View allAll Photos Tagged 28's
Made quite the mess... Only had one box of strawberries to play with and I told myself I would only use each strawberry once so I only had 35 chances to get this right, cause right after I dropped them... I ate them to make sure I don't go back on my word hahaha.
This was actually and mix of attempts number 7, 18, and 33. So they arent shots of the same strawberry, kind of look the same though right? Things really got messy when I got to the last strawberry... But it was all worth it in the end. Over 45 min set up and tear down time for not even 15 min of shooting.
Stobist Info
2 SB-28's stacked camera left, bare at 1/64
1 HVL-58am with a red gel pointed at the backgound at 1/16
Triggered by RadioPopper JrX
Hay esta foto me gusta caleta nose mi ojitos sale cm too rato por eso me gusta ademaz salgo cn la manopla qe me dio el sebitaa & cn el corazon qe me diio el rodrigo amo a esos dos tontitos (L) son muy especiales en mi vida gracias por todo sebita te veo hoy dia & el lunes niqita shanshiita te amo demaziado te veo hoy dia wiii rodrigo te veo el 28 :S falta musho iiwual =/ pero tenemoz qe hablar :S besitos a todos & a todas las amo & los amo
©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.
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.
Le mythique Tram 28 s’avance dans les ruelles, grinçant sur ses rails comme une vieille chanson qu’on ne se lasse jamais d’écouter.
Mais ce jour-là, il y avait plus qu’un simple passage de tramway, à la fenêtre, une jeune femme tient son téléphone, capturant chaque instant… sans savoir que, pendant qu’elle filme, je la photographie.
Deux regards qui se croisent sans se voir, deux histoires qui s’écrivent en même temps. Elle immortalise Lisbonne depuis l’intérieur, moi depuis la rue.
It would appear my newest nephew isn't as fond of studio time as am I.
Nikon D7200
Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR
Strobist info: 2 SB-28's in small softboxes camera left and right. Sb-28 with grid for background light. All fired using RadioPoppers.
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.
The Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) also known as the Australian sea-lion or Australian sea lion, is a species of sea lion that is the only endemic pinniped in Australia.
These Sea-lions are sparsely distributed through Houtman Arbrolhos Islands (28°S., 114°E.) in Western Australia and The Pages Islands (35°46’S., 138°18’E) in Southern Australia. With a population estimated at around 14,730 animals, the Wildlife Conservation Act of Western Australia (1950) has listed them as “in need of special protection”.
Their Conservation status is listed as endangered. These pinnipeds are specifically known for their abnormal breeding cycles, which are varied between 5 months breeding cycle and a 17-18 month aseasonal breeding cycle, compared to other pinnipeds which fit into a 12 month reproductive cycle.
The Australian sea lion is a pinniped, most closely related to other species of sea lions and fur seals in the family Otariidae. Australian sea lions and fur sea lions make up the Otariide family, which are eared seals.
These mammals use their flippers to propel themselves in water and can walk on land with their flippers. Australian sea lions share distinct features with other sea lions. These include short fur, short flippers and a bulky body
VA-22 Redcocks A-4F Skyhawk BuNo 155000, NF-307, NAS North Island, March 1969. S-2E Tracker BuNo 149859 and VT-28; S-2A Tracker BuNo 136494, 3B-858, in the background.
The Object.
Another image from the series I've been working on.
I met this guy on the side of the road near where I live. He was walking along the side of an empty secluded road, wearing torn, dirty clothes, a packet in his left hand and a Staffordshire Bull Terrier on his right side. I stopped and asked to take his photo and he replied with a big smile and a very enthusiastic, "Yes sir!". I explained my assignment to him, and he emptied out everything he had in his pockets at the time. This was everything. I noticed he had a '26' tattooed on the back of his left hand, which I questioned him about. He then told me that he was in a gang, the '26's'. There were also 27's and 28's and a few others. I had heard a few rumors about these gangs before but never really new the whole story behind them He then proceeded to tell me that he got the tattoo whilst serving time in jail for rape and murder. Thats what the '26' gang was notorious for. He served a full twelve years, he said, in 8 different jails. Twelve years seems a bit short of a punishment for an act like that, but I took his word for it none the less. He said hes a changed man now though, and he likes to live a nomadic, simple and free life by himself with the company of his dog, whose name was Meisie, just appreciating each day for what it is, and surprisingly enough, he said he was happy with the little bit he had. Despite his dark past, he seemed to be a rather wise and friendly old man.
Canon 5D MkII
Canon 50mm 1.8
© Daniel Grebe
+++ 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!
+++ 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!
Strobist Info.
Bare SB-28's at 1/4 power 45 degrees camera left and right
1 430EX through a shoot through umbrella, slightly camera left
©MikeOrazzi All Rights Reserved
Evangeline photographed at Black Point in Rhode Island.
SB 28's 1/4 power, right and left, bare, set off with a Quantum radio Slave 4i.
Yesterday we took a ride through the mountains after watching the pro bike race near Golden. We drove through the canyon in late afternoon after the storm clouds had rolled in. It was overcast and soft light with no rain so I decided to go after one of my long-time photo bucket list shots.. an eye-level slow exposure of Coal Creek.
Those of you who know the area can appreciate that there are some spectacular boulders and cascades but it is not trivial to get down to the creek from most spots (particularly the more interesting ones). So, we drove along scoping all the pullouts until I found one that had a reasonable path to the bottom and an interesting water scene. I scrambled down near the water and decided that I needed to get into the creek to get the right POV. There was an old man sitting on the bank panning for something. The water was not that fast and definitely not very high. I didn't bring an extra pair of water shoes as I usually do so I decided to take my shoes off. As it turns out this was not a good choice.
I stepped into the cold water and found the bottom to be incredibly slick, even staying off the larger rocks. I only had a few shallow feet to go (there was an awesome, flat dry rock in the middle) so I decided to go on. I carefully walked out within one step of the big rock and unexpectedly stepped into a hole. Got my legs and the tripod soaked while trying to right myself but the camera seemed to just get a splash so I decided to settle for the mostly dry rock next to it and be glad my camera didn't go into the drink. I dried off the camera, set it on the tripod then reached into my back pocket for my wallet of filters. GONE!!!!! They must have fallen out when I slipped. I whirled around and saw them bobbing about five feet downstream and a couple feet lower in the cascade (being held back by a fallen tree that was barely sticking out of the water). I was not even close to wanting to let those filters go as they were rather high quality 67mm NDs, polarizer, etc so I scrambled down there as carefully as I could and snatched them. In the process I slipped around some more and the camera hood glanced against a rock. I looked down just quick enough to see it fall off but not quick enough to save it.
Oh well, I had the camera, the tripod and the filters and it did not appear that the camera hit the water so I dried off the spray on it again, pulled my soaking filter wallet out, dried off an ND4 and took my shots with as much dignity as I could muster (the old man continued to pan). No way was I going to go through all of that without my picture if at all possible. If you are crazy enough to climb down into coal creek and you do run into a nikon lens hood you can keep it :-)
Couple of things I learned through this: 1. always wear rubber-soled shoes in running water 2. don't use your best camera or lens if possible or carry any unnecessary gear 3. Secure anything you are carrying in a pouch with a zipper/button/etc 4. Use a different memory card. The camera gear is replaceable but the pictures!!! Oh, what a bummer it would be to lose them, and 5. Bring extra clothes in case something goes wrong and you take a swim.
I'd do it again in a heartbeat!
© 2011 A L Christensen
INV 2012 Mar 27
C FO
U 2012-03-28
S 2012-03-30
K 2012-04-01
Strobist: 2 SB-28's fired to white seamless, 1 Elinchrom Ranger with 53 inch Octa fired front and above all with Pocket Wizard II's. Metered with Sekonic L-758DR
Nikon D700 and 24-70mm f2.8 AF-S
I love my Rangefinders ! Rangefinders. Contax G2, 2 Canonet 28's and a Petri 7S. Photo taken with Contax Aria, Contax TLA360 Flash with Lumiquest Mini Softbox attachment, Studio Systems SP920MDLVP Monolight with Small Softbox, Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.7 lens, Tiffen 81A Warming filter, Fuji Provia 100F, F16 at 1/125 sec., Nikon Coolscan V ED, Photoshop Elements 2.0, Metered with a Sekonic L-508 Zoom Master.
Scott and his helper are making bigger piles of coal inside the gon used to transport the fuel for the 28 while Dan run the crane and bucket loader between the gon and the coal bunker on the 28's tender.
Wow! Day 28! I made it! Whoo-Hoo! My day 28 page includes days1-28 layouts.Yes, even day 28's layout! :) In the middle of all the scrapbooks I have for my sons and my wedding album, I do have my own girly album that include girls night outs, weekend trips, scrapbooking crops, and now will include LOAD 2009! I wanted to really remember this experience because it gave me more than just 28 completed layouts; it gave me a great feeling of accomplishment! And that makes me feel really, really good. Now I am ready for the next challenge and a challenge after that and so forth. I really enjoyed being part of LOAD. Thank you for looking at my pages and sharing yours with me! I'm looking forward to LOAW starting tomorrow!!
Heather :)
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
BEWARE: nothing you see here is real, even though many conversions and their respective background stories were built upon historical facts.
The Messerschmitt Me 510 was a further development of the Me 410 Hornisse ("Hornet"), a German heavy fighter and Schnellbomber used by the Luftwaffe during World War II. The 410 itself had a troubled start, because it essentially had only been a straightforward modification of the Me 210, which had suffered from serious stability flaws and had a bad reputation among its crews.
The 410 handled bettr but did not show much improvement in performance, though. Me 410 deliveries began in January 1943, two years later than the original plan had called for, and continued until September 1944, by which point a total of 1.160 of all versions had been produced by Messerschmitt Augsburg and Dornier München. When it arrived, it was liked by its crews, even though its performance was not enough to protect it from the swarms of high performance allied fighters they faced.
Still not giving up on the original construction (and with the jigs and tools still available), Messerschmitt started in early 1944 with research into further means of improving the Me 410's performance. One direction was the addition of one or two jets under the fuselage as boosters for combat situations.
Another design path, which eventually led to the Me 510, was the development of turboprop and compound engines as propulsion options, which were based on the respective pure jet engines but offered much better performance and fuel economy than the pure jets. It would also be the more efficient solution compared to added turbojets for pure piston planes, since no dead weight had to be carried, and the overall system was less complex than a mixed powerplant system.
This turboprop concept, as best compromise between performance and short-term readiness for service, was chosen and the modified aircraft, called Messerschmitt Me 510, came to be. The design target was to outperform the Me 410 with as little change to the overall construction as possible, so that old tooling could be used for new aircraft cells. Alternatively, old aircraft should potentially be converted to the improved standard.
Core of the new development was the compact HeS 021 turboprop, a PTL development of the HeS 011 jet engine which was also planned for Focke Wulfs FW P.0310226-127 fighter (a turboprop version of the light 'Flitzer' day fighter). This engine was theoretically to deliver up to 3.300hp (2.426 kw) shaft output, plus 1.100kg (2.424 lb) additional thrust, even though serial types would produce less power under the aspect of reliability.
In order to incorporate this engine into the modified Me 410 a new main wing with laminar profile and new engine nacelles had to be designed. The HeS 021sat in the front part of the engine nacelles above the wings, driving four-bladed propellers. The landing gear retracted into the nacelle's lower section, rotating 90°, much like the Me 410, with the exhaust running above the landing gear wells.
In order to improve directional stability further, the tail surfaces were slightly enlarged, receiving characteristic, square tips. The fuselage was more or less taken from the original Me 410, since it offered a very good field of view and appropriate aerodynamics. With this package, the idea of retrofitting former Me 410 cells was kept, even though later flight tests showed that some more detail modifications had to be made. Most of these concerned the internal structures, the most obvious external change was the nose section, where the original glazing had to be reinforced and finally replaced by solid material – an experience similar to the modification from Douglas’ piston-driven XB-42 to the faster, jet-driven XB-43 of the same era.
Maiden flight of the first prototype took place in Augsburg on 6th of May 1945, with little problems. As benchmark, the Me 410's maximum speed was 625 km/h (388 mph), a cruise speed of 579 km/h (360 mph) and a combat range of 2.300 km (1,400 mi) with up to 1.000 kg (2,204 lbs) of disposable stores carried in- and externally.
The overall flying characteristics of the Me 410 did not change much, but rate of climb and top speed were considerably improved. In level flight, the third prototype Me 510 V3 reached a top speed of 812 km/h (504 mph), and even the serial version with added armament and equipment easily reached 750 km/h (465 mph) top speed and a cruising speed with no external stores of 650 km/h (405 mph). At its time, the Me 510, which quickly received the rather inofficial nickname "Bremse" (Horsefly), was superior to its pure piston engine and turbojet rivals, even though it was clear that the turboprop was only a preliminary solution.
Due to its high speed and under the pressure of Allied bomber raids, the Me 510 was primarily used as a Zerstörer against daylight bombers. Many aircraft received additional weapons, both directly incorporated at the factory but also as field accessories. Popular modifications included two extra 30mm guns (MK 108 or 103) in the bomb bay, or provisions for guided and unguided air to air missiles. A camera equipment package (Rüstsatz 'U3') allowed the fast aircraft to be used for daylight reconnaissance.
Many equipment packages from the earlier Me 410 could be fitted, too, including the massive 50mm BK 5 auto cannon against allied bomber groups. Initially, this package (‘U4’ Rüstsatz) comprised the original autocannon which fired at 45 RPM, with 21 shells in a drum magazine.
This weapon soon was replaced by the even more effective MK 214 B gun of 55mm caliber (Rüstsatz 'U5'). The BK 214 B fired at 180 RPM and proved to be a highly effective weapon at long ranges, outside of the bombers’ defensive armament range. As a drawback the heavy system (the gun plus the ammunition belt with 96 shells weighed 1.124 kg/2.475 lb) filled the whole internal bomb bay and precluded heavy external stores. Therefore, the 13mm machine guns in the nose were frequently removed in order to save weight, sometimes the weapons in the side barbettes, too. But: a single hit with one of the 1.54kg (3.4 lb) shells was enough to bring down a four-engined bomber, so that the fast Me 510 with this weapon became a serious threat in the course of late 1946.
510 general characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 42 ft (12,60 m)
Wingspan: 49 ft (14.69 m)
Height: 13 ft 1½ in (4.0 m)
Wing area: 480.11 ft² (44.78m²)
Empty weight: 10.665 lb (4.842 kg)
Loaded weight: 14.405 lb (6.540 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 18.678 lb (8.480 kg)
Maximum speed: 790 km/h (490 mph) at 7.200m (23.500 ft)
Range: 1.400 mi (2.300 km ) with full combat TOW
Service ceiling: 40.900 ft (12.500 m)
Rate of climb: 4.635 ft/min (23,6 m/s)
Wing loading: 29.8 lb/ft² (121.9 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.24 hp/lb (0.39 kW/kg)
Engine:
2× Heinkel-Hirth HeS 021 turboprop engines, 1.438 kW (2.500 hp) plus 980 kp (2.158 lb) residual thrust each
Armament: Varied, but typical basic equipment was:
2× 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons with 350 rpg, fixed in the nose
2× 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns with 500 rpg in the nose flanks
2× 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns with 500 rpg, each firing rearward from FDSL 131/1B remote-operated turret, one per side;
Up to 1.200 kg (2.643 lb) of disposable stores in- and externally
In the field, many modifications were made and several additional weapon packages with guns, guided and unguided missiles or special weapons were available (so-called ‘Rüstsätze’).
The kit and its assembly:
I am not certain when inspiration struck me for this fantasy aircraft - I guess it was when I tinkered together the Hü 324 whif, which was itself based on a 1:72 scale Il-28 bomber. When I browsed for a respective donation kit I also came across the 1:100 scale kit of the Soviet light bomber from Tamiya, and that stirred something: The Il-28's vintage contours would perfectly suit a Luft '46 aircraft, and with some calculations it was clear that the 1:100 wings would be suitable for something in the class of a 1:72 DH Mosquito or Bf 110. Then, the ill-fated Me 410 came to the scene as a potential late war basis aircraft, and from this starting point the idea of an evolutionary next step of the type, the Messerschmitt Me 510, was born.
Basically this model is a kitbashing of a Tamiya Il-28 in 1:100 (wings & engine nacelles) and the fuselage of a Matchbox Me 410. The IL-28's wings were turned upside down, so that the nacelles would now ride on the wings' top.
This not only looks cool and 'different', it's also plausible because the landing gear could retract into the wings under the nacelles (with the main landing gear doors closed, just like the original Me 410), it would also reduce the angle of the aircraft on the ground to a sensible degree - with the engines under the wings plus the landing gear would have been much to steep!
Fitting the wings to the fuselage was pretty easy, even though the original Me 410 wing profile was much thicker than the slender Il-28 wings. Cleaning and blending the wing root areas was a bit tricky, but the parts get together well.
As a design twist and for a uniform look I also replaced the whole tail section, matching the angular look of the thin new main wings. The horizontal stabilizers are wing tips from a Matchbox Me 262, the vertical fin is a modified outer wing part from a Matchbox Grumman Panther.
The engine nacelles were taken OOB. I just filled the Il-28's landing gear wells and their covers with putty, since they'd end on top of the new engines.
The propellers come from Matchbox P-51 Mustangs, outfitted with pointed spinners and held by a metal pin in a polystyrene tube which runs through the original intake splitter. Looks pretty martial, even though the nacelles ended up a bit close to the fuselage. The overall look reminds of the Short Sturgeon, but is not inplausible. A compact aircraft!
The cockpit received some side panels, news seats and some equipment, since the original Matchbox kit features almost nothing beyond a floor plate, two broad benches as seats and pilot figures. I also opened the cockpit hatches, since the aircraft would be built for ground display, with the landing gear extended.
From the original kit the BK 5 cannon installation was taken over, but I added a scratch-built, bigger muzzle brake. Since the aircraft was to become a high speed interceptor/Zerstörer for daylight operations, I did not add any further external ordnance.
Painting and markings:
I pondered about a potential livery for a long time. Almost any Me 410 was delivered in RLM 74/75/76 livery, and some at the Western front in France were operated in RLM 70/71/65, with a low waterline. But I found this pretty... boring. So I made up a fantasy livery which I found suitable for high altitude operations and based on my knowledge of late Luftwaffe paint scheme - pretty complex:
The aircraft was to be light in color, primarily camouflaged for aerial combat. I ended up with something that was planned as something that could have almost been called 'low-viz': all lower surfaces received a basic tone of RLM 76 (from Testors), with a raised waterline on all flanks. This light blue-grey would blend into a slightly darker FS 36320 on the higher flanks, almost up to the upper surfaces.
But in the end, the flanks received more spots than intended, and I ended up with a rather conservative livery - but it ain't bad at all. But so it goes...
The upper wing surfaces received a wavy scheme in RLM 71 (Drak Green) and 75 (Middel Grey). These are not typical late war colors, I rather used them due to the lighter shades. On the fuselage, just the fuselage crest was painted with more or less dense blotches of these tones, blending into more patches of RLM 02 on the flanks.
To add some more unconventional detail, the fuselage sides and undersides also received large, cloudy patches of RLM 77 - a very light grey. This detail was featured on some late-war He 177 bombers, but you can hardly tell these extra blotches because they have only little contrast to the RLM 76.
The tail fin was painted all white - a formation sign for a squadron leader, typical for German late WWII fighters. The black and white fuselage stripe is the ID of Jagdgeschwader 26 (which operated Fw 190D-9 from airfields in northern Germany, Flensburg was one of them), the red number abd the "+" code identify the machine as being part of the eighth Staffel.
In the end, a very subtle whif. The new engines are most obvious, and they change the look of the Me 410 dramatically. But only on second glance you recognize the other changes. The new wings/stabilizers with their square-shaped tips create a very slender and elegant look, the aircraft just looks fast and agile like a true heavy fighter should. Mission accomplished!
+++ 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!
Canon EOS R+Adaptador EF-EOS R
Canon EF17-40mm f/4L USM
ISO:100 - 23mm - f/11- 1/8 seg.
15 h. 24 m. 28 s.
+++ 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!
+++ 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!
+++ 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!
The notable French aircraft manufacturer Société Anonyme des Establissements Nieuport was formed in 1909 and rose to prominence before World War I with a series of elegant monoplane designs. The namesakes of the company, Edouard de Niéport and his brother Charles, were both killed in flying accidents before the war. (The spelling of the company name was a slight variation of the brothers' surname.) The talented designer Gustave Delage joined the firm in 1914 and was responsible for the highly successful war-time line of sesquiplane V-strut single-seat scouts, the most famous of which were the Nieuport 11 and the Nieuport 17.
The Nieuport 28C.1 was developed in mid-1917 and was the first biplane fighter design produced by Nieuport that had relatively equal-chord upper and lower wings. In an attempt to compete with the superior performance of the Spad VII and the recently introduced Spad XIII, Nieuport explored the use of a more powerful motor than the types employed in the sesquiplane series. The availability of a more powerful, and heavier, 160-horsepower Gnôme rotary engine prompted the decision to increase the surface area of the lower wing to compensate for the greater weight of the new power plant, hence eliminating the typical Nieuport sesquiplane V-strut configuration.
In early 1918, the French Air Service rejected the new Nieuport design as a front-line fighter in favor of the sturdier, more advanced Spad XIII. However, the Nieuport 28 found a place with the newly arriving American squadrons. Having no suitable fighter design of its own, the United States adopted the Nieuport 28 as a stop-gap measure before the much-in-demand Spad XIIIs could be made available from the French. The Nieuport 28 performed creditably as the first operational pursuit aircraft in the fledgling U.S. Air Service of the American Expeditionary Force. Thus, the primary significance of the Nieuport 28 for the national aeronautical collection is that it was the first fighter aircraft to serve with an American fighter unit under American command and in support of U.S. troops. It was also first type to score an aerial victory with an American unit. On April 14, 1918, Lieutenants Alan Winslow and Douglas Campbell of the 94th Aero Squadron, both piloting a Nieuport 28, each downed an enemy aircraft in a fight that took place directly over their home airfield at Gengoult.
The Nieuport 28 made its mark in aviation history after World War I as well. Of the 297 total Nieuport 28 fighters procured by the United States from the French government during World War I, 88 were returned to the United States after the war. Twelve Nieuports, along with examples of several other European types brought back, were used by the U.S. Navy from 1919 to 1921 for shipboard launching trials. Many, often harrowing, launches were undertaken. Some of the twelve Navy Nieuport 28s were destroyed in accidents. The surviving aircraft, worn out beyond repair, were surplused after the trials. The other seventy-six Nieuport 28s that were brought back to the United States after the war were operated by the U.S. Army at various bases and airfields in the 1920s, such as McCook, Mitchel, and Bolling Fields.
The Nieuports that survived their post-war U.S. military service found their way into various private hands. Several were modified for air racing, having their wings clipped, adapting non-standard interplane struts, and other changes. A number found their way into Hollywood movies, most notably in the famous Dawn Patrol films of 1930 and 1938. Still others became privately-owned airplanes flying in various sporting and commercial capacities. The specific history of these uses remains quite sketchy.
In short, although aesthetically pleasing and by all reports delightful to fly, the Nieuport 28 type gained fame more for simply being available rather than for any inherently superior performance or design qualities. Nevertheless, in American aviation history, the Nieuport 28 holds a number of important firsts and was used in several significant ways. Because of its varied and interesting role in U.S. aviation history, this aircraft has a richly deserved place in the NASM collection.
The museum's Nieuport 28 has a complex and confusing history. It was acquired in 1986 from Cole Palen, founder and operator of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. He flew the aircraft regularly in his air shows from 1958 to 1972. Immediately before its transfer to NASM, the airplane was on loan from Palen to the Intrepid Sea/Air/Space Museum in New York.
Upon close inspection, it became clear that the NASM aircraft is a composite of several different Nieuport 28s. The various components had been owned by a number of different people and used in a variety of capacities over a long period of time. As a result, the pieces have been shuffled around a lot and re-built many times. A large number of parts were not original and in many cases the replacement parts were not prepared to original specification. As a result, a serious investigation of the history of the NASM airframe was undertaken to determine as near as possible the provenance of the museum's Nieuport 28.
When it was acquired a number of erroneous assumptions were passed on, probably uncorroborated stories from Cole Palen. Initially the aircraft was believed to have been a war-time product and that it flew with the U.S. Air Service in World War I. Additionally, it was purported to have been one of the twelve U.S. Navy Nieuports tested in 1919-1921, that it was used in the Hollywood epic "Dawn Patrol," and that Howard Hughes had owned it at one point. Painstaking research has demonstrated that nearly all of these assumptions were untrue.
To determine the actual history of the NASM Nieuport, the logical place to begin was with the numbers and markings on the airframe. There are five different serial numbers on the airplane. The fuselage number on the firewall is 6497. The upper wings have a manufacturing date of February 1919 with serial numbers 7103 (left panel) and 7226 (right panel). The lower left wing panel is marked as having been fabricated in November 1918 with serial number 6465. The lower right was made in October 1918 with serial number 6432.
The first obvious conclusion drawn from these data was that the NASM Nieuport 28 is essentially a postwar product. The lower wing panels were made at the very end of the war, which concluded on November 11, 1918. The fuselage serial number being higher than the lower wing numbers dates it as very late 1918 or very early 1919. The upper wings are dated 1919. Therefore, the NASM aircraft could not have been a war veteran. Further, given the late production dates, it can be concluded that the NASM aircraft must be a modified and improved postwar version of the Nieuport 28C.1, sometimes referred to as a Nieuport 28A.
A third conclusion drawn from the serial numbers was that the components are probably from at least five different aircraft. This is not necessarily so, as wing panels, tail units, fuselages, etc., were assembled from production line manufacture. Nevertheless, given that the serial numbers are so far apart, it is hard to believe that all the present components represent one original aircraft. The upper and lower wing sets could have been originally paired together as their respective numbers are relatively close together. But the 6400 series serial numbered wings and 7000 series numbered wings were unlikely to have been on the same airframe when the airplane first left the factory. Moreover, the NASM airplane, on at least one occasion, probably more, was put together from "best available components" from a collection of Nieuport 28 airframes. The most reasonable interpretation based on the evidence is that the NASM Nieuport 28 is not a documented single airframe with a continuous history. It is an amalgam of component parts of several aircraft brought together many years after their original individual manufacture.
Certain that the NASM aircraft is not a war-time Nieuport, the next step was to try to determine its provenance in post-war U.S. military service. Research at the National Archives unearthed the twelve serial numbers of the aircraft tested by the U.S. Navy. None of the five numbers on the NASM Nieuport matches any of those of the Navy airplanes, definitively dispelling the belief that the aircraft was in that group. The lack of evidence on the airframe of the exclusively Navy modifications also supports the view that NASM's is not one of the twelve Navy Nieuports.
Further research demonstrated that seventy-six other Nieuport 28s were operated by the U.S. Army at various bases and fields around the country such as McCook, Mitchel, and Bolling Fields. A reasonable conclusion is that the NASM aircraft was at one of these Army facilities in the early 1920s before the airplane, as a complete airframe or component parts, found its way into private hands. Unfortunately, no records have thus far been found that place the NASM Nieuport 28, or any of its components, at any particular U.S. military post.
After the U.S. military disposed of the Nieuport 28s in its inventory in the mid-to-late-1920s, tracing more than a few of them becomes extremely difficult. Those that were not destroyed in accidents or simply junked were surplused on the open market. Private individuals scarfed them up, re-built and modified them, and used them in a wide variety of private and commercial ventures. Some were converted into air racers. Some were used in Hollywood films. Still others became air show performers and the like. Details on any particular Nieuports used in these capacities remain all but impossible to come by.
What of the claim that the NASM aircraft participated in the making of the two Dawn Patrol films? Four original Nieuport 28s were acquired by Garland Lincoln, a war-time U.S. Air Service instructor and movie stunt pilot, for the 1930 production of Dawn Patrol. The airplanes did not fly in the film, they were only run up and taxied. Some have argued that the NASM aircraft is one of these four. At best, this can only be said of the fuselage. Several famous photographs from the production show a line-up of the four Nieuports. All four Dawn Patrol Nieuports had their wings shortened by several feet. This is quite clear in the photographs. The NASM airplane has full-span wings, at least proving that the NASM wing set was not part of any of the Dawn Patrol aircraft. The fuselage of the Nieuport is probably from one of the four Garland Lincoln airplanes used in the film. The next phase of the story points in that direction.
At this point, the trail of the NASM Nieuport begins to emerge, faintly. Garland Lincoln sold his entire stable of airplanes, including the four original Nieuports, to Paramount Pictures in 1938. In 1941, Paramount sold the lot to United Air Services, a firm owned by movie stunt pilot, Paul Mantz, and which in 1946 became Paul Mantz Air Services. None of the Nieuport 28 airplanes that Mantz had acquired was in flying condition. Photographs taken by Don Brady in the mid-1950s at Orange County Airport show these airplanes to be disassembled and derelict. Beyond the four clipped-wing Nieuports first sold by Garland Lincoln to Paramount in 1938, Mantz apparently acquired at least one other set of original Nieuport 28 wings at some time before the parts were photographed by Brady at Orange County in the 1950s.
In 1957, Paul Mantz traded one Nieuport 28 to James H. "Cole" Palen of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, Rhinebeck, New York, for a Standard J-1. (Mantz later added approximately $200 to the trade to compensate for the Nieuport 28 being in poorer condition than the Standard J-1.) The fact that Palen's Nieuport, i.e., the NASM airplane, has full-span wings supports the belief that Mantz must have acquired more Nieuport 28 parts beyond the four clipped-wing airplanes that were in the original "Dawn Patrol" movie. Palen apparently selected the "best components" of those stored at Orange County airport to complete one aircraft. Cole Palen died in 1993, and some years earlier his home burned, destroying all his records. To confirm anything regarding his transaction with Mantz is now impossible.
The provenance of the NASM Nieuport 28 from this point on is clear. Palen completed the restoration of the aircraft to flying condition in 1958 and flew it regularly at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, and at other special shows elsewhere, until he retired the airplane in 1972. It was on display at Rhinebeck for several years before being lent to the Intrepid Air/Sea/Space Museum. It was on display there until 1986 when the Nieuport was traded to NASM for an original Nieuport 10 trainer, and transported directly from the Intrepid to the museum.
This brings us back to the original question: What is the history of the NASM Nieuport 28? Based on the foregoing research, the best interpretation is that it is an assemblage of components of various aircraft that were all manufactured at the very end or soon after World War I, which almost certainly means that they were originally Nieuport 28 "type A" rather than standard 28C.1 parts. The components undoubtedly emanated from the seventy-six Nieuport 28s operated by the U.S. Army at numerous installations in the 1920s. Without serial numbers by location for these aircraft, it is impossible to place any of the NASM components at any specific military airfield. The period between disposal by the military and acquisition by Paul Mantz is extremely sketchy. For the most part, it can only be determined what the NASM aircraft is not, rather than what it is (e.g., that it is not one of the twelve Navy aircraft, that its wings are not from any of the four Garland Lincoln Nieuports, etc.).
Regarding the origin of the NASM Nieuport 28, all that can be said with certainty is that the airplane comprises original components that can be narrowed down only to the seventy-six post-war U.S. Army Nieuports. The circumstantial evidence that Palen received Nieuport parts from Mantz, who obtained Nieuport parts from Lincoln, tantalizingly suggests that the NASM fuselage could be from one of the Dawn Patrol aircraft. The evidence cannot support anything more definitive.
In light of the vague provenance of the NASM Nieuport, some considered judgement was required concerning the final configuration and markings of the aircraft when it was restored by the museum. One obvious possibility would have been to restore the aircraft closest to what the documentation suggests the parts represent, namely a post-war U.S. Army experimental/training aircraft. Despite the apparent common sense to that approach, there were several strong reasons not to take this route. First, there are no clues indicating at which Army installation the NASM Nieuport operated, not even a single component of the airframe. It would not only have been a pure guess which airplane it is, but total conjecture even with which airfield it was associated. Further, details on the markings of only a handful of the Army post-war aircraft exist. Painting it as one of these would only in the most remote sense represent the correct aircraft. Moreover, the Nieuport 28 type is in the national collection primarily because of its place in U.S. air operations during World War I, not because of its minor role as a post-war trainer.
Configuring it as a U.S. Navy aircraft, with the unique modifications of that use of the Nieuport 28, would have been interesting. But as it was known definitively that the NASM aircraft is not one of the Navy airplanes, and that only twelve were employed in this specialized role over a short period of time, to follow this course seemed inappropriate. For similar reasons, restoring it as one of the movie airplanes did not make sense. At best, only the fuselage of the NASM Nieuport 28 can be linked to any of the film work, and that only circumstantially. More significantly, movies represent only a small part of the Nieuport 28's history. Further, the movie Nieuports only were run up on the ground; they never actually flew in the films.
This presented the final option, which was taken: configuring the airplane as one of the war-time U.S. Air Service Nieuport 28s. Even though the NASM Nieuport is certainly not a war veteran because it was manufactured after the United States ceased to use them in combat, the best alternative was to configure the airplane in this fashion. As noted above, the main reason for inclusion of a Nieuport 28 in the NASM collection is to document the aircraft type first used by organized American units under American colors in combat. Because the history of the NASM Nieuport cannot be documented with any specificity, and certain configurations can be ruled out, the most reasonable approach was to represent the aircraft in accordance with the justified rationale for bringing it into the collection. Therefore, it was restored to a 28C.1 configuration and painted and marked as a U.S. Air Service combat Nieuport.
The particular Nieuport 28C.1 that the museum chose to represent was that of First Lieutenant James A. Meissner of the 94th Aero Squadron, U.S.A.S., a/c serial number 6144. This aircraft was chosen, rather than one of the more famous ones such as Eddie Rickenbacker's, Douglas Campbell's or Alan Winslow's, because it is representative of the famous "hat-in-the-ring" 94th Aero Squadron without misleading museum visitors into thinking that the NASM aircraft is actually one of the especially well-known American Nieuport 28s. Furthermore, Meissner's number 6144 has an interesting history in its own right.
On two occasions, with Meissner at the controls, 6144 experienced the infamous wing failure in a dive associated with the Nieuport 28. He landed safely both times. Meissner went on to command the 147th Aero Squadron. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross with Oak Leaf Clusters and the Croix de Guerre. He scored a total of 5 2/3 victories while flying with the 94th and the 147th. (Meissner is often credited with eight victories, but in 1969, the U.S. Air Force divided the credit of shared victories among all the pilots involved. Before this, each was given full credit for the victory in their totals. Having several shared victories, Meissner's official tally was reduced accordingly.) He survived the war, leaving the Air Service in 1919. Meissner's aircraft carried the standard factory-applied French camouflage, the famous "hat-in-the-ring" insignia, and standard U.S. wing and tail markings of the period, making it especially representative of the way American Nieuport 28s appeared when flown in the first U.S. air combat operations.
On two occasions, 6144 experienced the infamous structural failure of the wings in a dive associated with the Nieuport 28. Meissner landed his aircraft safely both times. Meissner later commanded the 147th Aero Squadron, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and Croix de Guerre, and was credited with a total of eight victories, flying with both the 94th and the 147th. He survived the war, leaving the Air Service in 1919. Meissner's aircraft carried the standard factory-applied French camouflage, the famous "hat-in-the-ring" insignia, and standard U.S. wing and tail markings of the period. It thus well represents the way American Nieuport 28s appeared when flown in the first U.S. air combat operations.
The airplane is painted as Meissner's appeared after May 10, 1918, after repairs from the first wing fabric shedding incident. Before this date, Meissner's Nieuport carried a black, or possibly red, number "14" on the fuselage sides and probably on the wings. He shot down one enemy aircraft with the airplane so marked, for which he was awarded the DSC. After May 10, the "14" on the fuselage was replaced with a white "8" with a thin black outline. A white "8" (with no black outline) also was applied to the top of the upper left wing of Meissner's 6144 upon repairing and re-numbering the airplane. Marked as number "8," Meissner shot down three more enemy aircraft in 6144 and experienced a second wing structure failure. Number "8" was chosen because more photographs exist of 6144 as number "8" and because it flew longer with this marking.
The notable French aircraft manufacturer Société Anonyme des Establissements Nieuport was formed in 1909 and rose to prominence before World War I with a series of elegant monoplane designs. The namesakes of the company, Edouard de Niéport and his brother Charles, were both killed in flying accidents before the war. (The spelling of the company name was a slight variation of the brothers' surname.) The talented designer Gustave Delage joined the firm in 1914 and was responsible for the highly successful war-time line of sesquiplane V-strut single-seat scouts, the most famous of which were the Nieuport 11 and the Nieuport 17.
The Nieuport 28C.1 was developed in mid-1917 and was the first biplane fighter design produced by Nieuport that had relatively equal-chord upper and lower wings. In an attempt to compete with the superior performance of the Spad VII and the recently introduced Spad XIII, Nieuport explored the use of a more powerful motor than the types employed in the sesquiplane series. The availability of a more powerful, and heavier, 160-horsepower Gnôme rotary engine prompted the decision to increase the surface area of the lower wing to compensate for the greater weight of the new power plant, hence eliminating the typical Nieuport sesquiplane V-strut configuration.
In early 1918, the French Air Service rejected the new Nieuport design as a front-line fighter in favor of the sturdier, more advanced Spad XIII. However, the Nieuport 28 found a place with the newly arriving American squadrons. Having no suitable fighter design of its own, the United States adopted the Nieuport 28 as a stop-gap measure before the much-in-demand Spad XIIIs could be made available from the French. The Nieuport 28 performed creditably as the first operational pursuit aircraft in the fledgling U.S. Air Service of the American Expeditionary Force. Thus, the primary significance of the Nieuport 28 for the national aeronautical collection is that it was the first fighter aircraft to serve with an American fighter unit under American command and in support of U.S. troops. It was also first type to score an aerial victory with an American unit. On April 14, 1918, Lieutenants Alan Winslow and Douglas Campbell of the 94th Aero Squadron, both piloting a Nieuport 28, each downed an enemy aircraft in a fight that took place directly over their home airfield at Gengoult.
The Nieuport 28 made its mark in aviation history after World War I as well. Of the 297 total Nieuport 28 fighters procured by the United States from the French government during World War I, 88 were returned to the United States after the war. Twelve Nieuports, along with examples of several other European types brought back, were used by the U.S. Navy from 1919 to 1921 for shipboard launching trials. Many, often harrowing, launches were undertaken. Some of the twelve Navy Nieuport 28s were destroyed in accidents. The surviving aircraft, worn out beyond repair, were surplused after the trials. The other seventy-six Nieuport 28s that were brought back to the United States after the war were operated by the U.S. Army at various bases and airfields in the 1920s, such as McCook, Mitchel, and Bolling Fields.
The Nieuports that survived their post-war U.S. military service found their way into various private hands. Several were modified for air racing, having their wings clipped, adapting non-standard interplane struts, and other changes. A number found their way into Hollywood movies, most notably in the famous Dawn Patrol films of 1930 and 1938. Still others became privately-owned airplanes flying in various sporting and commercial capacities. The specific history of these uses remains quite sketchy.
In short, although aesthetically pleasing and by all reports delightful to fly, the Nieuport 28 type gained fame more for simply being available rather than for any inherently superior performance or design qualities. Nevertheless, in American aviation history, the Nieuport 28 holds a number of important firsts and was used in several significant ways. Because of its varied and interesting role in U.S. aviation history, this aircraft has a richly deserved place in the NASM collection.
The museum's Nieuport 28 has a complex and confusing history. It was acquired in 1986 from Cole Palen, founder and operator of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. He flew the aircraft regularly in his air shows from 1958 to 1972. Immediately before its transfer to NASM, the airplane was on loan from Palen to the Intrepid Sea/Air/Space Museum in New York.
Upon close inspection, it became clear that the NASM aircraft is a composite of several different Nieuport 28s. The various components had been owned by a number of different people and used in a variety of capacities over a long period of time. As a result, the pieces have been shuffled around a lot and re-built many times. A large number of parts were not original and in many cases the replacement parts were not prepared to original specification. As a result, a serious investigation of the history of the NASM airframe was undertaken to determine as near as possible the provenance of the museum's Nieuport 28.
When it was acquired a number of erroneous assumptions were passed on, probably uncorroborated stories from Cole Palen. Initially the aircraft was believed to have been a war-time product and that it flew with the U.S. Air Service in World War I. Additionally, it was purported to have been one of the twelve U.S. Navy Nieuports tested in 1919-1921, that it was used in the Hollywood epic "Dawn Patrol," and that Howard Hughes had owned it at one point. Painstaking research has demonstrated that nearly all of these assumptions were untrue.
To determine the actual history of the NASM Nieuport, the logical place to begin was with the numbers and markings on the airframe. There are five different serial numbers on the airplane. The fuselage number on the firewall is 6497. The upper wings have a manufacturing date of February 1919 with serial numbers 7103 (left panel) and 7226 (right panel). The lower left wing panel is marked as having been fabricated in November 1918 with serial number 6465. The lower right was made in October 1918 with serial number 6432.
The first obvious conclusion drawn from these data was that the NASM Nieuport 28 is essentially a postwar product. The lower wing panels were made at the very end of the war, which concluded on November 11, 1918. The fuselage serial number being higher than the lower wing numbers dates it as very late 1918 or very early 1919. The upper wings are dated 1919. Therefore, the NASM aircraft could not have been a war veteran. Further, given the late production dates, it can be concluded that the NASM aircraft must be a modified and improved postwar version of the Nieuport 28C.1, sometimes referred to as a Nieuport 28A.
A third conclusion drawn from the serial numbers was that the components are probably from at least five different aircraft. This is not necessarily so, as wing panels, tail units, fuselages, etc., were assembled from production line manufacture. Nevertheless, given that the serial numbers are so far apart, it is hard to believe that all the present components represent one original aircraft. The upper and lower wing sets could have been originally paired together as their respective numbers are relatively close together. But the 6400 series serial numbered wings and 7000 series numbered wings were unlikely to have been on the same airframe when the airplane first left the factory. Moreover, the NASM airplane, on at least one occasion, probably more, was put together from "best available components" from a collection of Nieuport 28 airframes. The most reasonable interpretation based on the evidence is that the NASM Nieuport 28 is not a documented single airframe with a continuous history. It is an amalgam of component parts of several aircraft brought together many years after their original individual manufacture.
Certain that the NASM aircraft is not a war-time Nieuport, the next step was to try to determine its provenance in post-war U.S. military service. Research at the National Archives unearthed the twelve serial numbers of the aircraft tested by the U.S. Navy. None of the five numbers on the NASM Nieuport matches any of those of the Navy airplanes, definitively dispelling the belief that the aircraft was in that group. The lack of evidence on the airframe of the exclusively Navy modifications also supports the view that NASM's is not one of the twelve Navy Nieuports.
Further research demonstrated that seventy-six other Nieuport 28s were operated by the U.S. Army at various bases and fields around the country such as McCook, Mitchel, and Bolling Fields. A reasonable conclusion is that the NASM aircraft was at one of these Army facilities in the early 1920s before the airplane, as a complete airframe or component parts, found its way into private hands. Unfortunately, no records have thus far been found that place the NASM Nieuport 28, or any of its components, at any particular U.S. military post.
After the U.S. military disposed of the Nieuport 28s in its inventory in the mid-to-late-1920s, tracing more than a few of them becomes extremely difficult. Those that were not destroyed in accidents or simply junked were surplused on the open market. Private individuals scarfed them up, re-built and modified them, and used them in a wide variety of private and commercial ventures. Some were converted into air racers. Some were used in Hollywood films. Still others became air show performers and the like. Details on any particular Nieuports used in these capacities remain all but impossible to come by.
What of the claim that the NASM aircraft participated in the making of the two Dawn Patrol films? Four original Nieuport 28s were acquired by Garland Lincoln, a war-time U.S. Air Service instructor and movie stunt pilot, for the 1930 production of Dawn Patrol. The airplanes did not fly in the film, they were only run up and taxied. Some have argued that the NASM aircraft is one of these four. At best, this can only be said of the fuselage. Several famous photographs from the production show a line-up of the four Nieuports. All four Dawn Patrol Nieuports had their wings shortened by several feet. This is quite clear in the photographs. The NASM airplane has full-span wings, at least proving that the NASM wing set was not part of any of the Dawn Patrol aircraft. The fuselage of the Nieuport is probably from one of the four Garland Lincoln airplanes used in the film. The next phase of the story points in that direction.
At this point, the trail of the NASM Nieuport begins to emerge, faintly. Garland Lincoln sold his entire stable of airplanes, including the four original Nieuports, to Paramount Pictures in 1938. In 1941, Paramount sold the lot to United Air Services, a firm owned by movie stunt pilot, Paul Mantz, and which in 1946 became Paul Mantz Air Services. None of the Nieuport 28 airplanes that Mantz had acquired was in flying condition. Photographs taken by Don Brady in the mid-1950s at Orange County Airport show these airplanes to be disassembled and derelict. Beyond the four clipped-wing Nieuports first sold by Garland Lincoln to Paramount in 1938, Mantz apparently acquired at least one other set of original Nieuport 28 wings at some time before the parts were photographed by Brady at Orange County in the 1950s.
In 1957, Paul Mantz traded one Nieuport 28 to James H. "Cole" Palen of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, Rhinebeck, New York, for a Standard J-1. (Mantz later added approximately $200 to the trade to compensate for the Nieuport 28 being in poorer condition than the Standard J-1.) The fact that Palen's Nieuport, i.e., the NASM airplane, has full-span wings supports the belief that Mantz must have acquired more Nieuport 28 parts beyond the four clipped-wing airplanes that were in the original "Dawn Patrol" movie. Palen apparently selected the "best components" of those stored at Orange County airport to complete one aircraft. Cole Palen died in 1993, and some years earlier his home burned, destroying all his records. To confirm anything regarding his transaction with Mantz is now impossible.
The provenance of the NASM Nieuport 28 from this point on is clear. Palen completed the restoration of the aircraft to flying condition in 1958 and flew it regularly at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, and at other special shows elsewhere, until he retired the airplane in 1972. It was on display at Rhinebeck for several years before being lent to the Intrepid Air/Sea/Space Museum. It was on display there until 1986 when the Nieuport was traded to NASM for an original Nieuport 10 trainer, and transported directly from the Intrepid to the museum.
This brings us back to the original question: What is the history of the NASM Nieuport 28? Based on the foregoing research, the best interpretation is that it is an assemblage of components of various aircraft that were all manufactured at the very end or soon after World War I, which almost certainly means that they were originally Nieuport 28 "type A" rather than standard 28C.1 parts. The components undoubtedly emanated from the seventy-six Nieuport 28s operated by the U.S. Army at numerous installations in the 1920s. Without serial numbers by location for these aircraft, it is impossible to place any of the NASM components at any specific military airfield. The period between disposal by the military and acquisition by Paul Mantz is extremely sketchy. For the most part, it can only be determined what the NASM aircraft is not, rather than what it is (e.g., that it is not one of the twelve Navy aircraft, that its wings are not from any of the four Garland Lincoln Nieuports, etc.).
Regarding the origin of the NASM Nieuport 28, all that can be said with certainty is that the airplane comprises original components that can be narrowed down only to the seventy-six post-war U.S. Army Nieuports. The circumstantial evidence that Palen received Nieuport parts from Mantz, who obtained Nieuport parts from Lincoln, tantalizingly suggests that the NASM fuselage could be from one of the Dawn Patrol aircraft. The evidence cannot support anything more definitive.
In light of the vague provenance of the NASM Nieuport, some considered judgement was required concerning the final configuration and markings of the aircraft when it was restored by the museum. One obvious possibility would have been to restore the aircraft closest to what the documentation suggests the parts represent, namely a post-war U.S. Army experimental/training aircraft. Despite the apparent common sense to that approach, there were several strong reasons not to take this route. First, there are no clues indicating at which Army installation the NASM Nieuport operated, not even a single component of the airframe. It would not only have been a pure guess which airplane it is, but total conjecture even with which airfield it was associated. Further, details on the markings of only a handful of the Army post-war aircraft exist. Painting it as one of these would only in the most remote sense represent the correct aircraft. Moreover, the Nieuport 28 type is in the national collection primarily because of its place in U.S. air operations during World War I, not because of its minor role as a post-war trainer.
Configuring it as a U.S. Navy aircraft, with the unique modifications of that use of the Nieuport 28, would have been interesting. But as it was known definitively that the NASM aircraft is not one of the Navy airplanes, and that only twelve were employed in this specialized role over a short period of time, to follow this course seemed inappropriate. For similar reasons, restoring it as one of the movie airplanes did not make sense. At best, only the fuselage of the NASM Nieuport 28 can be linked to any of the film work, and that only circumstantially. More significantly, movies represent only a small part of the Nieuport 28's history. Further, the movie Nieuports only were run up on the ground; they never actually flew in the films.
This presented the final option, which was taken: configuring the airplane as one of the war-time U.S. Air Service Nieuport 28s. Even though the NASM Nieuport is certainly not a war veteran because it was manufactured after the United States ceased to use them in combat, the best alternative was to configure the airplane in this fashion. As noted above, the main reason for inclusion of a Nieuport 28 in the NASM collection is to document the aircraft type first used by organized American units under American colors in combat. Because the history of the NASM Nieuport cannot be documented with any specificity, and certain configurations can be ruled out, the most reasonable approach was to represent the aircraft in accordance with the justified rationale for bringing it into the collection. Therefore, it was restored to a 28C.1 configuration and painted and marked as a U.S. Air Service combat Nieuport.
The particular Nieuport 28C.1 that the museum chose to represent was that of First Lieutenant James A. Meissner of the 94th Aero Squadron, U.S.A.S., a/c serial number 6144. This aircraft was chosen, rather than one of the more famous ones such as Eddie Rickenbacker's, Douglas Campbell's or Alan Winslow's, because it is representative of the famous "hat-in-the-ring" 94th Aero Squadron without misleading museum visitors into thinking that the NASM aircraft is actually one of the especially well-known American Nieuport 28s. Furthermore, Meissner's number 6144 has an interesting history in its own right.
On two occasions, with Meissner at the controls, 6144 experienced the infamous wing failure in a dive associated with the Nieuport 28. He landed safely both times. Meissner went on to command the 147th Aero Squadron. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross with Oak Leaf Clusters and the Croix de Guerre. He scored a total of 5 2/3 victories while flying with the 94th and the 147th. (Meissner is often credited with eight victories, but in 1969, the U.S. Air Force divided the credit of shared victories among all the pilots involved. Before this, each was given full credit for the victory in their totals. Having several shared victories, Meissner's official tally was reduced accordingly.) He survived the war, leaving the Air Service in 1919. Meissner's aircraft carried the standard factory-applied French camouflage, the famous "hat-in-the-ring" insignia, and standard U.S. wing and tail markings of the period, making it especially representative of the way American Nieuport 28s appeared when flown in the first U.S. air combat operations.
On two occasions, 6144 experienced the infamous structural failure of the wings in a dive associated with the Nieuport 28. Meissner landed his aircraft safely both times. Meissner later commanded the 147th Aero Squadron, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and Croix de Guerre, and was credited with a total of eight victories, flying with both the 94th and the 147th. He survived the war, leaving the Air Service in 1919. Meissner's aircraft carried the standard factory-applied French camouflage, the famous "hat-in-the-ring" insignia, and standard U.S. wing and tail markings of the period. It thus well represents the way American Nieuport 28s appeared when flown in the first U.S. air combat operations.
The airplane is painted as Meissner's appeared after May 10, 1918, after repairs from the first wing fabric shedding incident. Before this date, Meissner's Nieuport carried a black, or possibly red, number "14" on the fuselage sides and probably on the wings. He shot down one enemy aircraft with the airplane so marked, for which he was awarded the DSC. After May 10, the "14" on the fuselage was replaced with a white "8" with a thin black outline. A white "8" (with no black outline) also was applied to the top of the upper left wing of Meissner's 6144 upon repairing and re-numbering the airplane. Marked as number "8," Meissner shot down three more enemy aircraft in 6144 and experienced a second wing structure failure. Number "8" was chosen because more photographs exist of 6144 as number "8" and because it flew longer with this marking.
The distress in Lancashire: Distributing Bread at the Crooked Lane Depot, Preston.
The following description of the distress in Preston was written by Edwin Waugh. The full account entitled "HOME-LIFE OF THE LANCASHIRE FACTORY FOLK DURING THE COTTON FAMINE" can be accessed Here
AMONG THE PRESTON OPERATIVES.
Proud Preston, or Priest-town, on the banks of the beautiful Ribble, is a place of many quaint customs, and of great historic fame. Its character for pride is said to come from the fact of its having been, in the old time, a favourite residence of the local nobles and gentry, and of many penniless folk with long pedigrees. It was here that Richard Arkwright shaved chins at a halfpenny each, in the meantime working out his bold and ingenious schemes, with patient faith in their ultimate success. It was here, too, that the teetotal movement first began, with Anderson for its rhyme-smith. Preston has had its full share of the changeful fortunes of England, and, like our motherland, it has risen strongly out of them all. War's mad havoc has swept over it in many a troubled period of our history. Plague, pestilence, and famine have afflicted it sorely; and it has suffered from trade riots, "plug-drawings," panics, and strikes of most disastrous kinds. Proud Preston—the town of the Stanleys and the Hoghtons, and of "many a crest that is famous in story"—the town where silly King Jamie disported himself a little, with his knights and nobles, during the time of his ruinous visit to Hoghton Tower,—Proud Preston has seen many a black day. But, from the time when Roman sentinels kept watch and ward in their old camp at Walton, down by the Ribble side, it has never seen so much wealth and so much bitter poverty together as now. The streets do not show this poverty; but it is there. Looking from Avenham Walks, that glorious landscape smiles in all the splendour of a rich spring-tide. In those walks the nursemaids and children, and dainty folk, are wandering as usual airing their curls in the fresh breeze; and only now and then a workless operative trails by with chastened look. The wail of sorrow is not heard in Preston market-place; but destitution may be found almost anywhere there just now, cowering in squalid corners, within a few yards of plenty—as I have seen it many a time this week. The courts and alleys behind even some of the main streets swarm with people who have hardly a whole nail left to scratch themselves with.
Before attempting to tell something of what I saw whilst wandering amongst the poor operatives of Preston, I will say at once, that I do not intend to meddle with statistics. They have been carefully gathered, and often given elsewhere, and there is no need for me to repeat them. But, apart from these, the theme is endless, and full of painful interest. I hear on all hands that there is hardly any town in Lancashire suffering so much as Preston. The reason why the stroke has fallen so heavily here, lies in the nature of the trade. In the first place, Preston is almost purely a cotton town. There are two or three flax mills, and two or three ironworks, of no great extent; but, upon the whole, there is hardly any variety of employment there to lighten the disaster which has befallen its one absorbing occupation. There is comparatively little weaving in Preston; it is a town mostly engaged in spinning. The cotton used there is nearly all what is called "Middling American," the very kind which is now most scarce and dear. The yarns of Preston are known by the name of "Blackburn Counts." They range from 28's up to 60's, and they enter largely into the manufacture of goods for the India market. These things partly explain why Preston is more deeply overshadowed by the particular gloom of the times than many other places in Lancashire. About half-past nine on Tuesday morning last, I set out with an old acquaintance to call upon a certain member of the Relief Committee, in George's Ward. He is the manager of a cotton mill in that quarter, and he is well known and much respected among the working people. When we entered the mill-yard, all was quiet there, and the factory was still and silent. But through the office window we could see the man we wanted. He was accompanied by one of the proprietors of the mill, turning over the relief books of the ward. I soon found that he had a strong sense of humour, as well as a heart welling over with tenderness. He pointed to some of the cases in his books. The first was that of an old man, an overlooker of a cotton mill. His family was thirteen in number; three of the children were under ten years of age; seven of the rest were factory operatives; but the whole family had been out of work for several months. When in full employment the joint earnings of the family amounted to 80s. a week; but, after struggling on in the hope of better times, and exhausting the savings of past labour, they had been brought down to the receipt of charity at last, and for sixteen weeks gone by the whole thirteen had been living upon 6s. a week from the relief fund. They had no other resource. I went to see them at their own house afterwards, and it certainly was a pattern of cleanliness, with the little household gods there still. Seeing that house, a stranger would never dream that the family was living on an average income of less than sixpence a head per week. But I know how hard some decent folk will struggle with the bitterest poverty before they will give in to it. The old man came in whilst I was there. He sat down in one corner, quietly tinkering away at something he had in his hands. His old corduroy trousers were well patched, and just new washed. He had very little to say to us, except that "He could like to get summat to do; for he wur tired o' walkin' abeawt." Another case was that of a poor widow woman, with five young children. This family had been driven from house to house, by increasing necessity, till they had sunk at last into a dingy little hovel, up a dark court, in one of the poorest parts of the town, where they huddled together about a fireless grate to keep one another warm. They had nothing left of the wreck of their home but two rickety chairs, and a little deal table reared against the wall, because one of the legs was gone. In this miserable hole—which I saw afterwards—her husband died of sheer starvation, as was declared by the jury on the inquest. The dark, damp hovel where they had crept to was scarcely four yards square; and the poor woman pointed to one corner of the floor, saying, "He dee'd i' that nook." He died there, with nothing to lie upon but the ground, and nothing to cover him, in that fireless hovel. His wife and children crept about him, there, to watch him die; and to keep him as warm as they could. When the relief committee first found this family out, the entire clothing of the family of seven persons weighed eight pounds, and sold for fivepence, as rags. I saw the family afterwards, at their poor place; and will say more about them hereafter. He told me of many other cases of a similar kind. But, after agreeing to a time when we should visit them personally, we set out together to see the "Stone Yard," where there are many factory hands at work under the Board of Guardians.
The "Stone Yard" is close by the Preston and Lancaster Canal. Here there are from one hundred and seventy to one hundred and eighty, principally young men, employed in breaking, weighing, and wheeling stone, for road mending. The stones are of a hard kind of blue boulder, gathered from the land between Kendal and Lancaster. The "Labour Master" told me that there were thousands of tons of these boulders upon the land between Kendal and Lancaster. A great deal of them are brought from a place called "Tewhitt Field," about seven mile on "t' other side o' Lancaster." At the "Stone Yard" it is all piece-work, and the men can come and go when they like. As one of the Guardians told me, "They can oather sit an' break 'em, or kneel an' break 'em, or lie deawn to it, iv they'n a mind." The men can choose whether they will fill three tons of the broken stone, and wheel it to the central heap, for a shilling, or break one ton for a shilling. The persons employed here are mostly "lads an' leet-timber't chaps." The stronger men are sent to work upon Preston Moor. There are great varieties of health and strength amongst them. "Beside," as the Labour Master said, "yo'd hardly believe what a difference there it i'th wark o' two men wortchin' at the same heap, sometimes. There's a great deal i'th breaker, neaw; some on 'em's more artful nor others. They finden out that they can break 'em as fast again at after they'n getten to th' wick i'th inside. I have known an' odd un or two, here, that could break four ton a day,—an' many that couldn't break one,—but then, yo' know, th' men can only do accordin' to their ability. There is these differences, and there always will be." As we stood talking together, one of my friends said that he wished "Radical Jack" had been there. The latter gentleman is one of the guardians of the poor, and superintendent of the "Stone Yard." The men are naturally jealous of misrepresentation; and, the other day, as "Radical Jack" was describing the working of the yard to a gentleman who had come to look at the scene, some of the men overheard his words, and, misconceiving their meaning, gathered around the superintendent, clamorously protesting against what he had been saying. "He's lying!" said one. "Look at these honds!" cried another; "Wi'n they ever be fit to go to th' factory wi' again?"
Others turned up the soles of their battered shoon, to show their cut and stockingless feet. They were pacified at last; but, after the superintendent had gone away, some of the men said much and more, and "if ever he towd ony moor lies abeawt 'em, they'd fling him into th' cut." The "Labour Master" told me there was a large wood shed for the men to shelter in when rain came on. As we were conversing, one of my friends exclaimed, "He's here now!" "Who's here?" "Radical Jack." The superintendent was coming down the road. He told me some interesting things, which I will return to on another occasion. But our time was up. We had other places to see. As we came away, three old Irishwomen leaned against the wall at the corner of the yard, watching the men at work inside. One of them was saying, "Thim guardians is the awfullest set o' min in the world! A man had better be transpoorted than come under 'em. An' thin, they'll try you, an' try you, as if you was goin' to be hanged." The poor old soul had evidently only a narrow view of the necessities and difficulties which beset the labours of the Board of Guardians at a time like this. On our way back to town one of my friends told me that he "had met a sexton the day before, and had asked him how trade was with him. The sexton replied that it was "Varra bad—nowt doin', hardly." "Well, how's that?" asked the other. "Well, thae sees," answered the sexton, "Poverty seldom dees. There's far more kilt wi' o'er-heytin' an' o'er-drinkin' nor there is wi' bein' pinched."
Christmas and the Distress
Christmas which is just upon us, will necessarily be a cold one for the operatives, the resources of the past are not forthcoming; money is terribly scare, and many a one, who, in former years, have been jubilant at this season, will now have to be content with less than a ‘tithe’ of that cheer which is indissolubly associated with the good old-fashioned carnival of Christmas. Preparations are being made in many quarters for giving treats to the distressed operatives; the ordinary paupers will receive their Christmas dinner, in accordance with custom, and all those in receipt of relief from the charitable committee will, if they get nothing else, have eightpence each to fall back upon from the Mansion House fund. The kitchen in Crooked-lane appears to be as busy a place as ever. The following boilers of soup – each containing 175 gallons, have been made during the week :- Saturday, 4 boilers of meat and 1 and a half of sweet soup, Monday, 4 meat and 1 sweet, Tuesday, 5 meat and 1 sweet, Wednesday, 4 meat 4 scouse, Thursday 6 meat, yesterday 6 meat and half a boiler of sweet meat. The meat soup contained upwards of 4,850lbs beef, mutton, &c., of first-rate quality. During the week, 23,853 loaves of bread have been given out weighing 42 tons 12 cwt; 35,741 quarts of soup, and 9,057 quarts of scouse have been served at the Walker-street and the Crooked-lane establishments. The whole expense of the week, including bedding and clothing will exceed £3,000.
The following presents have been received during the week, for which the committee begs to offer its thanks.
A parcel of clothing from Mrs Foster, Whitehaven.
A parcel of grey flannel from Mrs Tollemache, Portland-terrace, Richmond, Surrey.
A crate of hats from L. Frayne, Bromsgrove.
Two bales and one hamper of clothing from E. Hallett and friends.
A bale of clothing from E.H. Sangley, Chudleign, Devon.
A large bale of clothing from C.S. Bromsgrove.
Three bales of clothing from H. Bell and Sons, Mickelgate, York.
A large bale of clothing from Lady Park, ‘very valuable’.
A truss of clothing from the Ladies Committee, Leeds.
Fifty sacks of rice chaff from W. Williams, Birkenhead.
A bale of clothing from friends at Castle Bromwick, per the Misses Kempson.
Ten bales of clothing from J. W. M’Clure, Manchester.
A sack of flour, one barrel of beef, twenty small barrels of herring, a barrel of fish, J.W. M’Clure, Manchester.
A bag of rice, a barrel of flour from Mr Baxter, Liverpool.
Two hundred plum puddings from the Lord Mayor’s Committee, London.
A quarter of the famous bull ‘Skyrocket’ weighing 419 lbs from Lord Feversham.
A parcel of clothing from Mr Burnett, Liverpool, per Mr Livesey, Preston.
Two carcasses of venison, used in the soup from Cartechy Castle, Scotland.
A box of clothing, tea, sugar &c., from Mrs Reyner, Waterloo.
A parcel of quilting, worsted, &c., from Mrs Jacson, Barton Lodge.
A sack of clothing from H. Rose Clark, Etwall, Derby.
A bale of clothing from George Earle, Hull.
One hamper of clothing from Thomas Cooper, Ulverstone.
3 boxes of clothing from Rossall College
87 lbs of venison from Messrs. Boulours, Marylebone.
A 2nd parcel clothing from United Sunday Scholars of Longsutton, per Rev. J. Nuller.
A case of caps and hats and a parcel of clothing from Penrim.
Preston Chronicle Dec 20th, 1862
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 highly successful An-2 biplane. The An-28 is substantially derived from the earlier An-14. Commonality with the An-14 includes the high wing layout, twin fins and rudders, but it differs in having a new and far larger fuselage, plus 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. Basic variant, not differing from the Soviet one, was designated PZL An-28 and 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.
N80696 1949 NORTH AMERICAN T-28A Trojan (C/N 159-86), flown by Olivier Langeard. (Engine: 800 hp Wright R-1300-7 w/ two blade propeller), Bu No. 49-1574, Tail ID U.S. Air Force 91574. Now owned by Alain Battisti of Carpiquet, France and friend of Dassault aerospace engineer and Caen, France native, Olivier Langeard, who introduced Alain to Ben Anderson of Grizzly Bear Aircraft at Hartford Co. Airport in Churchill, Maryland. Ben maintains the “Jack Link's Screamin' Sasquatch Jet Waco” that Del Coller built for John Klatt Airshows. Ben knew that Roger Christgau had the T-28 in Minnesota, unflown for 27 years. Alain Battisti bought it in 2014, Ben & Olivier did an extensive IRAN before flying it to New Castle Co. Airport on Nov. 9, 2015 for Alain’s use on his frequent visits to the states. The key to the puzzle is that Del Coller’s father owns a “French Connection” Cap 10 which is hangared near Olivier at KILG. Dell Aero Speed is a specialty aircraft shop located at Caldwell Airport just outside of Boise Idaho. dellaerospeed.com
SEE Article Warbird Digest #69 Nov/Dec 2016 “The Hangar Find” by Stephen Chapis.
N80696 is registered to SOUTHERN AIRCRAFT CONSULTANCY INC TRUSTEE, TOWN FARM, POUND LANE DITCHINGHAM, BUNGAY SUFFOLK, NR352DN UNITED KINGDOM. (SOUTHERN AIRCRAFT CONSULTANCY is an aircraft registration holding company). T-28’s were built from 1950–57, 1,948 produced (1,194 were A models).
Previously owned by Dr. Roger Christgau where it was based at KAUM Austin Municipal Airport, Minnesota. SEE: www.startribune.com/obituaries/detail/13620041/?fullname=... & video: www.aircorpsaviation.com/watch-the-roger-christgau-story Roger Christgau had a distinguished Air Force career and owned the rare and historic P-51 Mustang fighter plane named "Sierra Sue II."
+++ 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!
Popped out for an hour.. The sky looked promising!!
Nice 28(s)miles out on Himmy..! Everything was going so well until....
Arriva Enviro200 4017 (GN58 BUA) is seen Working a 28 to Woking Station.
From the 14th March 2016, Route 28 will no longer run along this way due to the 17 changes. 28's will run via the University and the Hospital and along Park barn drive to Aldershot Road. Then 28's will run along aldershot road to Fairlands and do the loop around Fairlands Estate. They will then continue along Holly lane to resume the current route at worplesden.
This new route however, leaves pitch place ETC without a bus service Mon>Sat's but will on Sundays as the Sunday 91 will continue along the current route.
52 Weeks of Lego, Week 52
I've reached the end of the project. 52 weeks, 52 photos, and now it's over. This isn't the end of my Lego shots, though. I plan to continue to post Lego photography, just not nearly as regularly as I have for the past year. I still have ideas I wasn't able to shoot for various reasons, and I want to share them with all of you.
Strobist info: SB-28's to either side, at 1/16th through white umbrellas.
Ab Dezember werden ebenfalls Verstärkerzüge der S4 mit den Garnituren der Baureihe 420 besetzt, diese fahren dann allerdings ab Pasing ohne Halt zum Hauptbahnhof.
Einen Fahrplan aller möglichlichen 420-Leistungen und Bilder der neuen Garnituren in München gibt es im passenden Tramreport-Artikel.
Tramreport - S-Bahn - Zum Fahrplanwechsel kehrt der '420er' zurück
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)
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Fotografía escaneada de otra, en papel, tomada el 14 de enero de 1985.
Reserva Faunística Provincial Península de Valdés,
departamento Biedma, provincia de Chubut, ARGENTINA
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
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 con el bosque 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.
Se observan 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.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘
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 ,
skullo of SOUTHERN GUANACO .............................................................
argentine guanaco
cráneo de 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 con el bosque 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.
Se observan 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.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
(3 de noviembre de 2009)
Museo de Ciencias Naturales de la ciudad de La Plata,
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 ,
Statue of Sturt, Department of Lands building, Bridge St, Sydney.
Each facade has 12 niches whose sculpted occupants include explorers and legislators who made a major contribution to the opening up and settlement of the nation. Although 48 men were nominated by the architect, Barnet, as being suitable subjects, most were rejected as being 'hunters or excursionists'. Only 23 statues were commissioned, the last being added in 1901 leaving 25 niches unfilled (Devine, 2011). In Nov 2010- a new statue of colonial surveyor James Meehan (1774-1826) was created and placed in an empty niche on cnr. Loftus/Bent Streets.
Sturt, Charles (1795–1869)
by H. J. Gibbney
This article was published in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 2, (MUP), 1967
Charles Sturt (1795-1869), explorer, soldier and public servant, was born on 28 April 1795 in India, eldest of eight sons and one of thirteen children of Thomas Lenox Napier Sturt, a judge in Bengal under the East India Co. Although his Sturt and Napier ancestors were both Dorsetshire families of some standing, his father had reached India too late to share in the golden harvest reaped by many early officials and his life is described by Sturt's biographer as '45 years of clouded fortunes'.
Charles was sent at 5 to relations in England and at 15 entered Harrow. His father's economic difficulties prevented his entry to Cambridge and in 1813 he procured, through the intercession of his aunt with the Prince Regent, a commission as ensign in the 39th Regiment. He served in the Pyrenees late in the Peninsular war, fought against the Americans in Canada and returned to Europe a few days after Waterloo. He spent the next three years with the army of occupation in France and in 1818 was sent with his regiment to Ireland on garrison duties. On 7 April 1823 he was gazetted lieutenant and promoted captain on 15 December 1825. In December 1826 after a brief sojourn in England he embarked with a detachment of his regiment in the Mariner in charge of convicts for New South Wales and arrived at Sydney on 23 May 1827. In Sydney the two main subjects of discussion among intelligent people were politics and the mysteries of Australian geography. The savagely personal nature of local politics did not attract Sturt but the great unknown did. John Oxley and Allan Cunningham had charted a series of rivers, their courses directed towards the centre of the continent; the inference was that an inland sea lay beyond the horizon. Sturt and others longed for the honour of discovering it.
Soon after his arrival Sturt was appointed military secretary to the governor and major of brigade to the garrison. With these offices he could have taken an active part in politics, but preferred to interest himself in exploration and by November 1827 was able to write to his cousin, Isaac Wood, that the governor had agreed to his leading an expedition into the interior. Because (Sir) Ralph Darling had few officers on whom he felt that he could rely, he did not formally authorize the expedition for nearly twelve months. Meanwhile Sturt had, perhaps naively, discussed the proposal with the newly-appointed surveyor-general, (Sir) Thomas Mitchell, who felt that he had been slighted, and argued with some justice that Sturt, who had no qualifications, was being pushed by influence into a task which offered the prospect of honour, and which was his ex officio. Darling rejected this contention out of hand and Sturt acquired a lifelong enemy in Mitchell.
On 4 November 1828 Sturt received approval to proceed with his proposal to trace the course of the Macquarie River. Prudently he selected as his assistant the native-born Hamilton Hume, who had already shared leadership of a major expedition to the south coast. With three soldiers and eight convicts Sturt left Sydney on 10 November. Hume joined them at Bathurst and, after collecting equipment from the government station at Wellington Valley, they moved on 7 December to what became virtually the base camp at Mount Harris. On 22 December the expedition started down the Macquarie through country blasted by drought and searing heat. Having unsuccessfully tried to use a light boat, on 31 December Sturt and Hume began independent reconnaissances in which Hume established the limits of the Macquarie marshes and Sturt examined the country across the Bogan River. They then proceeded north along the Bogan and on 2 February came suddenly on 'a noble river' flowing to the west; Sturt named it the Darling. Unhappily its waters were undrinkable at that point because of salt springs. They followed the Darling downstream until 9 February, then returned to Mount Harris and from there traced the Castlereagh northward until it too joined the Darling. They then returned to Wellington Valley down the eastern side of the Macquarie marshes, having sketched in the main outlines of the northern river system and discovered the previously unknown Darling River. The expedition, however, had discovered no extensive good country. Although Sturt was ill on his return to Sydney he was scrupulous in recommending the convicts in his party for such indulgences as the colonial government could grant. Darling granted some remissions of sentence and in his dispatches commended Sturt's patience and zeal.
The Darling River had offered a new challenge and Sturt soon sought permission to lead another expedition to trace the Darling to its assumed outlet in the inland sea. However, it was decided instead that he should investigate the Lachlan-Murrumbidgee river system discovered by Oxley and proceed to the Darling only if the Murrumbidgee proved impassable.
On 3 November 1829 the second expedition left Sydney. In Sturt's party were George Macleay, son of the colonial secretary, Harris, Hopkinson, Fraser and Clayton, who had all been in his first expedition, and several soldiers and convicts. They moved through country which was partly settled until 28 November when they left Warby's station near Gundagai which was then the limit of settlement and set off into the unknown country. After many crossings of the Murrumbidgee to find suitable tracks for the drays they moved down the north bank of the river and on Christmas Day arrived at its junction with the Lachlan. There difficult marshes raised the question whether they should follow the governor's instructions or go to the Darling. Since the Murrumbidgee was still fairly clear Sturt decided to use the whale-boat which he had brought with him and to build a small skiff from local timber. On 7 January 1830 he set out with seven men in the two boats on the Murrumbidgee.
Apart from the complete loss of the skiff soon after embarkation the journey was uneventful until 14 January when the rapid current of the Murrumbidgee carried them to a 'broad and noble river' which Sturt later named in honour of Sir George Murray, secretary of state for the colonies. Further down the Murray they had two threatening encounters with Aboriginals, and on 23 January came to a new large stream flowing in from the north. After rowing up it for a few miles Sturt was convinced that it was the Darling and returned to the Murray. An uneventful voyage brought them on 9 February to Lake Alexandrina whence they walked over the sandhills to the southern coast. They reached the channel where the lake entered the sea but were dismayed to find it impracticable for shipping. Depressed by failing to find either an effective inland waterway or the ship which Darling had promised to send from Sydney, Sturt now faced the appalling prospect of rowing more than 900 miles (1448 km) against a strong current with his weary men and certain food shortage. They began the return journey on 12 February and on 23 March arrived at the Murrumbidgee depot only to find it deserted by the base party which had been left there. The starving crew struggled on until 11 April when Sturt abandoned the boat and sent two men to seek the relief party which he believed to be near. A week later the two men returned with supplies and the revived expedition reached Sydney safely on 25 May.
Although an interim dispatch carried by Macleay in advance of the main party had been published in the Sydney Gazette Darling did not report to England on the expedition until February 1831. Meanwhile Sturt, after a short illness, had been sent to Norfolk Island as commandant of the garrison. There he took part in the rescue of the occupants of a wrecked boat and, though active in quelling a convict mutiny, had nevertheless earned the respect even of the mutineers for his generally humane outlook. In July he was relieved by F. C. Crotty, captain in the 39th Regiment.
Sturt's return to Sydney was delayed by illness until October; already there had been proposals to send him to New Zealand as Resident or on another journey to the Darling, but his health was so bad that he was immediately granted leave to go to England. On the voyage his eyesight, which had been failing, broke down completely leaving him totally blind. While undergoing crude but moderately successful treatment for his condition he published an account of his two journeys and after many petitions to the Colonial Office was promised a grant of 5000 acres (2024 ha) in New South Wales on condition that he sold his commission and renounced all other rights arising from his military service. On 20 September 1834 he married Charlotte Greene, the daughter of an old family friend.
Sturt sailed with his wife and arrived at Sydney in mid-1835. With intentions of settling down to country life he located his grant at Ginninderra (near Canberra) in June and in August bought 1950 acres (789 ha) at Mittagong, where he lived for two years. In this time he was appointed a justice of the peace, became a passive member of the governing body of the Australian Museum, was recommended unsuccessfully for appointment to the Legislative Council, and christened his first child Napier George. Early in 1837 he bought 1000 acres (405 ha) at Varroville between Liverpool and Campbelltown, where he soon established another home.
In 1838 financial difficulties forced him to sell his Mittagong property and induced him to join in a venture for overlanding cattle to South Australia. Although in the process he was able to add something to knowledge of the Murray River, the journey almost ended in disaster. Breeding cows in the herd delayed the party and it ran short of supplies and had to be rescued by his friend, Edward John Eyre. The venture was also a financial failure. Sturt was greeted in Adelaide by flattering attention which brought balm to his pride injured by recent failures. Incautiously he became associated with an attempted land transaction which some colonists thought was questionable. On 30 October he returned to Sydney to learn of the birth of his second son, Charles.
In Adelaide he had been invited to join the South Australian public service and on 8 November 1838 was formally offered the position of surveyor-general. Despite his lack of technical qualifications and some doubts about Governor George Gawler's power to make the appointment, he accepted, sold his property in New South Wales and sailed with his family for Adelaide on 27 February 1839. In spite of sickness and continuing financial worries all seemed to go well. The first shattering blow came in September when Lieutenant Edward Frome arrived from London with a commission as surveyor-general. Gawler, in a loyal attempt to help Sturt, appointed him assistant commissioner of lands, though at a reduced salary. In November he and his wife joined Gawler in what was intended to be a short excursion up the Murray valley. On his expedition a young man lost his life and the governor was placed in serious danger. Although Sturt was not responsible the tragedy affected him deeply.
In 1841 Sturt was offered the resident management of the South Australian Co., but refused. Soon afterwards he committed what was probably the most serious error of judgment in his life: when news arrived that Captain George Grey was to replace Gawler as governor, Sturt wrote to the Colonial Office complaining of Grey's youth and offering himself as an alternative candidate for vice-regal office. Grey, who could not tolerate opposition, never forgave him this clumsy affront.
From that time Sturt's affairs worsened. Grey confirmed his provisional appointment as assistant commissioner, but later refused him the office of colonial secretary on the grounds that his sight was too poor. The Colonial Office then decided to abolish the assistant commissionership, leaving Sturt with the inferior post of registrar-general at a much lower salary. To a man of Sturt's temperament the situation was now intolerable. He was at loggerheads with the governor, deeply in debt, inadequately paid, and could see no hope of improving his prospects. He petitioned the Colonial Office for financial compensation or transfer to another colony. When refused, he decided that the only course left to him was to establish by some bold stroke a claim on the government for special consideration. His best chance of doing this was in exploration and, since he still believed in the existence of an inland sea, he prepared a grandiose plan for exploring and surveying, within two years, the entire unknown interior of the continent, and in 1843 forwarded it to the Colonial Office through his old friend, Sir Ralph Darling. While waiting for a reply he and Grey had a series of minor clashes which culminated in Sturt's censure by the Executive Council for an incautious letter. In May 1844 the secretary of state rejected Sturt's original plan but approved a more limited proposal to penetrate the centre of the continent in an attempt to establish the existence of a mountain range near latitude 28°S.
On 10 August 1844 Sturt left Adelaide with 15 men, 6 drays, a boat and 200 sheep. In eight days the party reached Moorundie and then followed the Murray River to its junction with the Darling, and up the Darling to the vicinity of Lake Cawndilla, where they camped for two months making several scouting expeditions into and beyond the Barrier Range. In December the party was short of water and some of the men showed signs of scurvy but they moved further north into the Grey Range. There they made a camp on permanent water fortunately found at Depot Glen on Preservation Creek. By that time summer heat had dried up all other water within reach and from 27 January 1845 to 16 July they were literally trapped in inhospitable country; men and equipment suffered terribly from the heat and Sturt's second-in-command, James Poole, died of scurvy.
In July they were released by heavy rain. Sturt moved his party in a north-westerly direction to Fort Grey, whence he made a series of reconnoitring expeditions culminating in a 450-mile (724 km) journey towards the centre of the continent. Repulsed by the sand dunes of the Simpson desert he at last reluctantly abandoned the idea of an inland sea.
Sturt and his party returned exhausted to Fort Grey and after another trip to the Cooper's Creek area from 9 October to 17 November they found the waterhole was rapidly drying. Return to the River Murray became imperative but nevertheless Sturt proposed that the main party should go home, while he and John McDouall Stuart made a do-or-die trip towards the centre. The surgeon, J. H. Browne, resisted so strongly that these heroics were dropped and the whole party went off together. At this point Sturt then succumbed to a serious attack of scurvy and Browne took command through the most difficult part of the journey. By using Aboriginal foods Sturt had almost recovered when the expedition reached Moorundie on 15 January. He arrived at Adelaide on 19 January 1846 ahead of his party, which followed a few days later.
In his absence Grey had been replaced by Major Robe and Sturt had been appointed colonial treasurer. His position was now more comfortable and early in 1847 he applied for leave. He left for England on 8 May and arrived in London just too late to receive personally the gold medal of the Royal Geographical Society, but was able to complete a published account of the expedition. On his return to Adelaide in August 1849 he was soon appointed colonial secretary but unfortunately his sight began to fail and at the end of 1851 he retired on a pension of £600.
Sturt had often expressed his love for Australia and his determination never to return to England, but the need to secure the future of his children forced him to change his mind and he left Australia on 19 March 1853. He spent his last years peacefully at Cheltenham, being widely respected and continually consulted about Australian affairs, particularly the preparations for the North Australian expedition of 1854. He applied unsuccessfully for the governorship of Victoria in 1855 and of Queensland in 1858. In 1869 at the instigation of his friends he sought a knighthood, but died on 16 June before the formalities were completed. Later the Queen permitted his widow to use the title Lady Sturt. He was pursued to the end by financial difficulties and it was said that had his old friend George Macleay not come forward, there would not have been enough in his estate for a decent burial.
Although Sturt probably entered his career as an explorer through influence, his selection was justified by results. He was a careful and accurate observer and an intelligent interpreter of what he saw, and it was unfortunate that much of his work revealed nothing but desolation. He prided himself with some justice on his impeccable treatment of the Aboriginals, and earned the respect and liking of his men by his courtesy and care for their well-being. Indeed his capacity for arousing and retaining affection was remarkable; it made him an ideal family man but a failure in public life. Without toughness and egocentricity to balance his poor judgment and business capacity he had little chance of success in colonial politics. In this sphere he might well be described as a born loser. He remained throughout his life an English Tory gentleman with an unshakeable faith in God. Despite his passionate interest in Australia, his inability to appreciate the attitudes of the colonial community was shown by his proposal in 1858 for a colony of Asiatic convicts in the north. He will always be remembered, however, as the first to chart the Murray River.
From: