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)
Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height
Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)
Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)
Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)
Powerplant:
Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.
Armament:
6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets
1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette
Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.
Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!
Bourke's Luck Potholes
Blyde River Canyon Nature Reserve (or Motlatse Canyon Provincial Nature Reserve) is situated in the Drakensberg escarpment region of eastern Mpumalanga, South Africa. The reserve protects the Blyde River Canyon, including sections of the Ohrigstad and Blyde Rivers and the geological formations around Bourke's Luck Potholes, where the Treur River tumbles into the Blyde below. Southwards of the canyon, the reserve follows the escarpment, to include the Devil's and God's Window, the latter a popular viewpoint to the lowveld at the reserve's southern extremity.
The Mogologolo (1,794 m), Mariepskop (1,944 m) and Hebronberg (1,767 m) massifs are partially included in the reserve. Elevation varies from 560 m to 1,944 m above sea level. Its resort areas are F.H. Odendaal and Swadeni, the latter only accessible from Limpopo province. The area of approximately 29,000 hectares (290 km2) is administered by the Mpumalanga Parks Board.
Bourke's Luck Potholes
This geological feature and day visitors' attraction, named after Bernard Thomas Bourke (brother of Eddie Bourke), is situated at the confluence of the Treur and Blyde Rivers, on the reserve's western boundary 24°40′28″S 30°48′39″E. The reserve's nature conservation headquarters is located here, beside the village of Moremela, at the canyon's southern, or upper reaches.
Sustained kolks in the Treur River's plunge pools have eroded a number of cylindrical potholes or giant's kettles, which can be viewed from the crags above. It was named after a local prospector, Tom Bourke, who predicted the presence of gold, though he found none himself. The pedestrian bridges connect the various overlooks of the potholes and the gorge downstream.
(Wikipedia)
Die Bourke’s Luck Potholes (englisch, auf deutsch: Bourkes Glück Strudellöcher) sind eine Felseinheit an der Panorama Route in der Provinz Mpumalanga im Osten Südafrikas, in der Nähe von Graskop an der R532.
An der Einmündung des Treur River in den Blyde River ist durch die Erosion des fließenden Wasser im roten Sandstein ein Canyon entstanden, der in den Blyde River Canyon übergeht. Durch weitere Auswaschungen, insbesondere durch die Bewegung von Steinen in Strudeln, sind tiefe Strudellöcher und Kessel in das Felsgestein geschliffen worden.
Benannt wurde die Sehenswürdigkeit nach dem Goldsucher Tom Bourke, der an diesem Ort eine geringe Menge Gold fand (die zugehörige Goldader befand sich jedoch außerhalb seines Claims).
(Wikipedia)
28, a timeless, sophisticated 2009 built Tempo, trailblazing Yellow Buses specced state-of-the-art LED saloon uplighting and upgraded to LED headlights, with many other innovative leading-edge flourishes; Some were developed as the batch was built and many became Optare's standard to the current day! Later ones had Optare's LED side repeaters!
When I saw this approaching via tracking, I had to grab a ride! Unusually, this Optare Tempo had ferried passengers to the coast and back via the QEH on the 34, before conducting the 35 to Sandringham and back where I caught it and conclusively took this photo. Comparatively Yellow Buses may've left it squeakier and ultimately louder than 29, but seems better condition electrically.
Unfortunately on the evening of the 8th October the fuelling station used by Lynx abruptly ran dry, leaving many buses without diesel. Normally 28's an early riser, responsible for running the 54 with a 6:50 am first run. Today 11 ran it and 57, the vehicle expected for this route, was seemingly low on fuel by 9:15, not returning until gone 2pm.
The smallest aircraft to carry British Airways colours are the PA.28's of the Airways Flying Club based at Wycombe Air Park
SOUTHERN GUANACO ...........................................................
argentine guanaco
GUANACO AUSTRAL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
guanaco sureño, guanaco argentino, guanaco patagónico, huanaco, luán, luan, pichua, nau, amere,
Lama guanicoe guanicoe (Müller, 1776)
Orden: Artiodactyla Owen, 1848 (= Cetartiodactyla) (Artiodáctilos)
Suborden: Tylopoda Illiger, 1811 (= tilópodos = tylópodos)
Familia: Camelidae Gray, 1821 (Camélidos)
Tribu: Lamini Webb, 1965 (Laminae = Laminos = Lamínidos)
= Aucheniini Bonaparte, 1845 (Aucheniinae = Auquénidos)
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
El guanaco es un artiodáctilo sudamericano salvaje; símbolo icónico de la patagonia oriental o esteparia, aunque su distribución es mucho más amplia.
Estudios moleculares de ADN mitocondrial (citocromo b) y nuclear (microsatélites) en 580 ejemplares de camélidos actuales han determinado el reconocimiento de la llama como descendiente del guanaco durante un proceso de domesticación, lo cual ya era aceptado por la mayoría de los científicos.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
CARACTERÍSTICAS:
Su peso varía entre los 85 kg (en las hembras más pequeñas), y como máximo los 140 kg, en los machos más grandes.
Presenta una altura en la cruz promedio de 1 a 1,2 metros.
Presenta una altura en la punta de la cabeza que va desde 1,5 a 1,6 metros.
Su longitud total, desde la punta del hocico hasta la base de la cola es de 185 centímetros.
La cola mide 28 centímetros.
El macho es apenas más grande y robusto.
Es un animal elegante, de huesos finos, y con una cabeza alargada.
Una característica de los guanacos es que tienen la cabeza oscura; otra es que la parte ventral y las patas son de color más blanquecino contrastando con el dorso canela (en cambio en las llamas son del mismo tono, sin ese constante y fuerte contraste).
La más importante está en sus orejas rectas, no dobladas hacia adentro en forma de lira como eslo típico en las llamas.
Raramente se encuentran guanacos albinos, heredándose este caracter si se aparean dos ejemplares también así.
Presenta el labio superior hendido y sumamente móvil, lo cual le permite seleccionar no sólo el pasto que consume sino también algunas partes del mismo.
El rodete dentario que, conjuntamente con los incisivos, permiten realizar un corte del estrato herbáceo a consumir, evitando así jalar o arrancar la vegetación, como sí lo hacen los ovinos, bovinos y caprinos.
La estructura de los miembros, con almohadillas plantares fuertemente queratinizadas, llamadas tilópodos, hace que esta especie (al igual que el resto de los camélidos sudamericanos) se diferencie claramente de los otros artiodáctilos, ya que no daña la superficie del suelo al caminar, causando muy poca erosión en el suelo puneño, lo que redunda en la posibilidad de una rápida recuperación de las pasturas nativas.
Como adaptación al menor contenido de oxígeno en el aire (hipoxia) en sus hábitats de altitud, la sangre del guanaco posee cerca de 14 millones de glóbulos rojos o hematocitos por mm3.
Los glóbulos rojos contienen la hemoglobina, que transporta el oxígeno de los pulmones a las células, y a mayor contenido de hemoglobina hay mayor eficiencia de captación y transporte de oxígeno.
Destaca así mismo, la forma elíptica de los glóbulos rojos, la que facilita el transporte de oxígeno en un medio hipóxico.
Posee un corazón que es casi un 50% más grande que el promedio de los mamíferos de similar tamaño.
El guanaco tiene una relación más estrecha entre el consumo de agua y consumo de materia seca, menor pérdida de agua via heces debido a menor excreción fecal y menor contenido porcentual de agua.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
FIBRA:
La fibra de guanaco es especialmente apreciada por su suavidad al tacto, y su calidaz, considerándosela como un material de lujo.
Su suave lana solamente es superada por la de la vicuña.
Lo protege un pelaje de doble cobertura, que le permite soportar los intensos frios característicos de casi todos sus hábitats; exteriormente un pelo grueso (25 a 35 micrones), menos denso, más largo (10 a 14 cm), desprolijo, e irregular, y otra cobertura más corta (3 a 4,5 cm), de muy fina, cálida y muy densa lanilla suave por debajo, la cual posee grandes propiedades aislantes.
Esta fibra corta (dawn o “lana”) posee una finura promedio de 15.2 micras (máximo: 18.2; mínimo: 13.6)
El vellón del guanaco contiene hasta 20% pelos gruesos, lo que redunda en un castigo en su valor comercial, pero el grosor de su fibra down es más fino que el mejor cachemir.
Es muy liviana porque, a diferencia de la lana de oveja y a semejanza de la de vicuña, es hueca.
El vellón es el conjunto total de fibra que cubre un animal que se esquila.
En el guanaco, existen dos tipos de vellón.
Manto:
es la fibra fina que se encuentra en el lomo, costillar y parte superior de las extremidades.
Cogote:
Toda la zona del cuello.
Bragas ó Despojos:
son las fibras gruesas que se concentran en la región pectoral, y en las extremidades y cabeza.
La esquila en los guanacos se efectúa en octubre-noviembre, con máquina de esquilar ovinos y maneado.
Del crecimiento habitual de la fibra en dos años, aproximadamente un 65 % se realiza durante el primer año, es por ello que se considera que la esquila anual es más ventajosa porque genera una mayor cosecha de lana; además permite ejercer un control más efectivo sobre los ectoparásitos que constituyen un serio problema.
Haciéndolo de esta manera se cosechan bianualmente de 500 a 800 gramos de vellón por cada animal, con un crecimiento anual de unos 10 cm de longitud.
El valor de la fibra también es muy variable en función de la calidad y grado de elaboración (fibra bruta, clasificada, hilada, tejida, confección), pero los valores más corrientes para la fibra de buena calidad, son de 180 U$S por kilo, y por lana al barrer rondan los 150 U$A.
Para dar una idea, un poncho bien confeccionado utiliza alrededor de 2,5 kg de fibra hilada.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
CARNE:
Las hembras de guanaco son las que generalmente proporcionan la carne para consumo humano, la cual es de sabor parecido a la del cordero, ya que la carne de los machos adultos es muy dura y pocas veces se la come, aunque si se la emplea para alimentar las jaurías de perros pastores en las enormes estancias de la patagonia, algunas con una superficie de varias decenas de miles de hectáreas.
Lo primero que sorprende en estas carnes, es la exigua cantidad de grasa (siempre blanca), la textura (grano muy fino) y el color (sumamente agradable).
Estudios realizados por técnicos de laboratorios de carnes, lo confirman, y agregan caractarísticas muy interesantes, entre ellas el bajísimo contenido de colesterol (diez veces menores que la carne de cordero o vaca).
La carne de guanaco muestra un cociente de ácidos grasos omega-6/omega-3 también más favorable, desde el punto de vista nutritivo, que el de la carne de otros rumiantes más convencionales como el vacuno o el ovino.
También se ha comprobado que la carne de camélido, posee mayor tenor proteico (21,12%) que la carne de bovinos y ovinos (18 a 20%).
La carne de guanaco está siendo demandada en el mercado internacional como un producto ideal para restaurantes temáticos, étnicos y de productos exóticos, donde los precios conseguidos rondan los 10 U$A el Kg.
La carne del guanaco se consume en forma fresca, o deshidratada (charqui y chalona).
También se usa en embutidos caseros, bajo condiciones higiénicas generalmente deficientes.
Se consume especialmente en algunos sectores de la patagonia donde la especie aún es abundante.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
COMPORTAMIENTO:
Las guanacos son animales sociales que viven formando rebaños que generalmente están compuestos por un macho dominante y unas seis hembras acompañadas de sus crías; el resto de los machos forman un rebaño aparte.
Los machos tratan de establecer dominio sobre las hembras, demostrando el típico comportamiento polígamo territorial.
Los machos disputan por determinar su posición en la jerarquía social, mediante amenazas y ataques agresivos.
Es fácil observar a los machos peleando durante la época de celo, cuando alguno intenta ocupar el puesto dominante del otro.
Entre sus sistemas de ataque-defensa, uno de los más espectaculares consiste en lanzar un esputo nauseabundo y ácido, compuesto por saliva y sustancias digeridas parcialmente por el estómago.
El alcance al que puede ser arrojado este bolo con precisión, es de alrededor de 1,5 a 2 m.
El agredido, puede considerar que ha tenido suerte si no le ha entrado en los ojos, ya que la naturaleza ácida de este compuesto, lo convierte en un irritante para los ojos.
Esta curiosa peculiaridad, la cual suele ser percatada frecuentemente por los visitantes de zoológicos, a hecho muy conocidos a todos los camélidos sudamericanos.
Cada rebaño tiene un territorio permanente establecido por el macho, con dormideros ubicados en regiones más altas y zonas de alimentición a elevaciones más bajas.
Son muy territoriales, defienden su superficie de acción de las amenazas o de otros machos.
Los guanacos son animales herbívoros, es decir, se alimentan exclusivamente de vegetales.
Es pasteador y ramoneador.
El guanaco es un animal resistente que puede pastar en cualquier tipo de potrero, pudiendo estar varios días seguidos sin comer.
Aunque no almacena agua como el camello, puede soportar fácilmente la falta de líquido, e incluso beber agua de lagunas salobres (y hasta del mismo mar..) los que les permite ocupar sectores alejados de las aguadas, por ello vedados para los ovinos.
Presentan características sexuales peculiares, muy diferentes a otros rumiantes.
Poseen actividad sexual estacional, con ausencia de verdaderos ciclos estrales.
Muestran un estado de receptividad sexual continua; siendo la ovulación de 24 a 36 horas después del estímulo coital e inducida por él.
En caso de no ocurrir fertilización, la hembra vuelve a entrar en celo 13 a 15 días después del servicio estéril.
Las cópulas y los partos se producen mayormente entre octubre a enero, dando a luz generalmente una sola cría (uníparas), haciéndolo generalmente de pie.
Estos se dan en días soleados y durante el mediodía o las primeras horas de la tarde, lo que favorece la adaptación de las crías a su primera gélida noche.
Curiosamente, el "chulengo" (término aplicado a las crías en la patagonia, siendo "teke" el nombre empleado en el altiplano) no es lamido (pero sí chupado) por su madre, ya que ella no puede extender su lengua fuera de la boca como lo hacen otros herbívoros, dejándolo entonces que se seque al sol.
Tampoco comen la placenta como sí lo hacen otros ungulados.
Su peso al nacer es en promedio 10,740 kg.
Tarde en pararse desde 5 a 50 minutos.
Quedará preñada nuevamente a la semana del parto, así que a la ya nacida, que amamantará por 3 meses, se le suma otra cría la cual gestará durante un período de entre 348 a 365 días.
Las hembras adultas necesitan 349 días para la gestación del chulengo y 15 días más para copular y quedar nuevamente preñadas.
De esta manera producen un chulengo por año.
El largo período de gestación genera el nacimiento de una cría en avanzado estado de desarrollo, por consiguiente, con mayores posibilidades de sobrevivencia en este medio tan inhóspito.
Es por ello que pasa todo el tiempo transformando la energía del pasto en alimento y nutrientes para la cría mediante la leche, amén de lo demandado por la que está en gestación, sumándose a lo que precisa la hembra para su propio mantenimiento.
El macho reproductor expulsa las crias, tanto las hembras como los machos antes que cumplan un año de edad.
Hembras con adecuado desarrollo están aptas para el servicio a partir del año y medio a dos de edad.
Los machos llegan a la mayoría de edad, a los 2 años, pero permanecen en grupos de solteros hasta los 4 ó 5 años de edad.
Los principales predadores de este rumiante son: el zorro colorado o culpeo, el puma (el principal), el yaguareté, y el ucumar u oso andino, todos ellos muy perseguidos.
Pero en realidad son los seres humanos y las jaurías de perros asilvestrados, quienes realmente generan las matanzas más notorias entre estos camélidos.
Puede correr a unos 56 km por hora (35 millas).
La llamada de alerta del guanaco es un fuerte relincho.
Tienen un promedio de vida productiva de entre 18 a 20 años.
La enterotoxemia causada por el Clostridium perfringens es la principal causa de muerte de las crías dentro del primer mes de vida, pudiendo alcanzar niveles mayores del 50% en algunos años.
Entre las enfermedades parasitarias, la sarcocistiosis ocupa un lugar importante por sus graves efectos.
Los ectoparásitos, como la sarna, pueden ocasionar daños graves en sus poblaciones.
Sus densidades varian según la región:
En la isla grande de Tierra del Fuego, se encuentra 1 guanaco cada 300 hectáreas en el sector estepario norte, y de algo más de un guanaco cada 50 hectáreas en el sector ecotonal con el bosque.
En el sur de Santa Cruz sube a 28 guanacos cada 100 hectáreas, y del lado chileno, en el Parque Nacional Torres del Paine, es de 43 guanacos cada 100 hectáreas.
En el nordeste del Chubut baja a solo 0,59 guanacos cada 100 hectáreas, subiendo a 2 cada 100 has. en Neuquén, y a un guanaco cada 8 hectáreas en Tinogasta, Catamarca.
El máximo número que soporta la estepa patagónica es de 15 Guanacos/km² (1Guanaco/6 ha).
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
HÁBITAT:
Puede adaptarse a una multitud de condiciones ecológicas.
En la patagonia la especie soporta registros térmicos mínimos de hasta -33ºC, con nieve durante varios meses, a lo que se suma un terrible y casi continuo viento del sudoeste; las lluvias en los sectores más desfavorables solo suman 50 mm anuales.
Los suelos son arenosos, con escasa materia orgánica (2%).
Las nevadas muy prolongadas generan mortandades masivas de guanacos por inanición.
Habita desde el nivel del mar hasta cerca de los 5.000 msnm, tanto en los semidesiertos costeros, como en los arbustales patagónicos, tanto en los bosques fríos del extremo sur continental como en los tórridos bosques del chaco árido, tanto en las llanuras pampeanas como en las altiplanicies con estepas prepuneñas, puneñas y altoandinas.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
DISTRIBUCIÓN:
El Guanaco es una especie muy extendida con una distribución amplia, aunque discontinua, que va desde el norte de Perú hasta la Isla Navarino en el sur de Chile.
Antaño poblaba todas las tierras no inundables y abiertas al oeste del Río Paraná hasta el Océano Pacífico, llegando a Perú por la Cordillera andina, y al Atlántico desde Buenos Aires hasta la Isla Navarino, por el sur.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
SUBESPECIES:
Aunque cuatro subespecies de Guanaco han sido históricamente descritas sobre la base de rasgos morfológicos del cráneo, el tamaño del cuerpo, y color del pelaje, ningún estudio posterior, con base en un gran muestreo, se ha realizado para dar cuenta de esta variación morfológica .
Estas subespecies se asociaron a cuatro zonas geográficas divididas principalmente por la Cordillera de los Andes, aunque otros autores diferían en otorgarles algunas poblaciones a una u otra raza.
GUANACO PERUANO ~Peruvian guanaco~
Lama guanicoe cacsilensis (Lönnberg, 1913)
Esta es la raza desde la cual se originó la llama.
Es la que ocupa los territorios altiplánicos norteños entre 8 ° y 22 ° S, en el Perú, el norte de Chile, sectores de las tierras altas de Bolivia, y posiblemente la puna argentina.
GUANACO CHAQUEÑO ~Chacoan guanaco~
Lama guanicoe voglii (Krumbiegel, 1944)
Es la raza característica de las lomadas y llanuras de todo el chaco occidental, semiárido y árido, desde 21 ° a 32 ó 35 ° S, desde el sector correspondiente al este boliviano, por todo el chaco paraguayo del oeste del Paraguay, y en todo el sector chaqueño argentino, en donde estaría muy próxima a la extinción.
GUANACO CHILENO ~Chilean guanaco~
Lama guanicoe huanacus (Molina, 1782)
Es la que se encuentra en el norte y centro de Chile entre 22 ° y 28 ° S., y según algunos autores, también en sectores de las sierras y valles del noroeste argentino.
GUANACO ARGENTINO ~Argentine guanaco~
Lama guanicoe guanicoe (Müller, 1776)
Es la raza geonémica y numéricamente más importante, pues se la encuentra en todo el oeste de la Argentina, extendiéndose hacia el este hasta la costa atlántica, y hacia el sur a través de toda la Patagonia argentina y chilena, y en la isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego e islas argentinas y chilenas del canal de Beagle: isla Navarino, Isla Redonda, Isla Gable, etc.
Las poblaciones del noroeste argentino fueron ubicadas en las 4 subespecies, según los distintos autores, aunque son claramente más pequeñas que las de las llanuras, concordando con una de las características de L.g. cacsilensis.
Más recientemente, la evidencia molecular ha demostrado que no hay variación entre las subespecies propuestas, y que los Guanacos son un grupo monofilético.
Sin embargo, se encontró algún grado de diferenciación entre las poblaciones del norte del Perú y el norte de Chile con respecto a las poblaciones del Chaco boliviano y argentino, las del centro de Chile, y las de la patagonia, lo que sugiere que, por lo menos, existen dos subespecies: Lama guanicoe cacsilensis, que se encuentra en el sector norte, desde 8 º a 20 º S; y Lama guanicoe guanicoe, que se encuentra en el sector sur desde 22 ° a 55 ° S. , en la que caerían en sinonimia: L.g. huanacus, y L.g. voglii.
Según algunos autores, Tierra del Fuego contaría con 3 subespecies innominadas:
La primera es endémica de la Isla Navarino, y se caracteriza por poseer un pelaje largo, sedoso, brillante y colorido.
La segunda es la que habita el sector boscoso del centro y sur de la isla Grande, y se caracteriza por poseer un pelaje largo, fino, con el dorso castaño rojizo.
Finalmente la tercera es la que se encuentra en el sector estepario norte de la isla Grande, y se caracteriza por poseer un pelaje corto, con el dorso amarillento.
Todos estos caracteres son constantes en las tres, y fáciles de notar en terreno.
También se destaca la existencia de marcadas diferencias morfológicas entre guanacos provenientes de diferentes regiones de la patagonia continental.
Especialmente notable es lo distinto que se presenta el fenotipo que se observa en la precordillera andina de Chubut, con respecto al que se presenta en la costa atlántica a igual latitud; se demostró que estas particularidades no son generadas por el ambiente, ya que son heredadas cuando las distintas poblaciones se crían artificialmente unas junto a otras, es decir, están impregnadas en sus genes.
Las diferencias se presentan en: cabeza, perfil fronto-nasal, largo de orejas, relación cabeza-diámetro metacarpos metatarsos, color del pelaje y finura del mismo.
Sería interesante realizar estudios para determinar si esas diferencias somáticas son
suficientes y están tan extendidas en cada población de origen, como para establecer subespecies, razas o tipos ecológicos.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
CONSERVACIÓN:
Durante milenios fue el elemento básico para los pueblos indígenas del extremo sur de América, ya que de él obtenían alimento, cueros, grasa, huesos, etc.
La población original seguramente fue enorme, habida cuenta que solamente para la patagonia se calculo por arriba de los 7 millones de guanacos.
La especie sufrió la enorme presión de captura de los Chulengueadores, verdadera profesión que consistía en perseguir de a caballo a las crías de menos de dos semanas, para luego matarlas de un garrotazo, o cortándoles la yugular; muchas de ellas, al perder de vista a sus madres, seguían inocentementea estos cazadores...
Con sus cueros se confeccionaban los famosos quillangos, los que eran vendidos a enorme valor, por su incomparable suavidad.
Uno de estos cazadores podía matar 300 chulengos en pocos días...
Para darnos una idea, la Argentina exportó, solo en el período comprendido desde 1976 a 1984, despojos de un total de 400.000 guanacos...
La población mundial de guanacos remanentes de aquel latrocinio biológico está estimada, al día de hoy, en unas 600.000 cabezas, la cifra varía según el método que se emplee para hacer las proyecciones.
Argentina: .........................................530.000
Chile: ...................................................66.000
Peru: ......................................................3.500
Bolivia: ......................................................200
Paraguay: ................................................100
En Bolivia, Perú, Paraguay, varias provincias argentinas, y en el Chile no patagónico el guanaco es una especie seriamente amenazada de extinción.
Por efecto de la cacería descontrolada y el deterioro de su hábitat sufrió una retracción areal del 58% en Argentina, y el 75% en Chile y Perú, mientras que en Ecuador se lo considera extinguido.
ARGENTINA:
Más del 95 % de la población mundial de guanacos se encuentra en la Argentina.
Aunque su área de distribución cubre la mayor parte de la Patagonia, las poblaciones de guanaco parecen ser más dispersas en el sector norte de esta región (Chubut, Río Negro, Neuquén y el sur de la provincia de Mendoza), con respecto a las del sector sur (en Santa Cruz y Tierra del Fuego) .
A través de la Patagonia Norte, la distribución del guanaco se extendió por toda la llanura pampeana, pero a causa de la caza y transformación de hábitat hoy sobrevive en poblaciones relícticas muy fragmentadas en La Pampa y en el sudoeste de la provincia de Buenos Aires, contando con poblaciones aisladas en las sierras de Ventania y Tandil; estando totalmente extinta en la provincia de Santa Fe.
Al parecer en el pasado nunca habitó en la mesopotamia ni en el Uruguay, constituyéndose así los ríos Paraná y del Plata una barrera infranqueable para su dispersión.
A través del centro y norte de Argentina sus poblaciones actuales se limitan a la mitad occidental del país, a lo largo de la precordillera y cordillera de Los Andes hasta la frontera con Bolivia, aunque poblaciones relictas habitan en una reserva con Chaco árido del extremo noroeste de Córdoba.
Las provincias con más guanacos son las patagónicas, con el máximo en Santa Cruz (350.000), a la que le sigue Chubut (120.000), Río Negro (85.000), Neuquén (50.000), y Tierra del Fuego (sector argentino: 20.000).
CHILE:
En Chile, las mayores poblaciones de guanaco se concentran en las regiones de Aysén y Magallanes (con el mayor número en la isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego), y en reducidos sectores entre las regiones de Coquimbo y Tarapacá.
Del millón y medio de cabezas con que contaba, hoy son solo un total de 66.000 ejemplares.
BOLIVIA:
En Bolivia, una población relicta de guanaco persiste en la región del Chaco, y hay recientes observaciones en la sierra entre Potosí y Chuquisaca, y en el sureste de Tarija.
En total son solo 150 a 200 los ejemplares sobrevivientes.
PARAGUAY:
En Paraguay, una población relicta de solo 100 ejemplares es protegida en el Parque Nacional Médanos del Chaco, Departamento Boquerón.
La misma ya está sufriendo los efecto de la endogamia por lo limitado del hato, generándoseles malformaciones a las nuevas crías.
PERÚ:
Perú aún mantiene muy escasas tropas en la parte más septentrional de la distribución de guanaco, aproximadamente en los 8 ° 30'S, en la la Reserva Nacional de Calipuy ubicada en
Santiago de Chuco, Departamento de La Libertad, con 500 ejemplares.
Al sur, las poblaciones llegan a la Reserva Nacional Salinas Aguada Blanca en los departamentos de Arequipa y Moquegua (16 ° 10'S).
Una población de guanacos se registró en la zona del Nevado Salcantay, en el distrito de Anta.
El Perú contaba con las mayores concentraciones en el Departamento de Ayacucho (1.167), seguido por Arequipa (1.124), La Libertad (518), Ica (516), Huancavelica (211), Tacna (95), Moquegua (79), Puno (71), y Apurimac (9).
En total son hoy solo 3.500 ejemplares, en 5 poblaciones disyuntas.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
APROVECHAMIENTO PRODUCTIVO:
Por circunstancias históricas, la utilización del guanaco esta muy arraigada en la cultura “Patagónica”, y lo seguirá estando en el futuro.
Son tres los métodos que se suelen emplear para obtener el valioso vellón del guanaco.
ESQUILA DE EJEMPLARES SILVESTRES:
La captura de animales salvajes para esquila viva con posterior liberación, es algo que no se ha realizado con éxito todavía, solo se han logrado capturas parciales y el manejo para esquilarlos es dificultoso.
Un proyecto en la provincia del Chubut, trata de perfeccionar las técnicas para su captura y el posterior manejo.
Ha habido éxitos con otra especie similar: la vicuña, pero hay que recordar que ellas son mucho más pequeñas, aunque la metodología del "chaco" es un norte a imitar.
SEMICAUTIVIDAD:
En la cría en cautividad extensiva, o semicautividad, se mantiene a los guanacos en grandes áreas cercadas con alambre similares a los empleados para los ovinos (aunque, claro está, con alambradas mucho más altas: de 1,8 a 2 metros).
Para la estepa patagónica debe planificarse una relación de un guanaco cada 5 a 8.5 ha, estableciéndose una relación de cargas comparativa de 1 guanaco cada 1,7 a 2 ovejas.
Esta tecnología se emplea en varios criaderos de Chubut, Río Negro, y Santa Cruz.
En el Campo Experimental del INTA en Pilcaniyeu, se comenzó una experiencia piloto de cautiverio extensivo, con chulengos silvestres criados a mamadera 12 años antes (en la primavera de1989).
La captura de los chulengos se realiza a caballo y con boleadoras, o lazo, debiendo de hacerse dentro de los 10/12 primeros días de vida, pero siempre después del tercer día, ya que debe permanecer este tiempo con su madre para que ingieran el calostro.
Con ellos se formó un grupo familiar, el que se ha mantenido en un potrero de 60 ha (8,5 ha por animal adulto).
Tanto los adultos criados a mamadera, como las dos generaciones nacidas en semicautividad, presentan características de docilidad aptas para su manejo productivo.
Es una alternativa muy adecuada, dado que los animales nacidos a campo no muestran rechazo a la presencia del hombre y su encierre en corrales, de igual manera que los nacidos en cautividad.
Ya son decenas los productores que han comenzado la cría de chulengos a los efectos de formar criaderos comerciales para la producción de pelo.
Se han establecido criaderos de importancia en la zona de Los Menucos Río Negro, y en la zona de Río Mayo Chubut, entre muchos otros, obteniendo un precio de entre 70 y 100 U$A el Kg de vellón al productor.
En el campo experimental del INIA en Kampenaike, cercano a Punta Arenas Chile, se está llevando a cabo una experiencia idéntica, con positivos resultados.
CAUTIVIDAD INTENSIVA:
La crianza en cautividad en áreas pequeñas ha sido demostrada y existe metodología disponible.
El trabajo más importante sobre este tema es el realizado en el INTA de Trelew, donde se cría, recría, reproduce y mantiene, familias de guanacos desde el año 1990.
Su utilización depende de los precios que se obtienen por el vellón, debido a los altos costos de las instalaciones y alimentación.
Se arman grupos familiares, contando cada grupo con un corral de 1 a 1.5 ha.
La relación machos - hembras en estos grupos oscila entre 1:4 y 1:8.
Al excedente de machos, es conveniente castrarlos, y colocarlos juntos.
Las utilidades a producir en un criadero deben ser diversas, entre ellas, fibra, carne, cueros, pieles de chulengo, artesanías, turismo, etc.
Estos establecimientos cuentan con un mínimo de 200 animales adultos, a fin de obtener entre 100 y 150 kilos de fibra “sucia” por año.
Sería una buena medida la de multiplicar estas experiencias patagónicas, replicándolas en los otros países en que la especie se distribuye, pues su utilización es una mejor alternativa económica que la tradicional actividad pecuaria centrada en la oveja y/o la cabra, amén de ser más amigable con el medio ambiente.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
SINONIMIA:
Lama fera Gray, 1843
Lama guanaco (Perry, 1811)
Lama guanacos (Schinz, 1845)
Lama guanacus Gray, 1852
Lama huanaca (C. H. Smith, 1827)
Lama huanacha Elliot, 1907
Lama huanachus Thomas, 1891
Lama huanacos Sclater, 1891
Lama huanacus (Molina, 1782)
Lama llama (Waterhouse, 1839)
Lama molinaei Boitard, 1845
Lama voglii Krumbiegel, 1944
En 1758 Linneaus la describe por primera vez, denominándosela luego: Camelus guanicoe.
En 1775, Frisch propuso que los cuatro camélidos sudamericanos fuesen indexadas en el género Lama.
Recién en 1924 Miller separó la vicuña en el género Vicugna, sobre la base del crecimiento continuo de incisivos.
Sin embargo, no incluyó incisivos de alpaca en su estudio, y por tanto no se percató de la similitud entre estos y los incisivos de la vicuña.
Es debido a esta omisión que ambas formas domésticas y el guanaco compartieron el género Lama durante 80 años.
Para algunos autores la alpaca la llama, y el guanaco deberían estar relegadas a una única especie, bajo el nombre : Lama glama.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Suborden TYLOPODA:
Los tilópodos (Tylopoda, gr. "pies con almohadillas") son un suborden de mamíferos artiodáctilos.
En el pasado fue mucho más diverso, y fueron descriptas varias familias, hoy todas extintas, solamente pudiendo llegar hasta el presente una única familia: los camélidos.
Lasotras familias, ya extintas son:
Xiphodontidae, Oromerycidae, Protoceratidae, y Merycoidodontidae.
El grupo tiene una larga historia fósil en América del Norte y Europa.
Aparecieron durante el Eoceno, hace alrededor de 46,2 millones de años.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
La familia CAMELIDAE:
Los camélidos representan la única familia viviente de mamíferos artiodáctilos del suborden Tylopoda, que en griego significa: "pies con almohadillas".
Ellos sobrevivieron solo en América del Sur y en Asia.
La familia está formada por 15 géneros, de los cuales 12 están extintos, y solo 3 aún viven.
Los géneros de camélidos extinguidos son:
Aepycamelus, Camelops, Floridatragulus, Eulamaops, Hemiauchenia, Oxydactylus , Palaeolama, Poebrotherium, Procamelus, Protylopus, Stenomylus, y Titanotylopus.
Los camélidos son inusuales pues su distribución moderna es muy lejana a su patria de origen.
Los camélidos aparecieron por primera vez muy temprano en la evolución de los ungulados artiodáctilos, hace unos 45 millones de años, durante el Eoceno medio de América del Norte.
Entre los primeros camélidos fue el Protylopus, del tamaño de un conejo, y que aún tenía cuatro dedos en cada pie.
En el Eoceno tardío, alrededor de 35 millones de años atrás, camélidos como Poebrotherium ya habían perdido los dos dedos laterales, y eran aproximadamente del tamaño de una cabra moderna.
La familia prosperó y se diversificó, pero se mantuvo confinada en América del Norte hasta hace sólo unos 2 ó 3 millones de años, cuando llegaron algunos representantes a Asia, y (como parte del Gran Intercambio Americano que siguió a la formación del Istmo de Panamá), a Sudamérica.
Igualmente, los camélidos siguieron siendo muy comunes en América del Norte hasta un pasado geológico muy reciente, pero luego desaparecieron, posiblemente como resultado de la caza directa o de las intervenciones realizadas en su hábitat por los primeros pobladores humanos.
Los camélidos del Viejo y Nuevo Mundo presentan un cariotipo muy conservado, 2n = 74, con patrones de bandas G y C aparentemente muy similares, siendo capaces de cruzarse y producir descendencia fértil bajo influencia humana.
Esta familia se subdivide en dos tribus vivientes, separadas entre sí por más de 8 millones de años:
LAMINI
Para algunos autores Lamini Webb, 1965 (Laminae) no tiene prioridad sobre Aucheniini Bonaparte, 1845 (Aucheniinae).
Esta tribu es hoy solamente endémica del oeste de la América del sur, compuesta por cuatro especies en dos géneros, separados entre sí por 1,4 millones de años: Lama, y Vicugna.
Entre ambos se reparten las 4 especies vivientes; sin embargo, la ausencia de marcadores cromosómicos y moleculares capaces de diferenciar genéticamente una llama de un guanaco, así como una alpaca de una vicuña, pone en duda la condición de especie para la llama y para la alpaca, con respecto a las especies silvestres.
Las cuatro especies son:
Lama guanicoe (Müller 1776), es el "Guanaco".
Lama glama (Linnaeus. 1758), es la "Llama", el descendiente doméstico del Guanaco.
Para algunos autores, la Llama debe incluirse como una subespecie dentro de una especie más abarcativa, en la cual también se inserten, de manera subespecífica, a todas las subespecies del guanaco; priorizando, en la denominación de la especie, el nombre específico actual de la llama.
Vicugna vicugna (Molina 1782), es la "Vicuña".
Vicugna pacos (= Lama pacos Linneaus 1758) es la "Alpaca", el descendiente doméstico de la vicuña.
Se estima que existen cerca de 7,5 millones de camélidos Lamini, de los cuales el 53% se encuentra en el Perú, el 37,7% en Bolivia, el 8% en Argentina, y sólo el 2% en Chile.
CAMELINI
Esta tribu es hoy solamente endémica del centro y sudoeste de Asia, con dos especies en un solo género: Camelus.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
(8 de febrero de 2009 )
Bioparque TEMAIKÉN
Partido de Escobar, provincia de Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘
fotografía fotografías foto fotos photo photos imaje imajes imágenes imagen imajenes imajen picture pictures , Mamíferos , Mammalia , mammifère , mamífer , mammiferos , Artiodactyla , artiodattilos , sudokopytníci , 牛亚科 , 牛科 , Atrajotojai , 反芻亜目 , Porakanopiai , Partåiga hovdjur , Parrettåede hovdyr , Чифтокопитни , Paarhufer , Klaufdýr , Evenhoevigen , artiodactyles , מכפילי פרסה , Парнокопытные , Déieren , déi net idderzen , Klovdyr , klauvdyr , partåede hovdyr , Parzystokopytne , Sorkkaeläimet , 偶蹄目 , Mammiferi dell'ordine Artiodattili , artiodàctils , artiodáctilos sudamericanos , Mamíferos de Sudamérica , Mamíferos neotropicales , Fauna neotropical , Mammals of South America , South America's Mammals , Mammals of Andes , Mammals of America , Animals of South America , South America's Animals , Fauna of South America , South America's fauna , Peru´s Fauna , Peruvian Fauna , Fauna of Peru , Mammals of Peru , Peruvian mammals , Peru´s mammals , Peru´s Animals , Peruvian Animals , Animals of Peru , Mamíferos do Peru , Mamíferos de Perú , Mamíferos del Perú , Mamíferos peruanos , Fauna de Perú , Fauna del Perú , Fauna peruana , Animales de Perú , Animales del Perú , Animales peruanos , Mammals of Ecuador , Fauna of Ecuador , Animales de Ecuador , Animales del Ecuador , Animales ecuatorianos , Fauna de Ecuador , Fauna del Ecuador , Fauna ecuatoriana , Mamíferos de Ecuador , Mamíferos del Ecuador , Mamíferos ecuatorianos , Fauna de Argentina , Fauna de la Argentina , Fauna argentina , Mamíferos de Argentina , Mamíferos de la Argentina , Mamíferos argentinos , Animales argentinos , Animales de Argentina , Animales de la Argentina , Mammals of Argentina , Argentina's mammals , Argentine mammals , Argentinian mammals , Argentine mammalians , Argentina´s animals , Argentine animals , Argentinian animals , Animals of Argentina , Mamíferos de Bolivia , Mamíferos bolivianos , Fauna de Bolivia , Fauna boliviana , Animales de Bolivia , Animales bolivianos , Mammals of Bolivia , Bolivian mammals , Bolivia´s mammals , Fauna of Bolivia , Bolivian fauna , Bolivia´s fauna , Bolivian animals , Bolivia´s animals , Animals of Bolivia , Mamíferos de Chile , Mamíferos chilenos , Fauna de Chile , Fauna chilena , Animales de Chile , Animales chilenos , Fauna of Chile , Chilean fauna , Chile´s fauna , Mammals of Chile , Chilean mammals , Chile's mammals , Animals of Chile , Chilean animals , Chile´s animals , Mamíferos del Paraguay , Mamíferos de Paraguay , Mamíferos paraguayos , Animales del Paraguay , Animales de Paraguay , Animales paraguayos , Fauna del Paraguay , Fauna de Paraguay , Fauna paraguaya , Animals of Paraguay , Paraguay's animals , Paraguayan animals , Mammals of Paraguay , Paraguay's mammals , Paraguayan mammals , Paraguay's fauna , Paraguayan fauna , Fauna of Paraguay , südamerikanischen Anden , camelide , Kameelachtigen , Kamele , Kamelit , Kamelieläimet , Dəvəkimilər , Schwielensohler , Камили , velbloudovití , Kamelido , Kupranugariniai , Tevefélék , gamelidoa , Kaméiler ,낙타과 , شترسانان , גמליים , ラクダ亜科 ,ラクダ科 , აქლემისებრნი , 駱駝科 , devegiller , Wielbłądowate , Верблюдові , Iskay ruk'anayuq , Kameldjur , Верблюдовые , Kameldyr , camélidés , Animal hair products , animais domésticos , Domesticated animals , domestizierte Kamelform , camelidi, addomesticato , ganadería auquénida , pack animals , meat animals , pre-hispanic Andean cultures , Quanako , Gwanako , Guanako , Gvanako , Guanac , Guanakoa , Huanako , Guanakó , Guanakas , Wanaku , Гуанако , Γουανάκος ,گواناکو , 구아나코 , גואנקו ,グアナコ , ラマ属 , 原駝 ,
Eniz with a proper frontside blunt in the Micropolis bowl in Helsinki. Radness.
Mamiya RZ67, 37/3.5, Portra 400NC. Two Nikon SB-28's to my left, quite low and probably on 1/4 power, two Sunpak 120's to the right, a bit further up and on 1/8 or 1/4 power.
Here we see First Bus Buses of Somerset 67709 SN60EAP photographed at Bishop's Lydeard railway station while operating the 28 between Minehead and Taunton.
At the time of photographing the bus was still in it's old route branding livery for the 21 route between Taunton and Bridgwater.
Taken September 2024.
Strobist:
Sb-28 through softbox to camera left
2x flagged SB-28's either side of me
SB-28 behind for rim light
Triggered with Pt-04 wireless triggers
A throwback but forward looking celebratory pic!
Ray of sunshine, T28 KLN (28, ex R8 TYB) - the eye-catching yellow Tempo - has been re-launched alongside twin, Tempo 29 💛 Rarely seen out together, both are buzzing about West Nofolk again! Whilst the Yellow Perils may not have the "wow" factor Nottingham's ex Mainline and Keyworth Tempos embody, but they're still out of this world!
Yellow Buses' advanced spec glitters under futuristic LED uplighting modules; range topping Esteban Civic V3 seats outfitted with accessible grab handles and shoe guarding armrest-grab-bars for the rear social seats, not before extra standee provision with handhold rails and handily wide, sheer dividers over a highlighted woodgrain floor. Encased with airy white walls and spaceage VFDs finished by 28's big LED stopping sign! These were built in 2009; major features later became standard for Optare.
Lynx's flagship Wright Gemini (on DAF/VDL DB250) is another incredible bus. Rebuilt from a basic, no frills, ex London decker (LJ04 LEU) by Reading Buses, it's now registered UWW 3X and finally VW Mars Red. Past its upgraded front, it features sumptuous Esteban Civic V3 seats with USB charging, corner sofa (all in fun moquette), tables and underseat walkway lighting showing off the new woodgrain floor, all under new LED saloon lighting!
Even when thinking of the future, the past can have lots to give. (ProtoTempo Lynx 1 is in the background) Great, well-kept fleet, Lynx (Coastal Red)!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background
The Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.
These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.
Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.
In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.
Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.
The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.
Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.
Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.
Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.
Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.
After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.
Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.
Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.
The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).
The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.
From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.
BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:
Crew: 4
Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)
Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height
Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)
Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)
Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)
Powerplant:
Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.
Armament:
6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets
1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette
Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.
Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
Soon to be withdrawn 4021 finishing off its day doing very rare 28's to Willenhall, from Wolverhampton!
Boardman Local Schools 66 - 2002 Blue Bird TC/2000 FE; Bus Yard - Boardman, Ohio. Bus was purchased used in the summer of 2019 from Kalida Local Schools. It was their bus 9. Bus was put into service as a spare bus in October of 2019. The luggage bays were taken off and patched over during the summer of 2021. It is the other bus I use for bus 28's route.
pullback and editing image of Future the Artist and Stacy Dash(the Lexus)
4 Light setup:
Main light: 7 Foot Westcott Parabolic Umbrella w AB800
Second light: 43' Westcott Umbrella w/ AB800
Third and Fourth light: Bare SB 28's in the driver and passenger seats
The PZL M28 Skytruck is a Polish STOL light cargo and passenger plane, produced by PZL Mielec, as a development of license-built Antonov An-28. Early licence-built planes were designated PZL An-28. The maritime patrol and reconnaissance variants are named PZL M28B Bryza ("sea breeze").
The Antonov An-28 was the winner of a competition against the Beriev Be-30 for a new light passenger and utility transport for Aeroflot's short haul routes, conceived to replace the highly successful An-2 biplane. The An-28 is derived from the earlier An-14. Commonalities with the An-14 include a high wing layout, twin fins and rudders, but it differs in having a reworked and longer fuselage, with turboprop engines. The original powerplant was the TVD-850, but production versions are powered by the more powerful TVD-10B, with three-blade propellers.
The An-28 made its first flight as the An-14M in September 1969 in the Ukraine. A subsequent preproduction aircraft first flew in April 1975. Production of the An-28 was then transferred to Poland's PZL Mielec in 1978, although it was not until 22 July 1984 that the first Polish-built production aircraft flew. The An-28's Soviet type certificate was awarded in April 1986.
PZL Mielec has become the sole source for production An-28s. The basic variant, not differing from the Soviet one, was designated PZL An-28 and was powered with PZL-10S (licence-built TVD-10B) engines. They were built mostly for the USSR, until it broke up. The plane was next developed by the PZL Mielec into a westernised version powered by 820 kW (1100shp) Pratt & Whitney PT6A-65B turboprops with five-blade Hartzell propellers, plus some western (BendixKing) avionics (a distinguishing feature are exhaust pipes, sticking out on sides of engine nacelles). Designated the PZL M28 Skytruck, first flight was on 24 July 1993 and it is in limited production, mostly for export (39 produced by 2006). The type received Polish certification in March 1996, and US FAR Part 23 certificate on 19 March 2004.
Apart from the Skytruck, PZL Mielec developed a family of militarized light transport and maritime reconnaissance planes for the Polish Air Force and Polish Navy in the 1990s, with original PZL-10S engines, named PZL M28B in the Air Force and Bryza in the Navy. From 2000, newly produced M28Bs started to be equipped with five-blade propellers as well.
Robert Mapplethorpe, Calla Lily, 1988, Signed and dated ‘87’ in ink in the margin, and with the title and edition '11/10' in ink on the reverse, Sheet: 26 ¾ x 22 ½ [26 ¾] in - 67.9 x 57.2 [67.9] cm, Image: 18 13/16 x 19 [18 13/16] in - 47.8 x 48.3 [47.8] cm, Frame: 29 x 28 [29] x 1 5/16 in - 73.7 x 71.1 [73.7] x 3.3 cm, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York , © Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation. Used by [without] permission
I'm looking for the unexpected. I'm looking for things I've never seen before.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
Boardman Local Schools 66 - 2002 Blue Bird TC/2000 FE; Bus Yard - Boardman, Ohio. Bus was purchased used in the summer of 2019 from Kalida Local Schools. It was their bus 9. Bus was put into service as a spare bus in October of 2019. The luggage bays were taken off and patched over during the summer of 2021. It is the other bus I use for bus 28's route.
DSNG 477 sits on the table in the Durango yard while sister K-28's 476 and 478 sit in their roundhouse stalls.
The 1967 Alan Green Chevrolet Z-28 Camaro was one of the first two Z-28's to be delivered into the Pacific Northwest in late January 1967.
Tommi Puustinen in Vilnus, Lithuania in May 2008. Manly ollie on a filmer board, off some soft sandpaper. Published in Hang Up magazine, 3/2008.
We were on a week-long shooting trip but only got a handful of photos, due to the fact that skateboarding is illegal in the damn city. We even got treated to a ride by Vilnus' finest and spent an hour detained before being fined for our crime.
I must admit I didn't like the city much. The centre is all polished and posh, but walk two blocks and everything is falling apart. The Russian minorities have been pushed into ghettos and out of the workforce while the nouveau rich flaunt their money on the esplanades.
We met many heartfelt and friendly people, but sorry, I won't be back until a change of mayor and political atmosphere.
Many thanks to Mantas and our guides, our trip would've been a total failure without you!
Shot with my long gone Mamiya RZ67 and 37/4.5, on Portra 400VC (that shit is hard to scan, no matter who says otherwise!). One Sunpak 120J on top of the bank, probably on 1/8 power, two Nikon SB-28's farther to the left on 1/2 power. PW's for triggering. The reason I was using only one Sunpak is I broke the flash bulb on the other one, and naturally I didn't have a spare on me. Good luck finding one in Vilnus!
I've got room for 700 x 38 tires so I'm deliberating over a comfy pair of Compass tires. The Gatorskins are bullet proof - they have, in fact, never flatted on me. And that's over three and a half years of riding on them. But they're heavy and only moderately fast, and only 28's. And they are a total BITCH to get back on the rim if they ever do flat on me!
I'm also on the fence about keeping bar ends vs. going to down tube shifters. In principle I have no functional problem with bar ends; I'm just used to down tube shifters. And aesthetically, those damn cables bother the hell out of me, so there's a good chance the shifters will get swapped out in the next couple of days.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some panel lines with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau, plus some dry painting all over the fuselage.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. ;)
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and registration wwre puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, E (red) V marks the individual plane while the red E and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
Arched and grooved (striae) slickensided fault surfaces, Sacsayhuamán, Cusco, Peru
GABELMAN, JOHN W. (1968): Structure and Origin of El Rodadero, Cuzco, Peru
Division of Raw Materials, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545
El Rodadero at Cuzco, Peru, is a diorite porphyry boss transgressing limestone. The outcrop is an arched slickensided surface, which in detail is a mosaic of smaller slickensided arches. Structural mapping disclosed that each arch caps a joint block. Prominent high-angle northwest and northeast joint sets form rectangular joint blocks. Toward the southern margin, the northwestern set is locally supplemented by east-west and north-south joints. Evidence for a low-angle joint set parallel to the roof consists of the slickensided surfaces and flow layering indicated by parallel plagioclase and ferromagnesian phenocrysts. Most bounding joints are strong open fractures often filled with hydrothermal products; interior joints are rare and tight. The top of each joint block is arched and slickensided identically. Each arch is a tight doubly plunging fold terminating at the bounding joint.
Arches are interpreted to have formed by the continued upward movement of still plastic interior magma after the capping border zone had partially chilled. Joints must have formed before the border zone completely solidified. The confinement of each fold to its own joint block suggests each block expanded independently upward in the mosaic of rising blocks. One block broke through the roof and became a breccia pipe. Differential movement between passive roof and active chilled border could have formed the slickensides. Slight north-eastern elongation of the boss chamber may have controlled the identical orientation of all major fold axes and slickensides.
CARLOTTO, V., CARDÉNAS, J. y CARLIER, G., (2011): - Geología del Cuadrángulo de Cusco 28-s - 1:50 000. INGEMMET, Boletín, Serie A: 138.
El Rodadero de Sacsayhuaman, en Cuzco, Perú, es una apófisis de un stock cenozoico de pórfido diorítico con augita, intruido en lutitas, yesos y calizas del Albiense-Turoniense. Esta apófisis, de unos 200 m de diámetro, muestra superficies pulidas y acanaladas que cubren casi todo el afloramiento de diorita y constituyen una serie de resbaladeros naturales en forma de tobogán, de donde deriva su nombre.
El pórfido diorítico de El Rodadero es una roca maciza densa de grano fino y textura granular, distinguiéndose cristales de coloración oscura de augita y pequeños agregados de epidota, generalmente bastante alterados, de modo que la augita, la plagioclasa y la ortosa (escasa) están respectivamente reemplazadas por clorita, tremolita, epidota, prehnita, calcita y sericita. Los minerales accesorios están son titanita, apatito e ilmenita.
El origen de las estrías de El Rodadero es muy discutido, existiendo varias teorías, sin embargo, predominan las que proponen un fenómeno de espejos de falla por arqueamiento diferencial de los bloques entre la roca encajante y el borde del plutón.
El afloramiento es una superficie a modo de espejo de falla arqueado y estriado, que en detalle es un mosaico de espejos arqueados más pequeños. Cada espejo arqueado ocupa la parte superior de un bloque de fractura. Estos bloques están delimitados por una red rectangular de fracturas de orientación NW y NE. En el margen sur del stock se observa también que la familia de orientación NW está acompañada por fracturas E-W y N-S. Existe otra familia de diaclasas de bajo ángulo, paralelas al techo de la cúpula magmática, como demuestran los espejos de falla y una estratificación magmática de flujo, evidenciada por la orientación de plagioclasas y ferromagnesianos.
Las fracturas abiertas que delimitan los bloques están rellenas por materiales hidrotermales, pero las diaclasas internas son raras y están cerradas. Cada bloque culmina en un espejo de falla arqueado idéntico, cuya forma es la de un pliegue apretado cuyos flancos limitan con los bloques adyacentes.
El origen de las estrías de El Rodadero es muy discutido, existiendo varias teorías, sin embargo, predominan las que se deberían a un fenómeno de espejos de falla por arqueamiento diferencial de los bloques, entre las calizas y el borde del stock.
Se interpreta que los arcos se formaron por el continuo ascenso del magma interno, aún plástico, del plutón, mientras la zona marginal ya estaba parcialmente consolidada.
Las fracturas deben haberse formado antes de que la zona marginal solidificase por completo. Cada arco de fractura está confinado en un bloque, lo que sugiere que cada bloque se expandió independientemente dentro del mosaico de bloques ascendentes.
Uno de los bloques atravesó la cúpula del plutón y formó una chimenea de brecha magmática. Los espejos de falla arqueados pudieron originarse por la fricción entre la cúpula magmática pasiva y el bloque ascendente cuyo margen era todavía plástico.
El ligero alargamiento nororiental de la cámara del stock puede haber controlado la orientación idéntica de los principales ejes de pliegue y espejos de falla.
München-Riem
December 1980
LN-SUO
Fokker F-28-1000 Fellowship
11013
Braathens SAFE
Picture taken by Norbert Kröpfl. Kindly provided from the NK slide collection by Stephan Barth.
Stephan Barth’s notes:
Braathens SAFE operated their Fokker 28´s on schedules within Scandinavia, and this was a very rare visit to Munich during the ski-charter season. - Seventeen years later, the aircraft was broken up at Dinard as F-GIAI.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some panel lines with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau, plus some dry painting all over the fuselage.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. ;)
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and registration wwre puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, E (red) V marks the individual plane while the red E and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some panel lines with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau, plus some dry painting all over the fuselage.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. ;)
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and registration wwre puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, E (red) V marks the individual plane while the red E and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background
The Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.
These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.
Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.
In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.
Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.
The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.
Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.
Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.
Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.
Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.
After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.
Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.
Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.
The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).
The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.
From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.
BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:
Crew: 4
Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)
Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height
Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)
Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)
Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)
Powerplant:
Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.
Armament:
6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets
1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette
Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.
Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!
Visitantes ilustres. NODO. Filmoteca Nacional Española. Archivo rtve. (fragmento). Duración 28 s.)
Filmación sin sonido, de la visita turística de un grupo de científicos por la ciudad en los años cincuenta,
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History
United States
Name: St. Louis
Namesake: City of St. Louis, Missouri
Ordered: 13 February 1929
Awarded: 16 October 1935
Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, Newport News, Virginia
Cost: $13,196,000 (contract price)
Laid down: 10 December 1936
Launched: 15 April 1938
Sponsored by: Miss Nancy Lee Morrill
Commissioned: 19 May 1939
Decommissioned: 20 June 1946
Struck: 22 January 1951
Identification:
Hull symbol:CL-49
Code letters:NABX
ICS November.svgICS Alpha.svgICS Bravo.svgICS X-ray.svg
Nickname(s): "Lucky Lou"
Honors and
awards: Bronze-service-star-3d.png Silver-service-star-3d.png 11 × battle stars
Fate: Sold to Brazil on 29 January 1951
History
Brazil
Name: Tamandare (C-12)
Namesake: Municipality of Tamandaré, Pernambuco, Brazil
Acquired: 22 January 1951
Commissioned: 29 January 1951
Decommissioned: 28 June 1976
Struck: 1976
Identification: Hull symbol:C-12
Fate: sunk while under tow from Rio de Janeiro to the ship-breakers in Taiwan for scrapping, 24 August 1980, 38°48′S 01°24′W
General characteristics (as built)[1][2]
Class & type: St. Louis-class light cruiser
Displacement:
10,000 long tons (10,000 t) (standard)
13,327 long tons (13,541 t) (max)
Length: 608 ft 8 in (185.52 m)
Beam: 61 ft 5 in (18.72 m)
Draft:
19 ft 10 in (6.05 m) (mean)
24 ft (7.3 m) (max)
Installed power:
8 × Steam boilers
100,000 shp (75,000 kW)
Propulsion:
4 × geared turbines
4 × screws
Speed: 32.5 kn (37.4 mph; 60.2 km/h)
Complement: 868 officers and enlisted
Armament:
15 × 6 in (150 mm)/47 caliber Mark 16 guns (5x3)
8 × twin 5 in (130 mm)/38 caliber anti-aircraft guns
8 × caliber 0.50 in (13 mm) machine guns
Armor:
Belt: 3 1⁄4–5 in (83–127 mm)
Deck: 2 in (51 mm)
Barbettes: 6 in (150 mm)
Turrets: 1 1⁄4–6 in (32–152 mm)
Conning Tower: 2 1⁄4–5 in (57–127 mm)
Aircraft carried: 4 × SOC Seagull floatplanes
Aviation facilities: 2 × stern catapults
General characteristics (1945)[3][4]
Armament:
15 × 6 in (150 mm)/47 caliber Mark 16 guns (5x3)
8 × twin 5 in (130 mm)/38 caliber anti-aircraft guns
4 × quad 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors anti-aircraft guns
6 × twin 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors anti-aircraft guns
18 × single 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon anti-aircraft cannons
USS St. Louis (CL-49), the lead ship of her class of light cruiser, was the fifth ship of the United States Navy named after the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Commissioned in 1939, she was very active in the Pacific during World War II, earning eleven battle stars.
She was deactivated shortly after the war, but was recommissioned into the Brazilian Navy as Almirante Tamandaré in 1951. She served until 1976, and sank under tow to the scrappers in 1980.
Construction
St. Louis was laid down on 10 December 1936 by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Virginia; launched on 15 April 1938; sponsored by Miss Nancy Lee Morrill; and commissioned on 19 May 1939, Captain Charles H. Morrison in command.[5]
Inter-war period
Atlantic
Fitted out and based at Norfolk, St. Louis completed shakedown on 6 October, then commenced Neutrality Patrol operations which, during the next 11 months, took her from the West Indies into the North Atlantic. On 3 September 1940, she put to sea with an inspection board embarked to evaluate possible sites, from Newfoundland to British Guiana, for naval and air bases to be gained in exchange for destroyers transferred to the British government. She returned to Norfolk on 27 October.[5]
Pacific
St. Louis sailed for the Pacific on 9 November. Transiting the Panama Canal five days later, St. Louis reached Pearl Harbor on 12 December. She participated in fleet maneuvers and conducted patrols during the winter of 1940-1941, then steamed to California for an overhaul at Mare Island. She returned to Pearl Harbor on 20 June and resumed operations in Hawaiian waters.[5]
Two months later, St. Louis sailed west with other cruisers of the Battle Force, patrolled between Wake Island, Midway Atoll, and Guam, then, proceeded to Manila, returning to Hawaii at the end of September. On 28 September 1941, she entered the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard for upkeep.[5]
World War II
This message denotes the first US ship, USS St. Louis (CL49) to clear Pearl Harbor. (National Archives and Records Administration) [Note that this is in answer to question "Is channel clear?" and faint writing at bottom concerning the answer being held until St. Louis had successfully cleared.]
On 7 December 1941, St. Louis was moored to the pier in Southeast Lock at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. At 7:56, Japanese planes were sighted by observers on board St. Louis. Within minutes, the ship was at general quarters, and her operable anti-aircraft guns were manned and firing on the attackers. By 8:06, preparations for getting underway had begun. At about 8:20, one of the cruiser's gun crews shot down its first Japanese torpedo plane. By 9:00, two more Japanese aircraft had joined the first. At 9:31, St. Louis moved away from the pier and headed for South Channel and the open sea. 15 minutes later, her 6 in (150 mm) guns, whose power leads had been disconnected, were in full operating order.[5]
As the cruiser moved into the channel entrance, she became the target of a midget submarine. The Japanese torpedoes, however, exploded on striking a shoal less than 200 yd (180 m) from the ship. Destroyers then pounded the bottom with depth charges and St. Louis continued out to sea where she joined Detroit and Phoenix, both of which also left Pearl Harbor during the attack, and a few destroyers in the search for the Japanese fleet. After failing to locate the Japanese strike force, the hunters returned to Pearl Harbor on 10 December. St. Louis turned to escorting transports carrying casualties to San Francisco and troops to Hawaii.[5]
For her success during the attack on Pearl Harbor, the ship was given the nickname "Lucky Lou."[6]
1942
On 6 January 1942, she departed San Francisco with Task Force 17 (TF 17), centered around Yorktown, and escorted the ships transporting the Marine Expeditionary Force to Samoa to reinforce defenses there. From 20–24 January, the Yorktown group covered the offloading at Pago Pago, then moved to conduct air strikes in the Marshalls and the Gilberts before returning to Pearl Harbor on 7 February.[5]
Upon her return to Pearl Harbor, St. Louis resumed escort duty with Hawaii–California convoys. In the spring, after a trip to the New Hebrides, she escorted President Coolidge, which was carrying President Manuel L. Quezon of the Philippines to the west coast, arriving at San Francisco on 8 May. The following day, she was again bound for Pearl Harbor. There, she switched to a reinforcement group carrying Marine aircraft and personnel to Midway in anticipation of Japanese efforts to take that key outpost. On the 25th, she delivered her charges to their mid-ocean destination, then moved north as a unit of TF 8 to reinforce Aleutian defenses.[5]
On 31 May, St. Louis arrived at Kodiak Island, refueled, and got underway to patrol south of the Alaskan Peninsula. Through July, she continued the patrols, ranging westward to intercept enemy shipping. On 3 August, she headed for Kiska for her first shore bombardment mission. Four days later, she shelled that enemy-held island, then returned to Kodiak on the 11th.[5]
After that mission, the cruiser continued patrols in the Aleutian area and covered the Allied occupation of Adak Island. On 25 October, she proceeded via Dutch Harbor to California for an overhaul at Mare Island.[5]
1943
On 4 December 1942, she departed San Francisco with transports bound for New Caledonia. She shepherded the convoy into its Nouméan anchorage on the 21st, then shifted to Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides, where she proceeded into the Solomons. She commenced operations there in January 1943 with bombardments of Japanese air facilities at Munda and Kolombangara, and during the next five months, repeated those raids and patrolled "the Slot" in the Central Solomons in an effort to halt the "Tokyo Express": reinforcement and supply shipping that sought, almost nightly, to bolster Japanese garrisons.[5]
Shortly after midnight on 4–5 July, she participated in the bombardment of Vila and Bairoko Harbor, New Georgia. Her division, Cruiser Division 9 (CruDiv 9) and its screen, Destroyer Squadron 21 (DesRon 21), then retired back toward Tulagi to replenish as troops were landed at Rice Anchorage. Early on the morning of the 6th, however, the force located and engaged ten enemy destroyers headed for Vila with reinforcements embarked. In the Battle of Kula Gulf, Helena and two enemy ships were sunk.[5]
St. Louis after the Battle of Kolombangara, showing torpedo damage to her bows
Six nights later, the force, TF 18, reinforced by DesRon 12, moved back up "the Slot" from Tulagi, and soon after 0100 on the 13th, engaged an enemy force consisting of the Japanese cruiser Jintsu and five destroyers in the Battle of Kolombangara. During the battle, which raged for over an hour, Jintsu and Gwin were sunk and HMNZS Leander, Honolulu, and St. Louis were damaged. St. Louis took a torpedo which hit well forward and twisted her bow, but caused no serious casualties.[5]
She returned to Tulagi on the afternoon of the 13th. From there, she moved on to Espiritu Santo for temporary repairs, then steamed east, to Mare Island, to complete the work. In mid-November, she returned to the Solomons, and from the 20th-25th covered Marines fighting for Bougainville Island. In December, she returned to that island to shell troop concentrations and, in January 1944, shifted southward to bombard enemy installations in the Shortland Islands. Then, she moved back to Bougainville to cover the landing of reinforcements at Cape Torokina.[5]
1944-1945
On 10 January 1944, St. Louis headed back to Florida Island. In February, she again moved northwest, this time into the extreme northern Solomons and the Bismarcks. On the 13th, she arrived in the area between Buka and St. George Channel to support landing operations in the Green Islands, off of New Ireland.[5]
At 1855 on the 14th, six Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers were sighted approaching St. Louis's group. Crossing astern of the ships, the enemy planes went out to the southeast before turning and coming back. Only five remained in the formation, which split off into two groups. Two of the planes closed on St. Louis.[5]
The first plane dropped three bombs, all near misses. The second released three more. One scored on the light cruiser, the others being near misses just off the port quarter. The bomb that hit penetrated the 40 mm clipping room near the No. 6 gun mount, and exploded in the midships living compartment. Twenty-three died and 20 were wounded, 10 seriously. A fire, which had started in the clipping room, was extinguished. Both of her scout planes were rendered inoperable, and her ventilation system was damaged. Communication with the after engine room ceased, and the cruiser slowed to 18 kn (21 mph; 33 km/h). On the 15th, she survived another air attack and was then ordered back to Purvis Bay.[5]
Repairs were completed by the end of the month, and in March, St. Louis resumed operations with her division. Through May, she remained in the Solomons. On 4 June, she moved north to the Marshalls, where on the 10th, she sailed for the Mariana Islands in TF 52, the Saipan assault force. Four days later, she cruised off southern Saipan. On the 15th, she shelled the Chalan Kanoa area, retired as the landings took place, then moved back to provide call fire support and to shell targets of opportunity. On the 16th, she proceeded south and bombarded the Asan beach area of Guam. She then returned to Saipan and, on the 17th, shifted to an area north of that island where she remained through the battle of the Philippine Sea. On the 22nd, she returned to Saipan and, after screening the refueling group for two days, proceeded to the Marshalls.[5]
On 14 July 1944, St. Louis again headed for the Marianas. The next day, she damaged her No. 3 propeller and lost 39 ft (12 m) of the tail shaft. Nevertheless, two days later, she arrived off Guam as scheduled; and, during the afternoon, covered underwater demolition teams working the proposed landing beaches. Pre-invasion shore bombardment followed, and after the landings on the 21st, she provided support fire and call fire. On the 29th, St. Louis departed the Marianas for Pearl Harbor, where she was routed on to California for overhaul. In mid-October, she steamed back to Hawaii, trained until the end of the month, then moved on across the Pacific, via Ulithi and Kossol Roads, to the Philippines, arriving in Leyte Gulf on 16 November.[5]
St. Louis hit by a kamikaze off Leyte, 27 November 1944
During the next 10 days, she patrolled in the gulf and in Surigao Strait, adding her batteries to the anti-aircraft guns protecting shipping in the area. Shortly before noon on 27 November, a formation of 12-14 enemy planes attacked the cruiser's formation. St. Louis was unscathed in the brief battle. A request was made for CAP cover, but Japanese planes continued to command the air. At 1130, another 10 enemy planes filled the space vacated by the first flight and broke into three attack groups of four, four, and two. At 1138, a "Val" made a kamikaze dive on St. Louis from the port quarter, and exploded with its bomb on impact. Fires broke out in the cruiser's hangar area and spaces. All crew members of 20 mm guns 7-10 were killed or wounded.[5]
At 1139, a second burning enemy plane headed at her on the port beam. Flank speed was rung up and the rudder was put hard right. The plane passed over No. 4 turret and crashed 100 yd (91 m) out.[5]
At 1146, there was still no CAP cover over the cruiser's formation, and at 1151, two more enemy planes, both burning, attacked St. Louis. The first was splashed off the port quarter, and the second drove in from starboard and crashed almost on board on the port side. A 20 ft (6.1 m) section of armor belt was lost and numerous holes were torn in her hull. By 1152, the ship had taken on a list to port. At 1210, another kamikaze closed on St. Louis. It was stopped 400 yd (370 m) astern. Ten minutes later, enemy torpedo bombers moved in to attack. St. Louis, warned by a PT boat, barely avoided contact with a lethal package dropped by one of the planes.[5]
By 1236, the cruiser was back on an even keel. Thirty minutes later, all major fires were out, and salvage work had been started. Medical work was well under way: 15 were dead, one was missing, 21 were seriously wounded, and 22 had sustained minor injuries. On the 28th, St. Louis's seriously injured were transferred, and on the 30th, she put into San Pedro Bay for temporary repairs which allowed her to reach California toward the end of December.[5]
On 1 March 1945, St. Louis departed California, and at mid-month, she joined the fast carrier force at Ulithi. By the end of the month, she had participated in strikes against the southern Japanese home islands, then moved south to the Ryukyu Islands to join TF 54, bombarded Okinawa, and guarded minesweepers and underwater demolition teams clearing channels to the assault beaches. On the 31st, she put into Kerama Retto to replenish, then returned to the larger island to support the forces landed on the Hagushi beaches on 1 April.[5]
Five days later, the cruiser covered minesweepers off Iwo Jima, then resumed fire support and antiaircraft duties off Okinawa. On 18 May, she departed Hagushi for a brief respite at Leyte, and in mid-June, she resumed support operations off Okinawa. On 25 July, she shifted to TF 95, and on the 28th, she supported air strikes against Japanese installations on the Asiatic mainland. Sweeps of the East China Sea followed, and in early August, she anchored in Buckner Bay, where she remained until the end of hostilities on 15 August.[5]
Post-war
China
Post-war duties kept the cruiser in the Far East for another two and one-half months. In late August 1945, while in the Philippines, she was assigned to TF 73 of the Yangtze River Patrol Force. During September, as other ships joined the force, she was at Buckner Bay, and in October, she moved on to Shanghai. In mid-October, she helped to lift Chinese Army units to Formosa.[5]
Magic Carpet
St. Louis joined the "Magic Carpet" fleet to carry World War II veterans back to the United States. She completed her first "Magic Carpet" run at San Francisco on 9 November 1945, and by mid-January 1946 had made two more runs, both to islands in the Central and Southwest Pacific.[5]
In early February 1946, St. Louis sailed for the east coast and arrived at Philadelphia for deactivation on the 25th. She was decommissioned on 20 June and berthed at League Island with the 16th (Inactive) Fleet through the decade.[5]
Transfer to Brazil
In the 1951, St. Louis was designated for transfer to the government of Brazil. Her name was struck from the Navy List on 22 January 1951, and on the 29th, she was commissioned in the Brazilian Navy as Tamandare (C-12). Formally activated for duty on January 29, 1951, the St. Louis was renamed C Tamandare (C-12)[5] and served with the Marinha do Brasil as Fleet Flagship until 1976. Decommissioned for the final time and once again placed into reserve, the Tamandare was eventually sold for scrapping in Taiwan in 1980 and was under tow to the breakers yard (Taiwan) when she flooded and sunk on August 24, 1980, near Cape of Good Hope, at 38°48′28″S 1°23′59″W
Ten 32-28 presses in the photoengraving department at Conde Nast's printing plant in New York, April 4, 1958. Five presses have split inking systems.
This aircraft participated in the 2916 Warbirds in Flight Aviation Show held at New Century Airbase in Gardner Kansas.
U.S. Air Force version with an 800 hp (597 kW) Wright R-1300-7 radial engine; 1,194 built.
The North American Aviation T-28 Trojan is a piston-engined military trainer aircraft used by the United States Air Force and Navy beginning in the 1950s. Besides its use as a trainer, the T-28 was successfully employed as a counter-insurgency aircraft, primarily during the Vietnam War. It has continued in civilian use as an aerobatics and Warbird performer.
After becoming adopted as a primary trainer by the USAF, the United States Navy and Marine Corps adopted it as well. Although the Air Force phased out the aircraft from primary pilot training by the early 1960s, continuing use only for limited training of special operations aircrews and for primary training of select foreign military personnel, the aircraft continued to be used as a primary trainer by the Navy (and by default, the Marine Corps and Coast Guard) well into the early 1980s.
The largest single concentration of this aircraft was employed by the U.S. Navy at Naval Air Station Whiting Field in Milton, Florida, in the training of student naval aviators. The T-28's service career in the U.S. military ended with the completion of the phase-in of the T-34C turboprop trainer. The last U.S. Navy training squadron to fly the T-28 was VT-27 "Boomers", based at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, flying the last T-28 training flight in early 1984. The last T-28 in the Training Command, BuNo 137796, departed for Naval District Washington on 14 March 1984 to be displayed permanently at Naval Support Facility Anacostia, D.C.
T-28s were supplied to the Republic of Vietnam Air Force in support of ARVN ground operations, seeing extensive service during the Vietnam War in VNAF hands, as well as the Secret War in Laos. A T-28 Trojan was the first US fixed wing attack aircraft (non-transport type) lost in South Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. Capt. Robert L. Simpson, USAF, Detachment 2A, 1st Air Commando Group, and Lt. Hoa, SVNAF, were shot down by ground fire on August 28, 1962 while flying close air support. Neither crewman survived. The USAF lost 23 T-28s to all causes during the war, with the last two losses occurring in 1968.
Many retired T-28s were subsequently sold to private civil operators, and due to their reasonable operating costs are often found flying or displayed as warbirds today.