I just deleted this album then re-loaded it to un tag a dealer i have problems with and to blow off steam about his companies' problem. it won't take the wind out of my sales for the love of life on the road. I just spent the last two hours deleting tags to dealers I’ve made large purchases from. The next step is to take their name off of my Truck and Fifth Wheel! That will teach them! I’ve even deleted two entire albums of photos with tags leading friends to the dealerships. My small protest but to have to spend more money in civil court. There should be a court for dealing with consumer products after large purchases and problems exist. Who can afford to do that and or spend the time teaching the bad dealer a lesson! It’s hard when you live on fantasy island and want to believe there are people out there that are true pros and true craftsmen. I know there are a few people out there because I met them and refused to do business with other dealers because I met them too. I’ve seen a guy weld a Holiday Rambler that broke in half over night at the frame and get me back on the road. There is even an RV dealer five minutes from my house that did such a poor job on a 30 foot trailer I want to restore that they lost a ten-grand restoration job! I went elsewhere for a purchase. Where is Brett Michaels when you need him! Now to find the proper venues to vent. Do you think the dealer’s sites post bad reviews? I’m the perfect sucker for a Salesman that cares nothing but for the commission or if they aren’t paid on commission for the BS they lay on you to kill time to eventually close the sale. I shopped for years at many different places within the State and even some Florida dealers for the right RV for me. I have twenty years’ road experience with travel trailers in and out of campgrounds and dealers. The hard part is when you find a good mechanic you are often down the road on the next adventure. The dealer can’t take away my enthusiasm for the joy of my new trailer. They are so useful when built properly and so versatile for travel or events or full time Road Warriors! Who wouldn’t be frustrated when there are 18 jobs that need attention! I was told by the salesman I’d get a good education from top to bottom and the demo guy was going to send me out of the dealership with the fifth wheel receiver or jaws ungreased with no Teflon pad for the fifth wheel! I really needed a fifth wheel hooking and unhooking lesson along with good Hydraulic jack lesson. I was good for most other things except how the solar panel works. But they try hard to push you off on the useless manuals or Destruction books because they are over worked and under staffed in the service area. I get that. Except learning the hard way almost cost me my hand with a bed and the fifth wheel. Luckily I’m quick. Sometimes I don’t know if I should have been a great mechanic a teacher or a great lawyer. I walked HIM through greasing the B&W hitch and greasing the receiver and made him put the Teflon pad he was going to make me leave without that I bought two years ago in anticipation of having a fifth wheel from Mark (the good guy) at the RV show in Greensboro. No kidding, I put a lot of thought into this. Needless to say, he has mechanical skills beyond my capability and they used the excuse it was market time or the RV show to be short with me. Now that I have tested things on the trailer before a trip and found at least 18 jobs that need to be done after waiting for a call for parts that had already been delivered and a call never received then accused of not paying for screens that didn’t fit and that a $125.00 per hour fee was going to be charged, who wouldn’t be upset? Did I mention this? It will always be something! They can just put the nail in the coffin for the common belief that it is over after the Sale is done. Getting passed off from one department to the other is unforgiveable! The excuse is familiar. I just do Sales; you have to talk to Service. Service says we just do Service, you have to go to parts. Even with lifetime warranty printed and tagged all over the trailer with a promise to teach you about how everything works I’ve found out the hard way from a popular dealer in Rural Hall, NC that it is not the case! It’s too bad I didn’t buy my Truck or RV and drive all the way to Atlanta to deal with @Scott Trail or find a similar friend that would make sure everything is right. Dream on Consumer! So, if any name bashing starts remember we always have one friend in the car, RV, insurance or Sales business. When we overall call all Salesman assholes or all insurance companies thieves or all dealings with service mechanics complete disasters we have to remember we have people on our friend’s lists that have those jobs. You know what, right now after a huge purchase and being shuffled it’s amazing I can work up any mercy for any of them. I’ve tried to be a Salesman. Service over profit was my downfall. I’ve tried to be a Customer Service Rep. It was difficult talking to people that needed parts after a large purchase when you just learned there aren’t any parts! We are all selling something whether we know it or not. If you aren’t taking pride in your job to be the best you can be and just killing time you are a part of this problem! Not everyone has a dream job. But it is just my turn to take a punch, but I’m swinging back! It is just unfortunate for them I know a little about RVs. I must have too high a standard to believe that there are really people that give a damn about products or follow through after the sale. I hate that we just don’t care attitude that leaves you searching for a better place. I had a place in Mooresville that I will find again for service. Hopefully the same family runs the place. It is near the Lake in Terrell. I need to return to and find another mobile mechanic once that moved on to a dealer in the mountains and I can’t dig his name up. There are good people out there. They are so hard to find. Maybe it is just me. I expect too much after laying down a hard-earned wage or a life savings for a house, new car, recreation vehicle or piece of equipment that is supposed to work. When I get a new toy, I want to take a photo of every nut bolt and screw on it, one because I am proud, the other reason is for future reference when things fall apart. Buyer’s remorse sucks even if you know the term all too well, Buyer Beware! I saw one guy at the current dealership I am dealing with now running, literally running to get from customer to customer after my purchase. In between him and the good mechanics are problems! The good guy’s name is Mark. He is extremely smart and knows RV’s and fifth wheels up and down. He was literally running with a ladder and carrying three heavy hitches with him to try to wait on at least two customers at the same time. I’m always leaving a window or looking for the good and hoping I’m not back on fantasy island. There were excellent qualified educated trailer technicians in the service in a good building with the right tools to build trailers from scratch, including paint. Getting to them is a full-time job on the customer’s end. They even had parts delivered that they owed me on what they call a we owe and hadn’t bothered to call in a three-week period. They wanted to double charge for some bug screens around 50 bucks until I produced a paid receipt. Even after the Salesmen told (I know his name) the parts manager he personally sat with the mechanic for a half hour trying patiently to put on the wrong screen. Even with lifetime warranty written all over my trailer they wanted to charge me for service $125.00 per hour for labor. That must be some sort of trick. For $125.00 an hour most any parts should be free! I waited three hours even with a scheduled appointment to even get told they were ready to take her in. Two days later I had to force the call to get an eta on when she would be ready. Imagine if I were a full timer living full time in my RV or still doing three shows a day in three different cities a day. Fortunately, I am gifted with a little time. The service manager mentioned to do the 18 jobs I needed to be done he still had to order parts. Imagine I was sold a unit that I (The Customer) found at least 18 things to do after leaving the lot and running the unit. So, I am going to rescue my unit tomorrow and hope what they did fix after two days waiting can get me through my first trip until parts come for the rest of the job. Do you think I am a fool to take it back? It is a hard call! I’ll know tomorrow if I receive a bill or the trailer is in good shape. The tough part is, after you have been tough with service now your unit is at their mercy. I was told by a good agent I don’t take any crap from anyone. But sometimes it costs me. But those of you that are passive and just let them walk all over you take a bigger beating. With full time jobs or people that depend on their unit as a full-time vehicle you can imagine the pressure to change up vacation times or deal with time off from your job to take care of problems.

Berrington Hall is the former seat of the Cawley family, and is a country house in the neoclassical style. The hall itself is set in what was Capability Brown's final landscape.

 

The hall is now in the care of the National Trust.

Berrington Hall, Leominster, Herefordshire (NT) (Grade 1)

NATIONAL TRUST + ENGLISH HERITAGE ALBUM

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/albums/72157701116949872

 

Berrington Hall is a neoclassical country house located about 3 miles North of Leominster. Berrington had been in the possession of the Cornewall family since 1386, but was sold in 1775 to Thomas Harley, a banker and government contractor who in 1767 had been Lord Mayor of London. He commissioned the rebuilding in 1778-1781 of the present Berrington Hall as a replacement for the earlier house. The Hall is designed as a neo-classical building and was designed by Henry Holland n 1778-8. Thomas Harley made it available to his daughter Anne and her new husband George Rodney, the son of Admiral Rodney. After Harley's death the house descended in the Rodney family for 95 years. The Hall and Estate were purchased by Frederick Cawley MP, later Baron Cawley, in 1901, In 1957 the 3rd Lord Cawley transferred it to the Treasury, which passed in on to the National Trust. Lady Cawley was allowed to remain in occupation until her death in 1978.

 

The Hall is the home to the Elmar Digby furniture collection, paintings by, among others, Thomas Luny (1759–1837), and the Charles Paget Wade costume collection from Snowshill, which can be viewed by appointment The 'below stairs' areas and servants' quarters that are open to the public include a Victorian laundry and Georgian dairy.

 

The Estates landscape was the last landscape to be designed by Capability Brown's its pool and lake are a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

 

Thankyou for a massive 57,560,943 views

 

Shot 11.03.2017 at Berrington Hall, (NT) Leominster, Herefordshire REF 125-015

Members of the 736th Security Forces Squadron assist each other in gearing up Aug. 21, 2013, before static line jump training on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The Air Force static line capability falls under the Personnel Parachute program. Jumpers are first qualified during a three-week basic airborne course at Ft. Benning, Ga., then continue to work on their jumping proficiency and qualifications after they return to home station. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Marianique Santos)

Like most of the heavy (non-carrier) aircraft used during the Falklands War, the Nimrod fleet operated out of Wideawake airfield on Ascension Island. However, the Nimrod was not designed with air to air refuelling capability so eight aircraft were fitted with ex-Vulcan refuelling probes to help overcome the vast distances of the South Atlantic.

The first MR2.P (P for Probed) to deploy to Wideawake was XV227 and it arrived on May 7. A few days later, on May 15 the Classic Air Force's Nimrod (XV232) took off from Wideawake with a 201 Sqn crew at the helm. It flew to a point 150 miles north of Port Stanley, then west until only 60 miles from the coast of Argentina, turning to fly north east, parallel to the coastline. The mission required three air to air refuellings by Victor tankers and the aircraft flew at altitudes of between 7,000 to 12,000ft so as to be a visual deterrent to ensure the Argentine fleet remained in port. Some feat for an unarmed aircraft...

XV232 flew another such sortie on May 21 in search of Argentine warships just prior to the British landings at San Carlos, this time with a 206 Sqn crew at the controls, and logged 8,453 miles in the 18 hour 50 minute flight. This distance record has not been broken to this day.

  

In May XV232 returned to the UK briefly and was fitted with a 'Heath-Robinson' method of carrying and launching Sidewinder missiles - resulting in the aircraft earning the name "the world's largest jet fighter" in various national newspapers of the day! One has to wonder if the sudden modification was requested by the crews who had been sitting ducks off the Argentine coast for 18 hours at a time...?

Other Nimrods were later converted to carry Sidewinders (intended mostly to counter Argentine Boeing 707 sea patrols) but they were never fired in anger during the war.

Compared with the Vulcan, the Nimrod story in the Falklands is largely untold to the wider public, which is a shame.

After the war XV232 continued in RAF service, in the anti-submarine and search and rescue roles, until May 11, 2010 when it was acquired by the Classic Flight - the forerunner of the Classic Air Force - and now resides at Coventry Airport where it's engines are run periodically, the intention being to taxi her in coming years.

+++ 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 Q-6 program was initiated in the mid-1970s when, during the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) proved incapable of ground support missions. Due to the lack of modern avionics and ground infrastructure to support a modern air war, Chinese aircraft suffered navigation and other logistics problems that severely limited their performance. The first Chinese aircraft did not actually reach the islands until several hours after the battle was over.

 

In addition to the need to upgrade its logistics capability and infrastructure, China also decided that nothing-in-its-then-aircraft-inventory could fill the requirement for support missions in the South China Sea. Fighters such as the J-5, J-6, J-7, and J-8 lacked a ground attack capability and were hampered by short range. The only Chinese ground attack aircraft atr that time, the Nanchang Q-5 (a MiG-19 derivate with a solid nose, an internal weapon bay and lateral air intakes), was also short ranged and had a relatively low payload. China's bombers such as the Harbin H-5 and Xian H-6 were slow and lacked a sufficient self-defense capability. A new aircraft was therefore seen as desperately needed to fulfill a new naval strike mission in support of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

 

Immediately after the battle, both the PLAAF and PLAN submitted their requirements for a new fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft to the 3rd Ministry of PRC. After extensive research, the 3rd Ministry decided that, based on the Chinese aeronautical industrial capability at the time, it was impossible to develop two separate airplanes at the same time. Instead, a decision was made to develop a single airplane when the prime requirements of the PLAAF and PLAN were similar, even though with different versions tailored to meet the different secondary needs of PLAAF and PLAN.

 

In June 1976 representatives from various aircraft factories were summoned to Beijing to discuss the project, and were instructed to come up with designs in the shortest possible time. Shenyang Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Shenyang Aircraft Corporation) was the first to come up with a design, the JH-8 (FB-8), which was essentially a ground attack version of the large, twin-engined J-8II (F-8II) interceptor. Next came the Q-6, a new design from the Nanchang Aircraft Factory. The Xi'an Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) was the last one to present a design, the Xian JH-7, also a new design.

 

Initially, the 3rd Ministry favored the JH-8, however because the design of the operational J-8II was still not completed the risk was considered to be too high, so it was eliminated. The projected development of JH-7 was too far out, and so the Q-6 was selected because it was believed to be the one that would be able for service the soonest.

 

The Q-6's distictive feature was its swing wing arrangement, and the project was China's first venture into this direction. Before the Q-6 program started, however, China had already obtained MiG-23BN and MiG-23MS aircraft from Egypt. A few downed F-111 were also provided to China by North Vietnam. Based on the research effort performed on these aircraft, it was suggested that the variable-sweep wing should be adopted for China's new ground attack aircraft.

 

The general designer of Nanchang Q-5, and the future academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (elected in 1995), Mr. Lu Xiaopeng, was named as the general designer of Q-6. Lu personally visited PLAAF and PLANAF numerous times to obtain their input, which was the base of the Tactical Technological Requirements of the Q-6 he was in charge of, and by February 1979, the general design of the attack aircraft was finalized, based on the initial requirement of the 3rd Ministry.

 

The original plan was to base the design of Q-6 on the MiG-23BN, the ground attack version of MiG-23. However, both PLAAF and PLAN required a true dogfight capability for self-defense. Due to the need of dogfight capability, a radar was needed, and the ground attack version of the Soviet fighter had no radar. As a result, the plan was changed to base the design on the MiG-23MS instead. But this was not a true solution: Studies revealed that in order to successfully perform the required missions for PLAAF and PLANAF, ground attack radar, as well as terrain-following radar, were needed, too. And for the intended dogfight capability, the RP-22 Sapfir-21 radar (NATO reporting name Jay Bird) of the MiG-23MS lacked the BVR capability.

 

Facing this technological lack the decision was made to use avionics reverse-engineered from the F-111 to makeup the MiG-23 shortcomings. But as with other technological features adopted for the Q-6, they were proven to be way too ambitious for the Chinese industrial, scientific and technological capability at the time, which resulted in prolonged development.

 

Problems did not stop, the airframe itself proved to be troublesome, too. Originally the design was based on the MiG-23MS, and was initially thought to be better than the MiG-23BN, because it provided more room in the nosecone to house the radar.

However, the Chinese microelectronic industry could not provide the solid state electronics needed to miniaturize the intended radar, and as a result, the size of the fuselage had theoretically to be increased from the size of the MiG-23 to that of the Su-24 to fit an appropriate radar dish with the technolgy available at that time. Research furthermore revealed that the side-intakes of the MiG-23 design were not sufficient enough to meet the required dogfight capability, so the side-intakes arrangement was changed into a single chin-intake instead, and the Q-6 is claimed to be the first Chinese aircraft to have a chin-mounted intake.

 

The engine itself was also a problem, since China did not possess a powerful jet fighter engine that would match the intended performance profile of the Q-6. At first there were plans to use 122.4 kN thrust of a WS-6 engine (which was used in the H-6/Tu-16 bomber!), but these were not suited for a fighter and simply too large. To match the targets of an aircraft weight of 14.500 kg, the biggest load of bombs of 4.500 kilograms and a combat radius of 900 km, the Q-6 was finally outfitted with the Wopen WS-9 afterburning turbofan - a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202 with 91.3 kN of thrust.

 

Chinese considered the greatest achievement of the Q-6 in its fly-by-wire (FBW) control of the variable-sweep wings, both were the first of its kind in China. The original goal of reverse-engineering the FBW of the F-111 proved to be way too ambitious and had to be abandoned, so a much simpler version was adopted. The triplex analog FBW of the Q-6 was effectively just slightly more advanced than the most rudimentary FBW in that the mechanical servo valves were replaced with electrical servo valves, operated by electronic controllers. But contrary to the most rudimentary FBW, where hydraulic actuators still existed, the hydraulic actuators are replaced by electrical actuators on the Q-6. Anyway, this system proved to be the major obstacle in the hardware development of the Q-6 and it took nine years to complete (1980–1988), under the personal leadership of Mr. Lu Xiaopeng.

 

In 1988, three prototypes were built: one for static test, one for avionics tests on the ground, and one for the variable sweep wing research. The serial aircraft for PLAAF and PLANAF would have been separate variants, called Q-6A and Q-6B, which are believed to be offered for export now (see below).

 

Although hailed as a technological breakthrough for the Chinese aviation and providing superior performance to fixed-wing designs (esp. the outdated Q-5), the Chinese system was more than 12% heavier than the simple mechanical-hydraulic controlled variable-sweep wing of the benchmark MiG-23, and the Q-6 avionics were still far from being up-to-date.

Once identified as an indigenous aircraft (the Q-6 was at first deemed to be a variant or straight copy of the MiG-23/27, and therefore premilinarily coded 'Flogger L'), NATO alloted the Code 'Fruitcase' to it, with suffixes for the various export variants (see below).

 

It was not before 1990 that the aircraft was completed and (theoretically) ready for service – but at that time, technology and military strategy had already changed, and China had been developing the more capable (but much bigger) twin-engined Xian JH-7 fighter bomber for PLAAF and PLANAF. But it would still take some years until the JH-7A would enter service with the PLANAF: in early 2004, and with the PLAAF by the end of the year.

 

For China, the most important factor which prevented the Q-6 introduction into PLAAF and PLANAF service, was the 'discovery' of stealth features on the battlefield: variable-sweep wing would enlarge the aircraft's radar cross section multiple times and thus making it impossible to survive on the modern battlefield, because it would be much more likely to be detected and shot down.

 

Anyway, internal politics did not stop China from offering the now completed airframe on the export market as A-6 'Kong Yun' ("Cloud"), as a more capable successor to the Nanchang A-5 (the export version of the MiG-19-based Q-5). From 1992 onwards, several former A-5 users bought the aircraft as A-6 multi-role fighters. It is assumed that these correspond to the Q-6's development lines for PLAAAF an PLANAF.

 

Current users are the Bangladeshi Air Force (8× A-6B), Myanmar Air Force (20× A-6C), Sri Lanka (11× A-6B) Korean People's Air Force (probably less than 50x A-6A) and the Sudanese Air Force (A total of about 20, 3–11 of them servicable, probably all A-6A).

 

A-6A ('Fruitcase A'):

The first version and despite being marketed as a "multi-role combat aircraft" a very simple variant with a small radome, probably containing a Type 226 pulse-Doppler radar (a Chinese copy of the GEC-Marconi Skyranger).

 

A-6B ('Fruitcase B'):

Similar in apperance to the A-6A with a bigger radome. This variant is equipped with a Chinese KLJ-6E pulse-Doppler radar (A Chinese copy of the Italian Pointer-2500 radar, the same as featured on the Chinese Q-5M Fantan attack aircraft), which gives all weather attack capability. These aircraft are also fitted with a HUD, a GPS receiver/inertial navigation system, a 360° radar warning system, a tactical radio navigation system and chaff/flare dispensers on the rear fuselage.

The Sri Lanka aircraft have been seen carrying an external FLIR pod on one of the underfuselage pylons, while the Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft exclusively feature a small fairing under the nose which is believed to contain a LR/MTS, allowing the deployment of PGM.

 

A-6C ('Fruitcase C'):

Dedicated ground attack variant with a solid, more slender nose and full PGM capability. The nose features a fairing with windows for an ALR-1 laser rangefinder/marked target seeker (LR/MTS) in a small ball turret, and possibly LLLTV/FLIR. This optical system offers day/night attack capability. Like the A-6B, these aircraft feature HUD, GPS, tactical radio and optional flare dispensers.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.10 m)

Wingspan: 47 ft 2 in (14.4m) at 16°, 28 ft 6 in (8,7m) at 72°

Height: 15 ft 9.5 in (4.82 m)

Empty weight: 16.520 lb (7.500 kg)

Loaded weight: 28.370 lb (12.880 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 32.820 lb (14.900 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Xian WS-9 Qin Ling afterburning turbofan (a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202), rated at 54,6 kN (5.562kp) dry and at 91,3KN (9.305kp) at full afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 at low altitude and in clean configuration, subsonic with external ordnance; 1.055mph (1.700 km/h) at height and in clean configuration

Combat radius: 485 nmi (560 mi, 900 km)

Service ceiling: 49.180 ft (15.000 m)

 

Armament:

2× Type 23-III twin-barreled 23mm cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG

7× Hardpoints (three under the fuselage, one under each fixed wing root and the mobile outer wings) for a maximum external ordnance of 10.000 lbs (4.540kg), including guided and unguided bombs, missiles, napalm tanks or 800l drop tanks; the two hardpoints under the outer wings are fixed and can only be used when the wings are kept in the most forward position (they are normally only used for drop tanks in ferry configuration).

   

The kit and its assembly:

This is a whif, but the Nanchang Q-6 was actually developed until 1989 – even though it never entered any service. It was over-ambitious and a dead end, overtaken by technological advances and the fact that Chinese development used to take decades rather than years.

 

Anyway, the Q-6 actually looked as if someone had glued the nose and air intake of a F-16 onto a MiG-23/27 fuselage - weird, but cool, so why not try this at home?

 

Like many kitbashing things, what sounds simple turned out to be a bit tricky in detail, even though the surgery was finally easier than expected. The model basis is pretty simple: I took an Academy MiG-27, sawed off the fuselage in the wing roots area (about 1cm, the cockpit section is an extra fuselage section), and did the same with an Italeri F-16 nose section, right behind the cockpit, where the front wheel well ends. The top insert for the single seater was left a bit longer, so that it would overlap with the MiG-23/27 spine.

When you fit these parts together, height is almost perfect, even the wing root/LERX angles match, but there are gaps left on the flanks where the original MiG-27 air intakes would be. These have to be covered, what creates lines reminiscent of the respective area on a MRCA Tornado. Furthermore, the spine behind the cockpit has to be sculpted, too.

 

Furthermore, the wing root levels of the MiG-23/27 and the F-16 did not match - they have a difference in height of about 4mm on the model, and this was the biggest challenge.

In order to compensate for this problem on my model, any LERX sign was removed from the F-16 nose. Inside of the F-16 section, a column was added that supports the rear upper half of the front fuselage, since the flanks had to go almost completely.

On the outside, the necessary intersections/extensions sculpted new with 2C putty, extending the MiG-23/27 lines forward. The final surface finish was done with NC putty. This major surgery was less complicated than expected - lots of work, though, but feasible.

 

The new front section with its blended fuselage/LERX area around the cockpit reminds surprisingly much of the MiG-29? As a side note: when you look at CG simulations of this aircraft, this area is a frequent field of trial and error. You find unconclusive, if not impossible designs.

 

Other changes include a less modern canopy from a MiG-21 (I think it comes from an Academy MiG-21F kit), which was more tricky to fit onto the original F-16 canopy than the LERX stuff. The F-16 canopy looked just too modern for my taste. An old Airfix pilot figure was added, too.

 

Another new feature is a new jet pipe, a J-79 nozzle from an Italeri Kfir that fits perfectly into the rear fuselage, and the fin. The latter was taken as a leftover part from my recent CF-151A project and comes from a 1:144 scale Tu-22M bomber (Dragon). It's higher, but less deep, and I thought that a slightly different shape and more area would be suitable for an attack aircraft. For the same reason the single, foldable stabilizer fin under the rear fuselage was replaced by two fixed strakes (from the F-16). Small details, but they change the look and make the aircraft appear more simple.

 

The landing gear was taken from the MiG-27, the front wheel strut had to be slightly shortened due to the reduced wheelbase on the Q-6.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together – according to current BAF weapons in use. I went for unguided missiles (taken from the Academy MiG-27 donation kit) and some 100kg iron bombs, leftover from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber kit. These were arranged under the wing roots on improvised tandem MERs.

 

I did not even try to engrave new panel lines on the new front section - actually, almost the whole upper surface is featureless since it was made with putty. But bot 2C and NC putty are pretty touchy to drilling or engraving (as the rather fruitless attempt to drill open cavities for the two guns proved...), so I decided to just use paint effects.

  

Painting and markings:

I had been wanting to build a Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft for quite a long time, and the Q-6 was finally a great opportunity. As a ground attack aircraft, the livery was to reflect that role, and among modern BAF aircraft I found C-130 transporters carrying a wrap-around ‘Lizard’/’European One’ scheme, in the traditional tones of FS34102, FS34097 and FS 36081 (Humbrol 117, 149 and 32). Maybe the BAF C-130s are ex USAF aircraft? It seems to be common BAF practice to keep former users' liveries and even bort numbers! Anyway, I find the Lizard cammo on a swing wing aircraft like this rather disturbing, but overall the whole thing looks pretty cool, probably also because of the exotic roundels.

 

Another option would have been a two-tone green camouflage (seen on BAF An-32 transports) or a three-tone pattern of pale sand, dark brown and dark green with light blue undersides, seen on BAF A-5 fighters. The garish, blue livery of BAF MiG-29s, as well as the blue and grey patterns on BAF F-7 fighters, were ruled out, since they’d rather suggest an air superiority role.

 

The camouflage pattern is based on USAF A-10 aircraft, and the aircraft’s upper sides were thoroughly weathered with a black ink wash and dry-brushing in lighter shades of the basic tones. After all, my kit is to represent a Q-6 after more than 15 years of service, so that the grey would become much lighter, the dark green get a greyish-blue hue and the light green tone adapt an almost olive drab look. As a result, the aircraft does not look too dark and murky, and the missile ordnance does not stand out too much.

 

The roundels were improvised – Bangladeshi aircraft kits/decals are rare. AFAIK, only one 1:72 Fujimi MiG-21 offers a BAF markings option, otherwise I could not find anything else, even among aftermarket offerings. Scratching is more fun, though, so “my” markings are actually Pakistani roundels (from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet) with red decal discs covering the original white central disc.

The flag on the fin was cut from generic green decal sheet, the red disc was punched out from red decal sheet, just like the roundel additions. Straightforward – and highly effective! Other markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, since the Q-6 never got beyond prototype stage, anything was possible concerning stencils etc.

 

The bort numbers are guesstimates - typically, BAF (and also PAF) carry a full registration on the tail fin and only a three-digit code on the nose. Squadron emblems are only small and carried either on the nose or the fin, so the model is rather simple in appearance.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in "Russian Interior Blue-Green" (Testors 2135, a stuff also in use in China, as far as I can tell), the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The air intake was painted in light grey from the inside, the radome became black.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Benning

 

Fort Benning is a United States Army post straddling the Alabama–Georgia border next to Columbus, Georgia. Fort Benning supports more than 120,000 active-duty military, family members, reserve component soldiers, retirees, and civilian employees on a daily basis. It is a power projection platform, and possesses the capability to deploy combat-ready forces by air, rail, and highway. Fort Benning is the home of the United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, the United States Army Armor School, United States Army Infantry School, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly known as the School of the Americas), elements of the 75th Ranger Regiment (United States), the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade, and other additional tenant units.

 

It is named after Henry L. Benning, a brigadier general in the Confederate States Army during the Civil War.

 

Since 1909, Fort Benning has served as the Home of the Infantry. Since 2005, Fort Benning has been transformed into the Maneuver Center of Excellence, as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission's decision to consolidate a number of schools and installations to create various "centers of excellence". Included in this transformation was the move of the Armor School from Fort Knox to Fort Benning.

 

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Infantry_Museum

 

The National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center is a museum located in Columbus, Georgia, just outside the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning. The 190,000-square-foot museum opened in June 2009.

 

The museum chronicles the history of the United States Army infantryman from the American Revolution to Afghanistan. It exhibits artifacts from all eras of American history and contains interactive multimedia exhibits. The National Infantry Museum emphasizes the values that are meant to define the infantryman, as well as the nation: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.

 

In addition to galleries, the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center also consists of:

 

Giant Screen Theater

DownRange Combat Simulators

The Fife and Drum Restaurant

The Soldier Store Gift Shop

Heritage Walk

Memorial Walk of Honor

Vietnam Memorial Plaza

Global War on Terrorism Memorial (Fall 2017)

World War II Company Street.

 

Until April 2008, the museum was housed in an old Army hospital on Fort Benning. Space and conditions for the museum’s collection was inadequate. In 1998, the 501(c)(3) National Infantry Foundation was formed to plan, raise funds for and to operate a new museum. The National Infantry Museum Foundation has since formed a formal partnership with the Army to manage the facility and its contents. The National Infantry Museum does not receive federal, state or city funding. Through its lease agreement with the National Infantry Museum Foundation, the Army reimburses the foundation for approximately 30 percent of the museum’s annual operating expenses. There is no admission fee. The museum relies on donations, memberships and revenue-generating attractions such as the Giant Screen Theater, combat simulators, Fife and Drum Restaurant, Soldier Store and event rentals to cover operating expenses.

 

The museum is located on a 155-acre campus adjacent to Fort Benning. The campus includes Inouye Field and a 2,100-seat stadium which hosts graduations of Army trainees most Thursdays and Fridays. The graduations are open to the public.

 

World War II Company Street is a collection of seven buildings constructed at Fort Benning during the ramp-up to World War II. They have been furnished as they were in the 1940s and are open for tours most days. The buildings include a chapel, barracks, mess hall, orderly room, supply room, and the sleeping quarters and headquarters building used by Gen. George Patton prior to his deployment to North Africa in 1942.

 

The Vietnam Memorial Plaza contains a ¾-scale replica of the Vietnam Wall on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

 

The Global War on Terrorism Memorial (under construction Summer 2017) includes the names of 6,800 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines killed in service since 9/11. A 13-foot steel beam pulled from the wreckage of the World Trade Center and donated to the museum by New York City firefighters is featured in the design of the memorial.

 

The museum received a Thea Award for excellence from the Themed Entertainment Association in 2011, USA Today’s 2016 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Free Museum, and TripAdvisor’s Hall of Fame recognition for continued excellence.

The second Galileo Full Operational Capability satellite (SAT 6) during preparations inside the S5A building, before fuelling operations, on 30 July 2014.

 

The launch of the two Galileo satellites, aboard a Soyuz rocket, is set for August 2014, from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.

 

The definition, development and in-orbit validation phases of the Galileo programme were carried out by ESA and co-funded by ESA and the EU. The Full Operational Capability phase is managed and fully funded by the European Commission. The Commission and ESA have signed a delegation agreement by which ESA acts as design and procurement agent on behalf of the Commission.

 

Credit: ESA–S. Corvaja, 2014

Berrington Hall, Leominster, Herefordshire (NT) (Grade 1)

NATIONAL TRUST + ENGLISH HERITAGE ALBUM

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/albums/72157701116949872

 

Berrington Hall is a neoclassical country house located about 3 miles North of Leominster. Berrington had been in the possession of the Cornewall family since 1386, but was sold in 1775 to Thomas Harley, a banker and government contractor who in 1767 had been Lord Mayor of London. He commissioned the rebuilding in 1778-1781 of the present Berrington Hall as a replacement for the earlier house. The Hall is designed as a neo-classical building and was designed by Henry Holland n 1778-8. Thomas Harley made it available to his daughter Anne and her new husband George Rodney, the son of Admiral Rodney. After Harley's death the house descended in the Rodney family for 95 years. The Hall and Estate were purchased by Frederick Cawley MP, later Baron Cawley, in 1901, In 1957 the 3rd Lord Cawley transferred it to the Treasury, which passed in on to the National Trust. Lady Cawley was allowed to remain in occupation until her death in 1978.

 

The Hall is the home to the Elmar Digby furniture collection, paintings by, among others, Thomas Luny (1759–1837), and the Charles Paget Wade costume collection from Snowshill, which can be viewed by appointment The 'below stairs' areas and servants' quarters that are open to the public include a Victorian laundry and Georgian dairy.

 

The Estates landscape was the last landscape to be designed by Capability Brown's its pool and lake are a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

 

Thankyou for a massive 57,560,943 views

 

Shot 11.03.2017 at Berrington Hall, (NT) Leominster, Herefordshire REF 125-016

this informal garden owned by the National trust in East sussex was originally part of Sheffield park house, mentioned in the Doomsday Book as an estate. in its presen form the gardens were designed by the renowned Capability Brown, the very first cricket match between England and Australia was played here.

Now amazing Capture One pro 10 is out, and for Sony users the express version is free.

The Capture One 9.4 before it was simply outstanding RAWC, much better than anything from Adobe or Raw Therapy.

 

Unfortunately, the free version of C1 does not handle Canon, Nikon or Olympus RAW, only Sony or DNG(Pentax and Leica).

 

So I guess It is another big reason for many of us to choose Sony over anything else. If you use Sony, you can get a full copy of Capture One pro 10 for just 50 USD.

AS far as I am concerned, this is an incredible deal, great Christmas gift for us from Phase One, the greatest company in Photography ever.

 

I think both Capture One 10 Pro and DXO 11 produce a bit better color than LR CC or LR6 for Sony, Canon,Olympus, or Nikon.

 

I suspect that Adobe programs are optimized for Canon but even for Canon CR2 files, LR6 and CC are not good enough, never produce the amazing amount details that Capture One 10 or DXO 11 does.

 

Seriously C Oen 10 pro for just 50 US is an amazing deal. nothing beats it for that price.

Capture One 10 is a much better more serious program than the LR crapware, and the biggest deal here is not need to deal with the Adobe subscription stuff. Many many Adobe users used the license and repaid it to re-activate it, it is really terribly unstable. I had one time could not use it when I was editing my images on site in a mountain area and they say my account is just trial although I paid it for full CC version.

So after coming back from the mountain, I decided to cancel all Adobe CC crap, and I just got Capture One express 8.32 for Sony free,then later in the same month (last April)I upgraded it to the pro version. I could not be happier.

Now, also DXO is offering me a copy FULL copy of DXO 11 Pro version for just 99 USD. I will get that too.

Honestly, there are still times we need Photoshop but I do have full copy of CS6, so I do not need CC anymore, and I've found life without Adobe CC crap is really much more relaxing and easier.

So in the long run, may Sony E mount be the most expensive system out side of the Leica SL and MFDBs arena?

 

Well it seems like that considering terribly expensive Sony service charge and repair price, and of course their lens prices.

 

As far as lenses are concerned, I can only compare the lenses that have been tested scientifically. Now please keep in mind that these tests were done with the A7R not version 2, but when Nikon introduces their higher resolution camera this will increase the final numbers for Nikon system as well, and Canon already have even higher resolution camera than both Nikon and Sony, but oddly enough DXO and most of others refuse to use the high resolution Canon body for testing their new gen lenses.

Sony 35 2.8, Nikon 35 1.8, Canon 35 2.0 tested with A7R, D810, 5DIII, oddly DXO refuses to test Canon lenses on the 5DS.

Anyway though,the Sony Costs $800, Nikon Costs $600, despite the Sony having less resolving power and a full stop slower than the Nikon. So we see how expensive Sony system actually is already here at the very first comparison below.

www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NI...

To be fair to Sony, there is also the Loxia 35 mm f2,which I recently sold off for some new macro lens for my Olympus. The Loxia 35 is a fairly good lens but not an amazing lens, not exceptionally sharp, not extremely well corrected either. It has a bit of serious coma issue at f2 and on, though it is still a better lens than the Sony 35 mm f2.8 in the areas of center resolution and longitudinal CA and Vignetting. But the Loxia is worse than the Sony 35 mm f2.8 in some significant areas such as coma, edge/corner sharpness and focus accuracy at infinity.

So in Sony 35 mm Full frame world , there is no value 35 mm prime at all.

Now move on to value 28 mm primes: Sony 28 2.0, Nikon 28 1.8, Canon 28 2.8, they are close enough to say the difference is irrelevant in real life use.

www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-28mm-...

 

So move on to 70-200 mm f4: Of Sony 70-200 f4, Nikon 70-200 f4, Canon 70-200 f4, the Sony again is the most expensive despite the Nikon having more resolving power if we are to trust DXO lens rating. I personally do not trust their lens tests although I trust their sensor tests and I think their sensor test results pretty much mirror my own findings quite often.

But in case of the 70-200 mm f4 lenses, many other sites like SLRgear, lenstip tested and came to the same or identical conclusion to the DXO comparison. I also tested them at my work place with my own copy of DXO analyzer and got the same results.

If I have to pick the winner here, I would pick the Nikon for its obviously better resolution at 200 mm f4 setting. But it is more complicated than just optical quality, since the latest generation body IS of Sony is much more effective than most of in-lens VR or IS I tested.

So, while the Nikon is a bit better lens optically, I doubt that in real life handheld photography we see the better resolving power of the Nikon. The Sony 70-200 mm f4 comes with an excellent tripod collar that would cost 120 US if we buy it separately. Canon and Nikon do not include a tripod collar in their respective 70-200 mm f4 shipping package.

So maybe, is the pricing of the Sony actually reasonable?

www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-70-20...

 

Now move on to 35 mm f1.4 lenses comparison:Sony 35 1.4, Nikon 35 1.4. Interestingly in this test the Sony did a little better in resolution to the Nikon although its 22mm longer and 30 grams heavier than the Nikon and 26mm longer and 50 grams heavier than the Canon, so not so compact for a compact system any more.

What this fact tells us about is if you ask ultimate resolution in any current FF system, regardless of your camera body size, your lens must be big and heavy, thus your system won't be small or cheap or light at all.

 

www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-...

But in case of this 35 mm f1.4, we have to consider the extremely bad copy to copy sample variation issue of the Sony. The biggest issue of the DXO and the other typical online lens test sites is that they test only one copy supplied by the company.

But there is a great man testing literally 10-100 of copies of each lens and reporting his results most of times.

www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpn...

 

Personally, I take Roger's opinion much more seriously than any other lens test site's so-called review. I work at a mall which also sell cameras and I have tested many returned lenses before sending them back to the respective manufactures, we found that the copy to copy variation is much more significant than many people online think, it is sometimes even more pronounced than lens A to lens B difference.

So testing one copy of each lens is not enough, definitely in the case of any super complex modern optics such as this FE 35 mm f1.4.

I know the best copies of it is a fantastic lens, but about 75 percent of times you get a bad one or just an ok kind of one. It is really really deplorable, sad.

But no one so-called review site besides Roger's report it, and I smell something very fishy here.

 

Now move on to 50 mm -55 mm value primes: the Sony 55 1.8 vs the Nikon 50 1.8 vs the

Canon 50 1.8 STM

 

The Sony beats out the Nikon and obviously the Canon because of the limited megapixels, but the interesting thing is when you compare pricing...$1000 for the Sony, $219 for the Nikon. Weight was another thing with the Sony coming in at almost 100 grams heavier than the Nikon and the Canon. In terms of Absolute resolution, the Sony is quite a bit better, though if you care about the money, then the cheap Nikon gets you about 90 percent of the expensive Sony performance at 1/ 5th of the Sony price.

 

www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-...

 

now finally move on to 90-105 mm macro lens:

The Sony 90 mm macro is reported to be a better lens by likes of DXOmark, but according to Roger Cicala's extensive optics bench testing with many many copies of it, it is not as good as we all once thought it must be because of the DXO result for it below.

www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-90mm-...

But it is obvious if you get a good copy of the Sony FE 90 mm f2.8 G lens, it is sharper than anything else in the market, actually it even beats the over-sized over priced not much useful awkward brand lenses like the Zess Otus 85 mm f1.4 APO or the Zeiss 135 mm f2 APO Sonnar,which I sold as soon as I found it useless in real life application ,especially for travel photography and street work. I loved it for studio work, but for that use I do not need to actually own any lens, just rent it from my boss's studio.

Anyway, my point here is if you get a decent Sony Fe 90 or 55 mm then it even beats the super-heavy ,awkward no compromise in design kind of d-SLR lens that priced about 4 times more than the Sony lenses.

The 90 macro is a cheap lens for what it is, there is no comparison to that lens in that relatively modest range of it.

 

So while I agree that Sony has made some very positive moves in recent years,it has come at a cost in pricing, f/stop and in the compactness to the system.Even then, the Sony lenses are not necessarily the best, especially when you take the fact that the Nikon/Canon Lenses often out resolved the Sony equivalents with faster f/stops for less money into serious consideration. The Canon lenses were at a deficit due to megapixels, and even with the obvious sensor resolution disadvantage, quite a few Canon lenses actually still out-resolve Sony Nikon equivalents, it was,to me,quite amazing.

So, I think if you need the ultimate best for now or the absolute best, most promising tech into foreseeable future, then the Sony system makes real sense here, but if you just need 90 percent of what the A7RM2 can do at the 1/4 of the Sony system price, then Nikon still makes better sense(value).

In my area it is even more glaringly clear, the A7RM2 body alone costs about 378000 yen, the Nikon D810 kit with the AF-S24-120 mm f4 VR costs 321000 yen,the Sony does not seem to be a great value although it may well be the absolute best camera in current camera market.

And most of people just go with the almost 95 percent as good as the absolute best kind of system that costs much less than the absolute best.

I chose the Zeiss Batis 85 over the Zeiss Otus 85 although I knew the Otus would beat the Batis in resolution(at a lab)..........but for me the much more manageable size and the weight saving, and more importantly the better overall practicality/usability of the Batis beat the absolute tripod resolution of the Otus. I think the same logic applies for choosing the right camera system.

Although, IMO, Canon still has the edge in lens line, flash,etc, and as a company most stable and profitable with a lot of key-core patents in this ILC technology, I personally never consider any of current Canon cameras seriously. The 5DS is just simply too overpriced, the 6D is just too long in the tooth, the 5D3 is about to be replaced, so no current Canon cameras make great value.

The 5DS-R costs 2 times more than the D810 and I think it is just too crazy, and that makes it absolutely the worst value camera for me. The 5DS at least a bit cheaper than the A7R2 to really justify its market position since it does not have the IBIS of the Sony, the 4k capability of the Sony, the high ISO performance of the Sony.

In the end, after comparing the prices of the lenses I need for the 3 systems carefully, I kind of realize that it is most logical to just stay with my current Sony system, just because I already have it. I guess I will hold on to my A7, A7M2, A7R for as long as I can, and see if Canon, Fuji or Samsung will answer to the a7R2.

The above logic just works for me, but I think for more budget minded people the Nikon may still hold the value king title with the D750..

The D750 is really attractive for event photography on a tight budget, and it is very very cheap now in the many many areas of the world, especially in my area.The Nikon D750 or D810 based system is at least 30 percent cheaper than the A7M2 or the A7RM2 based system with a few primes and a couple of zooms. But if you are a kind of person always wanting to shoot with a Otus or similar IQ lens and always carefully manually focus it, then Sony would suddenly become a much more logical choice for you.

The FE 55 mm f1.8 is sharper than the Otus 55 mm f1.4 at 1/4 of the Otus weight.

I do not have problem paying the Otus price for a great lens but the weight is.

The Sony FE 90 mm f2.8 G (assuming you get a decent copy) beats the both Otus and Batis in resolution and a few more areas.

I know the greater resolution alone does not make it a better lens than the Otus since Otus beats in the areas of CA, distortion and coma at wide open,etc.

But to me the better resolution of the Sony at 1/3 or the weight of Otus is very attractive.

The Batis 85 mm f1.8 is a great lens, honestly it is a bit different kind of lens than the Otus is with a bit more CA, a bit more distortion,etc, but it has the unique Zeiss look as with the other great Zeiss primes, and it is definitely sharp enough for its obvious intended use.

For landscape type of corner to corner sharpness, it may not be able to match the best primes in that focal range such as the FE90 mm f2.8 G , the Otus 85 mm f1.4 and the Leica 90 mm f3.5 APO, but still it handily beats all zooms and most of primes ever made in that specific focal range.

Many people compare the Batis 85 mm to the Nikon AF-S85 mm f1.8 G just because they both share f1.8 f numbers, but are they really comparable in quality?

Actually, in terms of sheer resolution and optical quality the cheap plastic Nikon may be comparable to the Batis. But it is weaker in a few key areas compared to the Batis.

The Nikon has much worse Lo-CA, much worse weaker flare resistance, a bit more distorted.

But the Nikon is smaller, lighter comes with 62 mm filter thread rather than the big 67 mm one on the Batis, it has a bit lower distortion and seems to have a bit lower amount of light fall off.

So it is actually closer match than we once thought it would be, and I see many many people mostly shooting all AF prefer the Nikon over the Zeiss in this case.

But unfortunately for me, the Batis is a better looking lens for my type of shooting since I am a manual focus kind of person, seldom use AF and having good MF ring is very important to me. So as my old man always said when I was a kid, it is always horses for courses, there is no one absolutely better camera system for all of us.

 

Finally as a side note, many many people guessing a lot of the technology inside the Leica SL seems to be from Panasonic.

I think Leica/Panasonic are testing the waters, with their first FF CSC with modern design more sophisticated UI than that of the Sony A7X.

I wouldn't be surprised, if less than a year from now, Panasonic makes a shot directly at Sony A7 series with a cheaper and more practical version of the Leica SL.

If Canon and Nikon don't come up with competitors in the meantime, Sony-Panasonic will be pushing this market very hard very far so that the old leaders will find themselves 7 laps behind all of a sudden. It may be easy for Canon to come up with something similar since they have all the tech needed to make something similar to the Leica SL, but is Nikon still safe, some how able to manage it to survive?

I know many Japanese Mega camera dealers that think in a matter of a several years Nikon won't be around in this market.

If they are correct, I wonder if the new Tokyo Nikon camera museum was actually built by Nikon as their own camera indoor cemetery?

 

UPdate : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

UPDATE2:Another serious issue all the camera makers will have to face but I did not really realize before is that all ILC cameras are big to most of NORMAL non-photographer people, and they are very intimidating to most of NORMAL people(I mean regardless of mount type or sensor type).

I never realized it before but while walking around down town Fukuoka with one of my long time friends here forced me to understand it. A friend of mine told me that he thinks all interchangeable lens cameras are huge and intimidating to most of average people regardless of sensor size or format, it's just simply annoying!

I guess a big lens scares or annoys people more than a big body......I never saw it his way but I got his point and I decided to carry my tiny Canon G5X when I just walk around the city area with other people. If I am alone shooting something, then I usually carry my big camera, and I think it does not matter it's a m43, a FF, an APS-C, it is all big to most of NORMAL people, anyway.

Then why not just go all the way up to FF or MFDB, or at least APS-C?

 

So maybe the one really doomed is not Nikon F or Pentax K or Sony A but m43?

Nikon and Pentax have historically had very enthusiastic and even fanatic core shooters and they are usually too old to adapt themselves fast to new EVF based gear even if they understand it is the more logical thing for them as they are aged. So D-SLRs may survive as antique cameras, but m43 or Nikon One?

 

UPDATE3: Nikon has just announced a new sensor fab development with Toshiba and it seems like their new sensor design uses very similar AF tech to the DP AF of the Canon EOS M5 sensor without losing almost no amount of light getting into the sensor.

 

Canon also patented a few new curved sensor designs with Toshiba. Toshiba seems to work as a special sensor designer for many companies rather than producing it themselves now.

 

And it found out that the Sony's old curved sensor patent is no longer effective, and it was originally a Toshiba patent.

So if Sony really lost the patent to Toshiba , then Sony would have a big problem since Sony would not be able to use the curved sensor tech for their FF camera lines that helps them to design smaller and sharper lenses for the FE system.

 

UPDATE4: Now, I've just confirmed that Nikon DL series actual shipment date would be next January 17th as planned in last Nikon conference at Nikon D5600 launch. But it may delay even further to next CP+ show in Yokohama Japan(in Feb 2017).

 

So it is already promised to be a failed product line before the actual launch. I think Nikon is really stupid, I mean I don't think phones or mirrorless killing Nikon but itself, it obtuse marketing killing it.

 

Croome Court is a mid 18th century Neo-Palladian mansion surrounded by an extensive landscaped parkland at Croome D'Abitot, near Pershore in south Worcestershire. The mansion and park were designed by Lancelot "Capability" Brown for George Coventry, 6th Earl of Coventry, and was Brown's first landscape design and first major architectural project. Some of the internal rooms of the mansion were designed by Robert Adam.

 

The mansion house is owned by Croome Heritage Trust, and is leased to the National Trust who operate it, along with the surrounding parkland, as a tourist attraction. The National Trust own the surrounding parkland, which is also open to the public.

 

Location[edit]

Croome Court is located near to Croome D'Abitot, in Worcestershire,[1] near Pirton, Worcestershire.[2] The wider estate was established on lands that were once part of the royal forest of Horewell.[3] Traces of these older landscapes, such as unimproved commons and ancient woodlands, can be found across the former Croome Estate.[4]

 

House[edit]

 

Croome Court South Portico

History[edit]

The foundations and core of Croome Court, including the central chimney stack structure, date back to the early 1640s.[5] Substantial changes to this early house were made by Gilbert Coventry, 4th Earl of Coventry.[6]

 

In 1751, George Coventry, the 6th Earl, inherited the estate, along with the existing Jacobean house. He commissioned Lancelot "Capability" Brown, with the assistance of Sanderson Miller, to redesign the house and estate.[7][1] It was Brown's "first flight into the realms of architecture" and a "rare example of his architectural work",[8] and it is an important and seminal work.[9] It was built between 1751 and 1752, and it and Hagley Hall are considered to be the finest examples of Neo-Palladian architecture in Worcestershire. Notable Neo-Palladian features incorporated into Croome Court include the plain exterior and the corner towers with pyramidal roofs (a feature first used by Inigo Jones in the design of Wilton House in Wiltshire).[1] Robert Adam worked on the interior of the building from 1760 onwards.[10]

 

The house has been visited by George III,[2][11] as well as Queen Victoria[7] during summers when she was a child, and George V (then Duke of York).[11]

 

A jam factory was built by the 9th Earl of Coventry, near to Pershore railway station, in about 1880, to provide a market for Vale of Evesham fruit growers in times of surplus. Although the Croome connection with jam making had ceased, during the First World War, the building was leased by the Croome Estate Trust to the Huddersfield Fruit Preserving Company as a pulping station.[12]

 

The First World War deeply affected Croome, with many local casualties, although the house was not requisitioned for the war effort. This is possibly because it was the home of the Lord Lieutenant of the County, who needed a residence for his many official engagements.[13]

 

During the Second World War Croome Court was requisitioned by the Ministry of Works and leased for a year to the Dutch Government as a possible refuge for Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands; to escape the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. However, evidence shows that they stayed two weeks at the most, perhaps because of the noise and fear created by the proximity of Defford Aerodrome. They later emigrated to Canada.[14]

 

In 1948 the Croome Estate Trust sold the Court, along with 38 acres (15 ha) of land, to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham, and the mansion became St Joseph's Special School, which was run by nuns[15] from 1950[11] until 1979.[15]

 

The house was listed on 11 August 1952; it is currently Grade I listed.[10]

 

In 1979 the hall was taken over by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishna movement), who used it as their UK headquarters and a training college[16] called Chaitanya College,[15] run by 25 members of the movement.[16] During their tenure they repainted the Dining Room.[17] In 1984 they had to leave the estate for financial reasons. They held a festival at the hall in 2011.[16]

 

From 1984 onwards various owners tried to use the property as a training centre; apartments; a restaurant and conference centre; and a hotel and golf course,[15] before once more becoming a private family home,[2][15] with outbuildings converted to private houses.[15]

 

The house was purchased by the Croome Heritage Trust, a registered charity,[18] in October 2007,[19] and it is now managed by the National Trust as a tourist attraction. It opened to the public in September 2009, at which point six of the rooms had restored, costing £400,000, including the Saloon. It was estimated that another £4 million[2][20] to £4.8 million would be needed to restore the entire building. Fundraising activities for the restoration included a 2011 raffle for a Morgan sports car organised by Lord and Lady Flight. After the restoration is complete, a 999-year lease on the building will be granted to the National Trust.[21] An oral history project to record recollections about Croome was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.[15] As of 2009, the service wing was empty and in need of substantial repair.[22]

 

Exterior[edit]

The mansion is faced with Bath stone,[7] limestone ashlar, and has both north and south facing fronts. It has a basement and two stories, with three stories in the end pavilions. A slate roof, with pyramid roofs over the corner towers, tops the building, along with three pair-linked chimneys along the axis of the house.[10]

 

Both fronts have 11 bays, split into three central sets of three each, and one additional bay each side. The north face has a pedimented centre, with two balustraded staircases leading to a Roman Doric doorcase. The south face has a projecting Ionic tetrastyle portico and Venetian windows. It has a broad staircase, with cast stone sphinxes on each side, leading to a south door topped with a cornice on consoles. The wings have modillion cornice and balustrade.[10]

 

A two-story L-shaped service wing is attached to the east side of the mansion. It is made of red brick and stone, with slate roofs.[10] It was designed by Capability Brown in 1751-2.[22] On the far side of the service wing, a wall connects it to a stable court.[10]

 

Interior[edit]

The interior of the house was designed partially by Capability Brown, with plasterwork by G. Vassalli, and partially by Robert Adam, with plasterwork by J. Rose Jr. It has a central spine corridor. A stone staircase, with iron balusters, is at the east end.[10]

 

The entrance hall is on the north side of the building, and has four fluted Doric columns, along with moulded doorcases. To the east of the entrance hall is the dining room, which has a plaster ceiling and cornice, while to the west is a billiard room, featuring fielded panelling, a plaster cornice, and a rococo fireplace. The three rooms were probably decorated around 1758-59 by Capability Brown.[10] The dining room was vibrantly repainted by the Hare Krishnas in the 1970s-80s.[17]

 

The central room on the south side is a saloon, probably by Brown and Vassalli. It has an elaborate ceiling, with three panels, deep coving, and a cornice, along with two Ionic fireplaces, and Palladian doorcases.[10] George III was entertained by George Coventry, the 6th Earl, in the house's Saloon.[2] A drawing room is to the west of the saloon, and features rococo plasterwork and a marble fireplace.[10]

 

To the east of the saloon is the Tapestry Room.[10] This was designed in 1763-71, based on a design by Robert Adam, and contained tapestries and furniture covers possibly designed by Jacques Germain Soufflot, and made by Manufacture Nationale des Gobelins.[23] Around 1902 the ninth Earl sold the tapestries and seating to a Parisian dealer. In 1949 the Samuel H. Kress Foundation purchased the ceiling, floor, mantlepiece, chair rails, doors and the door surrounds, which were donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in 1958. In 1959 the Kress Foundation also helped the Metropolitan Museum acquire the chair and sofa frames, which they recovered using the original tapestry seats.[7][23] A copy of the ceiling was installed in place of the original.[10] As of 2016, the room is displayed as it would have looked after the tapestries had been sold, with a jug and ewer on display as the only original decoration of the room that remains in it. The adjacent library room is used to explain what happened to the tapestry room;[17] the former library was designed by Adam, and was dismantled except for the marble fireplace.[10]

 

At the west side of the building is a long gallery,[10] which was designed by Robert Adam and installed between 1761 and 1766. It is the best preserved of the original interior (little of the rest has survived in situ).[1] It has an octagonal panelled ceiling, and plaster reliefs of griffins. A half-hexagonal bay faces the garden. The room also contains a marble caryatid fireplace designed by J Wilton.[10] As of 2016, modern sculptures are displayed in empty niches along the Long Gallery

 

wikipedia

”Operation Torchlight” was initiated by the NDC Peace Enforcers stationed in Romania and Serbia as an attempt to subdue the operational strength of the RNF (Romanian Nationalist Front) in the regions surrounding the Romanian-Serbian border. The main goal of the operation was to uncover and shut down the RNF’s weapon- and supply depots, thereby strangling their effective combat capability.

Searching towns and villages for suspicious activity was in most cases a tedious task for the NDC troops, and they usually found little or nothing of significance. This boring routine was abruptly broken when NDC mechanized infantry moved into the border town of Zresiça. The Peace Enforcers, who had expected to achieve little more than ticking off the locals yet again, suddenly discovered they had stepped right into a hornet’s nest. Caught off guard, the Enforcers were sitting ducks for the waiting RNF troops, and the first half of what became the "battle for Zresiça" was a scene of chaos. Not until reinforcements from the 72nd Rapid Response Battlegroup arrived, was the NDC Enforcers able to turn the tide of battle and finally push the RNF forces back.

In the aftermath of the battle, the Enforcers found several hidden armouries throughout the town, which apparently had been a major stronghold for the RNF. The NDC military intelligence agency received strong criticism for its reports that didn’t indicate any suspicious activity in this particular region, a mistake that claimed the lives of 18 Peace Enforcers. The battle for Zresiça is the fiercest and bloodiest encounter with the RNF the NDC Peace Enforcer Corps has had to date.

 

The first two Galileo Full Operational Capability satellites (SAT 5-6) during preparations inside the S5A building, before fuelling operations, on 30 July 2014.

 

The launch of the two Galileo satellites, aboard a Soyuz rocket, is set for August 2014, from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.

 

The definition, development and in-orbit validation phases of the Galileo programme were carried out by ESA and co-funded by ESA and the EU. The Full Operational Capability phase is managed and fully funded by the European Commission. The Commission and ESA have signed a delegation agreement by which ESA acts as design and procurement agent on behalf of the Commission.

 

Credit: ESA–S. Corvaja, 2014

 

Croome Court is a mid 18th century Neo-Palladian mansion surrounded by an extensive landscaped parkland at Croome D'Abitot, near Pershore in south Worcestershire. The mansion and park were designed by Lancelot "Capability" Brown for George Coventry, 6th Earl of Coventry, and was Brown's first landscape design and first major architectural project. Some of the internal rooms of the mansion were designed by Robert Adam.

 

The mansion house is owned by Croome Heritage Trust, and is leased to the National Trust who operate it, along with the surrounding parkland, as a tourist attraction. The National Trust own the surrounding parkland, which is also open to the public.

 

Location[edit]

Croome Court is located near to Croome D'Abitot, in Worcestershire,[1] near Pirton, Worcestershire.[2] The wider estate was established on lands that were once part of the royal forest of Horewell.[3] Traces of these older landscapes, such as unimproved commons and ancient woodlands, can be found across the former Croome Estate.[4]

 

House[edit]

 

Croome Court South Portico

History[edit]

The foundations and core of Croome Court, including the central chimney stack structure, date back to the early 1640s.[5] Substantial changes to this early house were made by Gilbert Coventry, 4th Earl of Coventry.[6]

 

In 1751, George Coventry, the 6th Earl, inherited the estate, along with the existing Jacobean house. He commissioned Lancelot "Capability" Brown, with the assistance of Sanderson Miller, to redesign the house and estate.[7][1] It was Brown's "first flight into the realms of architecture" and a "rare example of his architectural work",[8] and it is an important and seminal work.[9] It was built between 1751 and 1752, and it and Hagley Hall are considered to be the finest examples of Neo-Palladian architecture in Worcestershire. Notable Neo-Palladian features incorporated into Croome Court include the plain exterior and the corner towers with pyramidal roofs (a feature first used by Inigo Jones in the design of Wilton House in Wiltshire).[1] Robert Adam worked on the interior of the building from 1760 onwards.[10]

 

The house has been visited by George III,[2][11] as well as Queen Victoria[7] during summers when she was a child, and George V (then Duke of York).[11]

 

A jam factory was built by the 9th Earl of Coventry, near to Pershore railway station, in about 1880, to provide a market for Vale of Evesham fruit growers in times of surplus. Although the Croome connection with jam making had ceased, during the First World War, the building was leased by the Croome Estate Trust to the Huddersfield Fruit Preserving Company as a pulping station.[12]

 

The First World War deeply affected Croome, with many local casualties, although the house was not requisitioned for the war effort. This is possibly because it was the home of the Lord Lieutenant of the County, who needed a residence for his many official engagements.[13]

 

During the Second World War Croome Court was requisitioned by the Ministry of Works and leased for a year to the Dutch Government as a possible refuge for Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands; to escape the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. However, evidence shows that they stayed two weeks at the most, perhaps because of the noise and fear created by the proximity of Defford Aerodrome. They later emigrated to Canada.[14]

 

In 1948 the Croome Estate Trust sold the Court, along with 38 acres (15 ha) of land, to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham, and the mansion became St Joseph's Special School, which was run by nuns[15] from 1950[11] until 1979.[15]

 

The house was listed on 11 August 1952; it is currently Grade I listed.[10]

 

In 1979 the hall was taken over by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishna movement), who used it as their UK headquarters and a training college[16] called Chaitanya College,[15] run by 25 members of the movement.[16] During their tenure they repainted the Dining Room.[17] In 1984 they had to leave the estate for financial reasons. They held a festival at the hall in 2011.[16]

 

From 1984 onwards various owners tried to use the property as a training centre; apartments; a restaurant and conference centre; and a hotel and golf course,[15] before once more becoming a private family home,[2][15] with outbuildings converted to private houses.[15]

 

The house was purchased by the Croome Heritage Trust, a registered charity,[18] in October 2007,[19] and it is now managed by the National Trust as a tourist attraction. It opened to the public in September 2009, at which point six of the rooms had restored, costing £400,000, including the Saloon. It was estimated that another £4 million[2][20] to £4.8 million would be needed to restore the entire building. Fundraising activities for the restoration included a 2011 raffle for a Morgan sports car organised by Lord and Lady Flight. After the restoration is complete, a 999-year lease on the building will be granted to the National Trust.[21] An oral history project to record recollections about Croome was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.[15] As of 2009, the service wing was empty and in need of substantial repair.[22]

 

Exterior[edit]

The mansion is faced with Bath stone,[7] limestone ashlar, and has both north and south facing fronts. It has a basement and two stories, with three stories in the end pavilions. A slate roof, with pyramid roofs over the corner towers, tops the building, along with three pair-linked chimneys along the axis of the house.[10]

 

Both fronts have 11 bays, split into three central sets of three each, and one additional bay each side. The north face has a pedimented centre, with two balustraded staircases leading to a Roman Doric doorcase. The south face has a projecting Ionic tetrastyle portico and Venetian windows. It has a broad staircase, with cast stone sphinxes on each side, leading to a south door topped with a cornice on consoles. The wings have modillion cornice and balustrade.[10]

 

A two-story L-shaped service wing is attached to the east side of the mansion. It is made of red brick and stone, with slate roofs.[10] It was designed by Capability Brown in 1751-2.[22] On the far side of the service wing, a wall connects it to a stable court.[10]

 

Interior[edit]

The interior of the house was designed partially by Capability Brown, with plasterwork by G. Vassalli, and partially by Robert Adam, with plasterwork by J. Rose Jr. It has a central spine corridor. A stone staircase, with iron balusters, is at the east end.[10]

 

The entrance hall is on the north side of the building, and has four fluted Doric columns, along with moulded doorcases. To the east of the entrance hall is the dining room, which has a plaster ceiling and cornice, while to the west is a billiard room, featuring fielded panelling, a plaster cornice, and a rococo fireplace. The three rooms were probably decorated around 1758-59 by Capability Brown.[10] The dining room was vibrantly repainted by the Hare Krishnas in the 1970s-80s.[17]

 

The central room on the south side is a saloon, probably by Brown and Vassalli. It has an elaborate ceiling, with three panels, deep coving, and a cornice, along with two Ionic fireplaces, and Palladian doorcases.[10] George III was entertained by George Coventry, the 6th Earl, in the house's Saloon.[2] A drawing room is to the west of the saloon, and features rococo plasterwork and a marble fireplace.[10]

 

To the east of the saloon is the Tapestry Room.[10] This was designed in 1763-71, based on a design by Robert Adam, and contained tapestries and furniture covers possibly designed by Jacques Germain Soufflot, and made by Manufacture Nationale des Gobelins.[23] Around 1902 the ninth Earl sold the tapestries and seating to a Parisian dealer. In 1949 the Samuel H. Kress Foundation purchased the ceiling, floor, mantlepiece, chair rails, doors and the door surrounds, which were donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in 1958. In 1959 the Kress Foundation also helped the Metropolitan Museum acquire the chair and sofa frames, which they recovered using the original tapestry seats.[7][23] A copy of the ceiling was installed in place of the original.[10] As of 2016, the room is displayed as it would have looked after the tapestries had been sold, with a jug and ewer on display as the only original decoration of the room that remains in it. The adjacent library room is used to explain what happened to the tapestry room;[17] the former library was designed by Adam, and was dismantled except for the marble fireplace.[10]

 

At the west side of the building is a long gallery,[10] which was designed by Robert Adam and installed between 1761 and 1766. It is the best preserved of the original interior (little of the rest has survived in situ).[1] It has an octagonal panelled ceiling, and plaster reliefs of griffins. A half-hexagonal bay faces the garden. The room also contains a marble caryatid fireplace designed by J Wilton.[10] As of 2016, modern sculptures are displayed in empty niches along the Long Gallery

 

wikipedia

Crewe Hall, a notable Jacobean mansion near Crewe Green in Cheshire, England, was built between 1615 and 1636 for Sir Randolph Crewe. Regarded as one of the finest Jacobean houses in Cheshire, it's listed at grade I. The hall underwent extensions in the 18th century and Victorian alterations by Edward Blore. After a fire in 1866, it was extensively restored by E. M. Barry, featuring works by various artists like J. Birnie Philip and Henry Weekes. The estate's park, landscaped by renowned designers including Capability Brown, is adorned with formal gardens by W. A. Nesfield. Now a hotel, restaurant, and health club, Crewe Hall retains its historic charm.

April weather in the UK now is showers and sun, no less to day but a good day to walk around the breathtakingly beutiful Blenhiem Park, Woodstock.

 

The grounds were designed by the landscape gardener to the landowners of the day 'Capability Brown'. Lots of good information here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Brown

     

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Palace:

  

Blenheim Palace (pronounced /ˈblɛnəm/, blen-um) is a large and monumental country house situated in Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England. It is the only non-episcopal country house in England to hold the title "palace". The Palace, one of England's largest houses, was built between 1705 and circa 1724. It was recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1987.

 

Its construction was originally intended to be a gift to John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough from a grateful nation in return for military triumph against the French and Bavarians at the Battle of Blenheim. However, it soon became the subject of political infighting, which led to Marlborough's exile, the fall from power of his Duchess, and irreparable damage to the reputation of the architect Sir John Vanbrugh. Designed in the rare, and short-lived, English baroque style, architectural appreciation of the palace is as divided today as it was in the 1720s.[1] It is unique in its combined usage as a family home, mausoleum and national monument. The palace is also notable as the birthplace and ancestral home of Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

 

The plaque above the massive East gate gives a sanitised history of the palace's construction, reading:

 

Under the auspices of a munificent sovereign this house was built for John Duke of Marlborough and his Duchess Sarah, by Sir J Vanbrugh between the years 1705 and 1722. And the Royal Manor of Woodstock, together with a grant of £240,000 towards the building of Blenheim, was given by Her Majesty Queen Anne and confirmed by act of Parliament.

 

The truth is that the building of the palace was a minefield of political intrigue, with scheming on a Machiavellian scale by Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough. Following the palace's completion, it has been the home of the Churchill family for the last 300 years, and various members of the family have in that period wrought various changes, in the interiors, park and gardens, some for the better, others for the worse. At the end of the 19th century, the palace and the Churchills were saved from ruin by an American marriage. Thus, the exterior of the palace remains in good repair and exactly as completed.

  

A late April 2019 visit to Croome in Worcestershire, the estate is now run by the National Trust. Croome Park is quite big, and you can walk around the grounds and see the various landmarks there.

  

The Walled Garden at Croome Court. This garden is private, and it costs £5 per person to enter. You can get drinks and cakes, here, but you can donate some money when you get them.

 

There was outdoor sculpture trails around the walled garden to see. It changes every 3 months.

  

Walled gardens

 

The first garden at Croome was developed in the late 17th century by Ann Somerset, the wife of Thomas Coventry, 2nd Earl of Coventry, along with William Shenstone. A kitchen garden was laid out in the early 18th century, at a time when Gilbert Coventry, 4th Earl of Coventry was making large changes to the house and garden, which subsequently became the walled garden.

 

The earliest plan for a walled garden dates from about 1750, when George William Coventry, the heir of the 5th Earl at the time, changed the shape of the walls from square to the rhomboid shape that exists today, mentored by Sanderson Miller. This created a garden of over 7 acres (2.8 ha), which may have made it the largest 18th-century walled garden in Europe. The increase in size allowed the garden to encompass a classical greenhouse on the eastern side of the garden. The walls of the garden were under construction at the time, probably replacing hedges. The date that the walls were finished is uncertain, but there is evidence that they must have been completed by 1752.

 

Unlike the mansion and the park, the walled garden was largely unchanged by Capability Brown, but it did receive new hot houses to house melons, pineapples, peaches, and vines, and in 1766 a stone-curbed circular pool was created, with a sundial designed by Adam.

 

In about 1806 a 13 feet (4.0 m)-high free-standing east-west hot wall was built, slightly off-centre, serviced by five furnaces. It is historically significant as it is one of the first such structures ever built.

 

Almost the entire 18th century records of the garden survive; together with the garden they are a nationally important part of garden history, and the history of Worcestershire. The garden and its glass houses were mentioned in Gardening World in 1887.

 

During the 20th century the garden was abandoned and fell into disrepair. They were purchased by Chris and Karen Cronin, who started restoring them in Summer 2000, including restoring many buildings and the greenhouses. They opened to the public for the first time in August 2014. They are privately operated, not being part of the National Trust.

  

Sculpture trail.

 

sheep sculptures

"Mission Capability Area Session: Weapons & Munitions" panel discussion. John Martins, Director of International Programs, MBDA; Maj. Gen. John Norman, USAF (Ret.), Vice President of Customer Requirements & Capabilities, Raytheon Missiles & Defense; Mark Altobelli, Director of Advanced Weapons and Missile Systems, Phantom Works, The Boeing Company, at the 2021 Air, Space & Cyber Conference on September 20.

The pathway from the upper to the lower lawns of the Italian Gardens are flanked by two large Georgian stone urns on plinths. Elegantly carved with sweeping curls, they would not look out of place in a garden in England by Capability Brown.

Many English young men were inspired by the treasures of Italy after having completed the Grand Tour in the Eighteenth Century. They brought their ideas back with them and used them to create their own Italian inspired gardens in England. The same could be said here at the Forest Glade Gardens in Mount Macedon.

 

The Forest Glade Gardens are well established European inspired landscaped gardens of six hectares that are to be found on the Mount Macedon Road in the hill station town of Mount Macedon.

 

The Forest Glade Gardens are just shy of one hundred years old. The gardens were originally two adjoining properties that comprised orchards and lush grazing paddocks. In 1941 local family the Newtons purchased and extended the property and set about creating one of Mount Macedon's most stunning gardens.

 

In 1971 the Forest Glade Gardens were acquired by Melbourne property developer Mr. Cyril Stokes who together with his partner Trevor Neil Bell, developed the gardens even further. Cyril was a great collector of European antiques, and his love of European antiquity is reflected in the gardens, particularly in the many classical marble and bronze statues dotted about the grounds.

 

Unfortunately the Forest Glade Gardens were partly destroyed by the tragic Ash Wednesday bushfires of 1983. However, after many years of hard labour put in by Cyril and Trevor, The Forest Glade Gardens were reborn from the ashes. The gardens are built on a sloping block and consist of a range of terraces all of which offer wonderful vistas. A garden designed to give pleasure all year round, the Forest Glad Gardens contain several heritage listed trees and are made up of smaller themed gardens including; the Italian Garden, the Japanese Garden, the Daffodil Meadow, the Peony Walk, Hydrangea Hill, the Topiary Gardens, the Bluebell Meadow, the Fern Gully and the Laburnum Arch.

 

In 2011 the property was gifted to a registered charity - The Stokes Collection Limited - with the intention of keeping the Forest Glade Gardens maintained and open to the public.

 

I spent a delightful Saturday with the Famous Flickr Five+ Group in Mount Macedon, where I have never been before. Now I have, I would very much like to go back to such a picturesque place again.

 

The Mount Macedon township is located east of the Mount Macedon summit, which is approximately 60 km north-west of Melbourne.

 

The name of Mount Macedon is apparently derived from Philip II, who ruled Macedon between 359 and 336BC. The mountain was named by Thomas Mitchell, the New South Wales Surveyor General.

 

Settled in the 1850s by gold miners and timber cutters, the railway arrived at the Mount Macedon township in 1861, providing a vital connection to Melbourne, and sealing the town's future as a 'hill station' resort for wealthy Melburnians escaping the summer heat in the 1870s. With the land deforested, large blocks were sold and beautiful and extensive gardens were planted around the newly built homes. The rich soil and good rainfall also made the area suitable for large orchards and plant nurseries who could send fruit and flowers back to Melbourne. Newspaper owner, David Syme, built a house, "Rosenheim" in 1869. It was acquired in 1886 for Victorian Governors to use as a country retreat, making Mount Macedon an attractive destination for the well heeled of Melbourne society. A primary school was built in Mount Macedon in 1874, and as the decades progressed, hotels, guest houses, shops, a Presbyterian Church and Church of England were built. In 1983, Mount Macedon was devastated by the Ash Wednesday Bush Fires. A large portion of the town was raised, and a number of lives were lost. However, like a phoenix from the ashes, Mount Macedon has risen and rebuilt. Today it is still a popular holiday destination, particularly during spring time when the well established gardens flourish with flowers and in autumn when the exotic trees explode in a riot of reds and yellows.

  

Boeing C-17A Globemaster III, F-211/50212

Corsham Court is an English country house in a park designed by Capability Brown. It is in the town of Corsham, 3 miles (5 km) west of Chippenham, Wiltshire, and is notable for its fine art collection, based on the nucleus of paintings inherited in 1757 by Paul Methuen from his uncle, Sir Paul Methuen, the diplomat. It is currently the home of the present Baron Methuen, James Methuen-Campbell, the eighth generation of the Methuens to live there.

 

Early history

Corsham was a royal manor in the days of the Saxon kings, reputed to have been a seat of Ethelred the Unready. After William the Conqueror, the manor continued to be passed down through the generations in the royal family. It often formed part of the dower of the Queens of England during the late 14th and early 15th centuries, becoming known as Corsham Reginae. During the 16th century, the manor went to two of Henry VIII's wives, namely Catherine of Aragon until 1536, and Katherine Parr until 1548.

 

During the reign of Elizabeth I the estate passed out of the royal family; the present house was built in 1582 by Thomas Smythe. The owner of Corsham Court in the mid-seventeenth century was the commander of the Parliamentarian New Model Army in Wiltshire; his wife, Lady Margaret Hungerford, built what came to be known as the Hungerford Almshouses in the centre of town.

 

An entrance archway was built to the south of the house c. 1700–20. The arch, in baroque style. is flanked by massive ashlar piers with ball finials.[3]

 

Methuen family

The house was bought in 1745 by Sir Paul Methuen for his cousin, also named Paul Methuen, whose grandson became Baron Methuen. The house remains the seat of the Methuen family.

 

In 1761–64, Lancelot 'Capability' Brown was commissioned to redesign and enlarge the house and landscape the park.[4] Brown set the style of the present-day building by retaining the Elizabethan stables, the Riding School,[3] and the great gabled front to the house, which he doubled in depth and provided gabled wings at either end of the house, creating the Picture Gallery and State Rooms in the east wing and a library and new kitchens in the west wing. The Picture Gallery was designed as a triple cube and has a coffered plasterwork ceiling over a high cove stuccoed in scrolls, designed by Brown[5] and carried out by Thomas Stocking of Bristol (1763–66). The Long Gallery contains Italian Old Masters, with a notable marquetry commode and matching pair of candlestands by John Cobb (1772) and four pier glasses designed by Robert Adam (1770).

  

File:Corsham Court about 1880

Capability Brown also worked as a landscape architect for his commission at Corsham.[6] His 1761 plan for laying out the park separated it from the pleasure grounds using a ha-ha (sunken fence) so that the view from the house would not be obstructed. Brown planned to enlarge the fish ponds to create a lake and constructed an orangery (neither of which survive) and built a Gothic Bath House (which does survive).[7] He created a "Great Walk" stretching for a mile through clumps of trees. An ornamental arch was built so that the family and their guests could walk underneath the public right of way without having to cross it. Brown also planted screens of trees around the park to obscure roads and fields beyond, making the view more arcadian. The layout of grounds and gardens by Brown represents his most important commission after Blenheim Palace.[8]

 

In 1795, Paul Cobb Methuen commissioned Humphry Repton to complete the landscape, left unfinished at Brown's death with the lake still to be completed, and in 1796 commissioned John Nash to completely remodel the north façade in Strawberry Hill Gothic style, beating the experienced James Wyatt for the commission. Nash further embellished other areas of Brown's external building works, including Brown's Gothic Bath House in the North Avenue, as well as reorganising the internal layout to form a grand hall and a library, at the centre of which is the large library table associated with a payment to Thomas Chippendale's partner Haig, in 1779.[9] By 1808 much of Nash's work was replaced with a more solid structure, when it was discovered that he had used unseasoned timber in beams and joists; all of Nash's work at Corsham save the library was destroyed when it was remodelled by Thomas Bellamy (1798–1876) in 1844–49[4][10] during the ownership by Paul Methuen, 1st Baron Methuen, who was Member of Parliament for Wiltshire and Wiltshire North.

  

The Sham Ruin

Brown planned to include a 50,000 m2 lake. This lake, however, was not completed until some forty years later, by Repton, who formed his long working relationship with Nash at Corsham Court. They laid out avenues and planted the specimen trees, including American oaks, Quercus coccinea and Q phellos, and the magnificent oriental plane. The grounds also incorporate a folly ruin, built by Nash c. 1797, incorporating some medieval stonework and some material from the eighteenth-century Bath House built by Brown.[11]

 

In 1960, the house and the Bath House were recorded as Grade I listed[12][7] and the ensemble of stables, riding school and entrance arch as Grade II*.[3] The park was recorded as Grade II* on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens in 1987. Wikipedia

Pasted from Wikipedia: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

 

• • • • •

 

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

 

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

 

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Development

•• 1.1 Early development

•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes

•• 1.3 Controversy

•• 1.4 Recent development

• 2 Design

• 3 Operational history

•• 3.1 US Marine Corps

•• 3.2 US Air Force

•• 3.3 Potential operators

• 4 Variants

• 5 Operators

• 6 Notable accidents

• 7 Specifications (MV-22B)

• 8 Notable appearances in media

• 9 See also

• 10 References

• 11 External links

 

Development

 

Early development

 

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

 

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

 

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

 

Flight testing and design changes

 

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey's first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

 

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program's second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

 

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

 

Controversy

 

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

 

The V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

 

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

 

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

 

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

 

Recent development

 

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $70 million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

 

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

 

Design

 

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22's wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

 

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

 

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

 

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

 

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

 

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

 

Operational history

 

US Marine Corps

 

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

 

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

 

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey's first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey's self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

 

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq's western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

 

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

 

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy's smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

 

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

 

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra's Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

 

US Air Force

 

The Air Force's first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW's fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

 

The US Air Force's first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

 

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

 

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

 

Potential operators

 

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

 

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

 

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

 

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

 

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

 

Variants

  

• V-22A 

•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

  

• HV-22 

•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

  

• SV-22 

•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

  

• MV-22B 

•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps' CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

  

• CV-22B 

•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

 

Operators

 

•  United States

 

• United States Air Force

 

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida

•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

 

• United States Marine Corps

 

•• VMM-161

•• VMM-162

•• VMM-261

•• VMM-263

•• VMM-264

•• VMM-266

•• VMM-365

•• VMMT-204 - Training squadron

•• VMX-22 - Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

 

Notable accidents

 

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

 

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

 

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

 

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

 

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

 

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

 

Specifications (MV-22B)

 

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

 

General characteristics

 

• Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)

• Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)

• Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)

• Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)

• Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

• Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)

• Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)

• Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)

• Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)

• Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

• Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

 

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]

• Cruise speed: 241 knots (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

• Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

• Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)

• Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)

• Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

• 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× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

 

Notable appearances in media

 

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

 

See also

 

• Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC - first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

 

Related development

 

• Bell XV-15[106]

• Bell/Agusta BA609

• Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

 

Comparable aircraft

 

• Canadair CL-84

• LTV XC-142

 

Related lists

 

• List of military aircraft of the United States

• List of VTOL aircraft

 

References

 

Bibliography

 

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.

• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

 

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

 

• Official Boeing V-22 site

• Official Bell V-22 site

• V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html

• CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site

• www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

• www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

• Onward and Upward

• "Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

I was hoping to get a good recent view of the Grand Bridge from the Queen Pool Side. I liked this one, but there was a haze which slightly spoilt the light. I'll have to go back and try again!

The Blenheim grounds are regarded as the best example of English Landscape Gardening as devised and practised by Lancelot (Capability) Brown.

The development of this view was haphazard, what we know know as Blenheim was originally a Royal Park. It was here that Queen Elizabeth I was confined during the reign of her half sister Queen Mary.

The Park was given to John Churchill following his defeat of French Armies at the battle of Blindheim (eng. Blenheim) in 1704. This frustrated the aims of Louis XIV in the War of the Spanish Succession.

The Bridge was designed by John Vanbrugh who was engaged as architect for Blenheim Palace. There was considerable animosity between Vanbrugh and Sarah Churchill (the first Duchess of Marlborough), and this is reflected in the Bridge. Vanbrugh's original scheme was to build an even grander bridge, with several rooms incorporated. He also wanted to retain the original Woodstock Manor. Sarah however insisted that the manor be demolished, and the rubble went into the Grand Bridge; she also halted construction of the Grand Bridge before it was completed, thus giving us the Bridge we have today.

When built the bridge crossed the River Glyme which is a tiny stream. Capability Brown was commissioned to rework the grounds some 50 years after construction of the bridge, and created the lake by damming the river. The lake divides into two pools, the Queen Pool (seen here) and the King Pool on the further side of the lake. Brown also created the island in the Queen Pool (rather fancifully now called Queen Elizabeth Island although it wasn't there when Queen Elizabeth I was held there, and the current Queen has nothing to do with it either!).

Following the creation of the lake the lower floors of the bridge were flooded, there are some window openings that give a clue to the presence of a lower level.

Blenheim is the home of the current Duke of Marlborough, it was also the birthplace of Winston Churchill.

Stolt Capability, (tanker) and BrightStar, (bulker), in New York, USA. January, 2022. Copyright Tom Turner

This is the chapel at Compton Verney House. In 1761 John Verney (1738 – 1816), 14th Baron Willoughby de Broke, commissioned the Scottish neo-classical architect, Robert Adam, to propose alterations to the house. He also commissioned Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown to redesign the landscape. This was done with enthusiasm and included demolishing the old medieval church of Compton Murdak, which stood between the house and the lake. The new chapel was designed by Brown in the Italian Classical style, and after suffering considerable neglect, was restored a few years ago. Like the main hall in the house itself, all is white and it now houses the tombs and monuments of earlier Verney family members, moved from the original church.

 

Harcourt Arboretum

The University of Oxford Arboretum

 

Acquired by the University in 1947 from the Harcourt family. It is now an integral part of the tree and plant collection of the University of Oxford Botanic Garden.

 

The original Pinetum, which forms the core of the arboretum, was laid out by William Sawrey Gilpin in the 1830s. Gilpin was a leading promoter of the picturesque style of planting and advised the Harcourt family on the establishment and layout of the arboretum. The trees are now mature, with Giant Redwoods and Monkey-Puzzle trees in the collection.

 

The arboretum also contains some of the finest conifer collections in the UK all set within 130 acres of historic Capability Brown landscape. The grounds include a 10-acre typical English woodland and a 37-acre summer flowering meadow.

 

www.obga.ox.ac.uk/visit-arboretum

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harcourt_Arboretum

Stowe House and Gardens, Buckingham. The Palladian Bridge is a copy of the Wilton House version and was completed in 1738. The Gardens were designed by Charles Bridgeman, William Kent and Capability Brown over a period from 1711 to 1751. They are now in the care of the National Trust.

 

Stowe, Buckinghamshire, England - Stowe Landscape Gardens

August 2018

Broadway Tower is a folly on Broadway Hill, near the village of Broadway, in the English county of Worcestershire, at the second-highest point of the Cotswolds (after Cleeve Hill). Broadway Tower's base is 1,024 feet (312 metres) above sea level. The tower itself stands 65 feet (20 metres) high.

 

The "Saxon" tower was the brainchild of Capability Brown and designed by James Wyatt in 1794 in the form of a castle, and built for Lady Coventry in 1798–99. The tower was built on a "beacon" hill, where beacons were lit on special occasions. Lady Coventry wondered whether a beacon on this hill could be seen from her house in Worcester — about 22 miles (35 km) away — and sponsored the construction of the folly to find out. Indeed, the beacon could be seen clearly.

 

Over the years, the tower was home to the printing press of Sir Thomas Phillipps, and served as a country retreat for artists including William Morris and Edward Burne-Jones who rented it together in the 1880s. William Morris was so inspired by Broadway Tower and other ancient buildings that he founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877.

 

Today, the tower is a tourist attraction and the centre of a country park with various exhibitions open to the public at a fee, as well as a gift shop and restaurant. The place is on the Cotswold Way and can be reached by following the Cotswold Way from the A44 road at Fish Hill, or by a steep climb out of Broadway village.

 

Near the tower is a memorial to the crew of an A.W.38 Whitley bomber that crashed there during a training mission in June 1943.

+++ 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 Gudkov Gu-1 was a Soviet fighter aircraft produced shortly after World War II in small numbers at the start of the jet age, but work on the Gudkov Gu-1 already started in 1944. Towards the end of World War II the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the United States Army Air Forces. The Soviet VVS air arm had the locally designed Petlyakov Pe-8 four-engined heavy bomber in service at the start of the war, but only 93 had been built by the end of the war and the type had become obsolete. By that time the U.S. regularly conducted bombing raids on Japan from distant Pacific forward bases using B-29 Superfortresses, and the Soviet Air Force lacked this capability.

 

Joseph Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber, and the U.S. twice refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29s under Lend Lease. However, on four occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory and one crashed after the crew bailed out. In accordance with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviets were neutral in the Pacific War and the bombers were therefore interned and kept by the Soviets. Despite Soviet neutrality, America demanded the return of the bombers, but the Soviets refused. Three repairable B-29s were flown to Moscow and delivered to the Tupolev OKB. One B-29 was dismantled, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third one was left as a standard for cross-reference.

Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible. The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year. 105,000 drawings were made, and the American technology had to be adapted to local material and manufacturing standards – and ended in a thorough re-design of the B-29 “under the hood”. By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft ready for State acceptance trials.

 

While work on what would become the Tupolev Tu-4 was on the way, the need for a long range escort fighter arose, too. Soviet officials were keen on the P-51 Mustang, but, again, the USA denied deliveries, so that an indigenous solution had to be developed. With the rising tension of international relationships, this became eventually the preferred solution, too.

 

While the design bureau Lavochkin had already started with work on the La-9 fighter (which entered service after WWII) and the jet age was about to begin, the task of designing a long range escort fighter for the Tu-4 was relegated to Mikhail I. Gudkov who had been designing early WWII fighters like the LaGG-1 and -3 together with Lavochkin. Internally, the new fighter received the project handle "DIS" (Dalnij Istrebitel' Soprovozhdenya ="long-range escort fighter").

 

In order to offer an appropriate range and performance that could engage enemy interceptors in the bombers’ target area it was soon clear that neither a pure jet nor a pure piston-engine fighter was a viable solution – a dilemma the USAAF was trying to solve towards 1945, too. The jet engine alone did not offer sufficient power, and fuel consumption was high, so that the necessary range could never be achieved with an agile fighter. Late war radials had sufficient power and offered good range, but the Soviet designers were certain that the piston engine fighter had no future – especially when fast jet fighters had to be expected over enemy territory.

 

Another problem arose through the fact that the Soviet Union did not have an indigenous jet engine at hand at all in late 1945. War booty from Germany in the form of Junkers Jumo 004 axial jet engines and blueprints of the more powerful HeS 011 were still under evaluation, and these powerplants alone did neither promise enough range nor power for a long range fighter aircraft. Even for short range fighters their performance was rather limited – even though fighters like the Yak-15 and the MiG-9 were designed around them.

 

After many layout experiments and calculation, Gudkov eventually came up with a mixed powerplant solution for the DIS project. But unlike the contemporary, relatively light I-250 (also known as MiG-13) interceptor, which added a mechanical compressor with a primitive afterburner (called VRDK) to a Klimov VK-107R inline piston engine, the DIS fighter was equipped with a powerful radial engine and carried a jet booster – similar to the US Navy’s Ryan FR-1 “Fireball”. Unlike the FR-1, though, the DIS kept a conservative tail-sitter layout and was a much bigger aircraft.

 

The choice for the main powerplant fell on the Shvetsov ASh-82TKF engine, driving a large four blade propeller. This was a boosted version of the same 18 cylinder twin row radial that powered the Tu-4, the ASh-73. The ASh-82TKF for the escort fighter project had a rating of 2,720 hp (2,030 kW) while the Tu-4's ASh-73TK had "only" a temporary 2,400 hp (1,800 kW) output during take-off. The airframe was designed around this massive and powerful engine, and the aircraft’s sheer size was also a result of the large fuel capacity which was necessary to meet the range target of at least 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi).

The ASh-82TKF alone offered enough power for a decent performance, but in order to take on enemy jet fighters and lighter, more agile propeller-driven fighters, a single RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust was added in the rear-fuselage. It was to add power for take-off and in combat situations only. Its fixed air intakes were placed on the fuselage flanks, right behind the cockpit, and the jet pipe was placed under the fin and the stabilizers.

 

Outwardly, Gudkov’s DIS resembled the late American P-47D or the A-1 Skyraider a lot, and the beefy aircraft was comparable in size and weight, too. But the Soviet all-metal aircraft was a completely new construction and featured relatively small and slender laminar flow wings. The wide-track landing gear retracted inwards into the inner wings while the tail wheel retracted fully into a shallow compartment under the jet pipe.

The pilot sat in a spacious cockpit under a frameless bubble canopy with very good all-round visibility and enjoyed amenities for long flights such as increased padding in the seat, armrests, and even a urinal. In addition, a full radio navigation suite was installed for the expected long range duties over long stretches of featureless landscape like the open sea.

 

Armament consisted of four 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the wings, outside of the propeller arc. The guns were good for a weight of fire of 6kg (13.2 lb)/sec, a very good value. Five wet hardpoints under the fuselage, the wings outside of the landing gear well and under the wing tips could primarily carry auxiliary drop tanks or an external ordnance of up to 1.500 kg (3.300 lb).

Alternatively, iron bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber could be carried on the centerline pylon, and a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) bombs under the wings, but a fighter bomber role was never seriously considered for the highly specialized and complex aircraft.

 

The first DIS prototype, still without the jet booster, flew in May 1947. The second prototype, with both engines installed, had its fuel capacity increased by an additional 275 l (73 US gal) in an additional fuel tank behind the cockpit. The aircraft was also fitted with larger tires to accommodate the increased all-up weight, esp. with all five 300 l drop tanks fitted for maximum range and endurance.

 

Flight testing continued until 1948 and the DIS concept proved to be satisfactory, even though the complicated ASh-82TKF hampered the DIS’ reliability - to the point that fitting the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4 was considered for serial production, even if this would have meant a significant reduction in performance. The RD-20 caused lots of trouble, too. Engine reliability was generally poor, and re-starting the engine in flight did not work satisfactorily – a problem that, despite several changes to the starter and ignition system, could never be fully cured. The jet engine’s placement in the tail, together with the small tail wheel, also caused problems because the pilots had to take care that the tail would not aggressively hit the ground upon landings, because the RD-20 and its attachments were easily damaged.

 

Nevertheless, the DIS basically fulfilled the requested performance specifications and was, despite many shortcomings, eventually cleared for production in mid 1948. It received the official designation Gudkov Gu-1, honoring the engineer behind the aircraft, even though the aircraft was produced by Lavochkin.

 

The first machines were delivered to VVS units in early 1949 - just in time for the Tu-4's service introduction after the Russians had toiled endlessly on solving several technical problems. In the meantime, jet fighter development had quickly progressed, even though a purely jet-powered escort fighter for the Tu-4 was still out of question. Since the Gu-1 was capricious, complex and expensive to produce, only a limited number left the factories and emphasis was put on the much simpler and more economical Lavochkin La-11 escort fighter, a lightweight evolution of the proven La-9. Both types were regarded as an interim solution until a pure jet escort fighter would be ready for service.

 

Operationally the Gu-1s remained closely allocated to the VVS’ bomber squadrons and became an integral part of them. Anyway, since the Tu-4 bomber never faced a serious combat situation, so did the Gu-1, which was to guard it on its missions. For instance, both types were not directly involved in the Korean War, and the Gu-1 was primarily concentrated at the NATO borders to Western Europe, since bomber attacks in this theatre would certainly need the heavy fighter’s protection.

 

The advent of the MiG-15 - especially the improved MiG-15bis with additional fuel capacities and drop tanks, quickly sounded the death knell for the Gu-1 and any other post-WWII piston-engine fighter in Soviet Service. As Tu-4 production ended in the Soviet Union in 1952, so did the Gu-1’s production after only about 150 aircraft. The Tu-4s and their escort fighters were withdrawn in the 1960s, being replaced by more advanced aircraft including the Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber (starting in 1954) and the Tupolev Tu-95 turboprop bomber (starting in 1956).

 

The Gudkov Gu-1, receiving the NATO ASCC code “Flout”, remained a pure fighter. Even though it was not a success, some proposals for updates were made - but never carried out. These included pods with unguided S-5 air-to-air-rockets, to be carried on the wing hardpoints, bigger, non-droppable wing tip tanks for even more range or, alternatively, the addition of two pulsejet boosters on the wing tips.

There even was a highly modified mixed powerplant version on the drawing boards in 1952, the Gu-1M. Its standard radial powerplant for cruise flight was enhanced with a new, non-afterburning Mikulin AM-5 axial flow jet engine with 2.270 kgf/5,000 lbf/23 kN additional thrust in the rear fuselage. With this temporary booster, a top speed of up to 850 km/h was expected. But to no avail - the pure jet fighter promised a far better performance and effectiveness, and the Gu-1 remained the only aircraft to exclusively carry the Gudkov name.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)

Airfoil:

Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)

Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)

Maximum take-off weight: 7,938 kg (17,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Shvetsov ASh-82TKF 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, rated at 2,720 hp (2,030 kW)

1x RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust as temporary booster

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 676 km/h (420 mph) at 29,000 ft (8,839 m) with the radial only,

800 km/h (497 mph/432 kn,) with additional jet booster

Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)

Combat radius: 820 nmi (945 mi, 1,520 km)

Maximum range: 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi) with drop tanks

Service ceiling: 14,680 m (48,170 ft)

Wing loading: 230.4 kg/m² (47.2 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)

Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min 9 sec;

Climb to 10,000 m (32,800 ft): 17 min 38 sec;

Climb to 13,000 m (42,640 ft): 21 min 03 sec

 

Armament

4× 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the outer wings

Five hardpoints for an external ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.300 lb)

 

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is the incarnation of a very effective kitbashing combo that already spawned my fictional Japanese Ki-104 fighter, and it is another submission to the 2018 “Cold War” group build at whatifmodelers.com. This purely fictional Soviet escort fighter makes use of my experiences from the first build of this kind, yet with some differences.

 

The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:

· Fuselage, wing roots, landing gear and propeller from an Academy P-47D

· Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)

· Tail fin comes from a Heller F-84G

· The stabilizers were taken from an Airfix Ki-46

· Cowling from a Matchbox F6F, mounted and blended onto the P-47 front

· Jet exhaust is the intake of a Matchbox Me 262 engine pod

 

My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit, detail and solid material. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty, so that the P-47’s deep belly would not disappear.

The F6F cowling was chosen because it looks a lot like the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4. But this came at a price: the P-47 cowling is higher, tighter and has a totally different shape. It took serious body sculpting with putty to blend the parts into each other. Inside of the engine, a styrene tube was added for a metal axis that holds the uncuffed OOB P-47 four blade propeller. The P-47’s OOB cockpit tub was retained, too, just the seat received scratched armrests for a more luxurious look.

 

The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile. The Novo kit itself is horrible and primitive, but acceptable for donations. OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just outside of the large main wheel wells. The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary in order to blend the parts into each other. I just had to cut out new landing gear wells from the lower halves of the Attacker wings, and with new attachment points the P-47’s complete OOB landing gear could be used.

 

With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly. The trapezoid stabilizers come from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46, and their shape is a good match. The P-47 fin had to go, since I wanted something bigger and a different silhouette. The fuselage below was modified with a jet exhaust, too. I actually found a leftover F-84G (Heller) tail, complete with the jet pipe and the benefit that it has plausible attachment points for the stabilizers far above the jet engine in the Gu-1’s tail.

 

However, the F-84 jet pipe’s diameter turned out to be too large, so I went for a smaller but practical alternative, a Junkers Jumo 004 nacelle from a Me 262 (the ancestor of the Soviet RD-20!). Its intake section was cut off, flipped upside down, the fin was glued on top of it and then the new tail was glued to the P-47 fuselage. Some (more serious) body sculpting was necessary to create a more or less harmonious transition between the parts, but it worked.

 

The plausible placement of the air intakes and their shape was a bit of a challenge. I wanted them to be obvious, but still keep an aerodynamic look. An initial idea had been to keep the P-47’s deep belly and widen the central oil cooler intake under the nose, but I found the idea wacky and a bit pointless, since such a long air duct would not make much sense since it would waste internal space and the long duct’s additional weight would not offer any benefit?

 

Another idea were air intakes in the wing roots, but these were also turned down since the landing gear wells would be in the way, and placing the ducts above or below the wings would also make no sense. A single ventral scoop (looking like a P-51 radiator bath) or two smaller, dorsal intakes (XP-81 style) behind the cockpit were other serious candidates – but these were both rejected because I wanted to keep a clean side profile.

I eventually settled for very simple, fixed side intakes, level with the jet exhaust, somewhat inspired by the Lavochkin La-200B heavy fighter prototype. The air scoops are simply parts from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen centerline drop tank (which has a flat, oval diameter), and their shape is IMHO a perfect match.

  

Painting and markings:

While the model itself is a wild mix of parts with lots of improvisation involved, I wanted to keep the livery rather simple. The most plausible choice would have been an NMF finish, but I rather wanted some paint – so I used Soviet La-9 and -11 as a benchmark and settled for a simple two-tone livery: uniform light grey upper and light blue lower surfaces.

 

I used RAF Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165) and Soviet Underside Blue (Humbrol 114) as basic tones, and, after a black ink wash, these were lightened up through dry-brushed post-shading. The yellow spinner and fin tip are based on typical (subtle) squadron markings of the late 40ies era.

 

The cockpit as well the engine and landing gear interior became blue-grey (Revell 57), similar to the typical La-9/11’s colors. The green wheel discs and the deep blue propeller blades are not 100% in the aircraft's time frame, but I added these details in order to enhance the Soviet touch and some color accents.

 

Tactical markings were kept simple, too. The "38" and the Red Stars come form a Mastercraft MiG-15, the Guards badge from a Begemoth MiG-25 sheet and most of the stencils were taken from a Yak-38 sheet, also from Begemoth.

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and it received some mild soot stains and chipped paint around the cockpit and on the leading edges. Some oil stains were added around the engine (with Tamiya Smoke), too.

  

A massive aircraft, and this new use of the P-47/Attacker combo results again in a plausible solution. The added jet engine might appear a bit exotic, but the mixed powerplant concept was en vogue after WWII, but only a few aircraft made it beyond the prototype stage.

While painting the model I also wondered if an all dark blue livery and some USN markings could also have made this creation the Grumman JetCat? With the tall fin, the Gu-1 could also be an F8F Bearcat on steroids? Hmmm...

Built between 1754 and 1760, Croome Park is a National Trust property set perfectly in Capability Brown's very first landscape and is the site of a secret Second World War air base.

Croome Court is a mid 18th century Neo-Palladian mansion surrounded by an extensive landscaped parkland at Croome D'Abitot, near Pershore in south Worcestershire. The mansion and park were designed by Lancelot "Capability" Brown for George Coventry, 6th Earl of Coventry, and was Brown's first landscape design and first major architectural project. Some of the internal rooms of the mansion were designed by Robert Adam.

 

The mansion house is owned by Croome Heritage Trust, and is leased to the National Trust who operate it, along with the surrounding parkland, as a tourist attraction. The National Trust own the surrounding parkland, which is also open to the public.

 

Location[edit]

Croome Court is located near to Croome D'Abitot, in Worcestershire,[1] near Pirton, Worcestershire.[2] The wider estate was established on lands that were once part of the royal forest of Horewell.[3] Traces of these older landscapes, such as unimproved commons and ancient woodlands, can be found across the former Croome Estate.[4]

 

House[edit]

 

Croome Court South Portico

History[edit]

The foundations and core of Croome Court, including the central chimney stack structure, date back to the early 1640s.[5] Substantial changes to this early house were made by Gilbert Coventry, 4th Earl of Coventry.[6]

 

In 1751, George Coventry, the 6th Earl, inherited the estate, along with the existing Jacobean house. He commissioned Lancelot "Capability" Brown, with the assistance of Sanderson Miller, to redesign the house and estate.[7][1] It was Brown's "first flight into the realms of architecture" and a "rare example of his architectural work",[8] and it is an important and seminal work.[9] It was built between 1751 and 1752, and it and Hagley Hall are considered to be the finest examples of Neo-Palladian architecture in Worcestershire. Notable Neo-Palladian features incorporated into Croome Court include the plain exterior and the corner towers with pyramidal roofs (a feature first used by Inigo Jones in the design of Wilton House in Wiltshire).[1] Robert Adam worked on the interior of the building from 1760 onwards.[10]

 

The house has been visited by George III,[2][11] as well as Queen Victoria[7] during summers when she was a child, and George V (then Duke of York).[11]

 

A jam factory was built by the 9th Earl of Coventry, near to Pershore railway station, in about 1880, to provide a market for Vale of Evesham fruit growers in times of surplus. Although the Croome connection with jam making had ceased, during the First World War, the building was leased by the Croome Estate Trust to the Huddersfield Fruit Preserving Company as a pulping station.[12]

 

The First World War deeply affected Croome, with many local casualties, although the house was not requisitioned for the war effort. This is possibly because it was the home of the Lord Lieutenant of the County, who needed a residence for his many official engagements.[13]

 

During the Second World War Croome Court was requisitioned by the Ministry of Works and leased for a year to the Dutch Government as a possible refuge for Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands; to escape the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. However, evidence shows that they stayed two weeks at the most, perhaps because of the noise and fear created by the proximity of Defford Aerodrome. They later emigrated to Canada.[14]

 

In 1948 the Croome Estate Trust sold the Court, along with 38 acres (15 ha) of land, to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham, and the mansion became St Joseph's Special School, which was run by nuns[15] from 1950[11] until 1979.[15]

 

The house was listed on 11 August 1952; it is currently Grade I listed.[10]

 

In 1979 the hall was taken over by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishna movement), who used it as their UK headquarters and a training college[16] called Chaitanya College,[15] run by 25 members of the movement.[16] During their tenure they repainted the Dining Room.[17] In 1984 they had to leave the estate for financial reasons. They held a festival at the hall in 2011.[16]

 

From 1984 onwards various owners tried to use the property as a training centre; apartments; a restaurant and conference centre; and a hotel and golf course,[15] before once more becoming a private family home,[2][15] with outbuildings converted to private houses.[15]

 

The house was purchased by the Croome Heritage Trust, a registered charity,[18] in October 2007,[19] and it is now managed by the National Trust as a tourist attraction. It opened to the public in September 2009, at which point six of the rooms had restored, costing £400,000, including the Saloon. It was estimated that another £4 million[2][20] to £4.8 million would be needed to restore the entire building. Fundraising activities for the restoration included a 2011 raffle for a Morgan sports car organised by Lord and Lady Flight. After the restoration is complete, a 999-year lease on the building will be granted to the National Trust.[21] An oral history project to record recollections about Croome was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.[15] As of 2009, the service wing was empty and in need of substantial repair.[22]

 

Exterior[edit]

The mansion is faced with Bath stone,[7] limestone ashlar, and has both north and south facing fronts. It has a basement and two stories, with three stories in the end pavilions. A slate roof, with pyramid roofs over the corner towers, tops the building, along with three pair-linked chimneys along the axis of the house.[10]

 

Both fronts have 11 bays, split into three central sets of three each, and one additional bay each side. The north face has a pedimented centre, with two balustraded staircases leading to a Roman Doric doorcase. The south face has a projecting Ionic tetrastyle portico and Venetian windows. It has a broad staircase, with cast stone sphinxes on each side, leading to a south door topped with a cornice on consoles. The wings have modillion cornice and balustrade.[10]

 

A two-story L-shaped service wing is attached to the east side of the mansion. It is made of red brick and stone, with slate roofs.[10] It was designed by Capability Brown in 1751-2.[22] On the far side of the service wing, a wall connects it to a stable court.[10]

 

Interior[edit]

The interior of the house was designed partially by Capability Brown, with plasterwork by G. Vassalli, and partially by Robert Adam, with plasterwork by J. Rose Jr. It has a central spine corridor. A stone staircase, with iron balusters, is at the east end.[10]

 

The entrance hall is on the north side of the building, and has four fluted Doric columns, along with moulded doorcases. To the east of the entrance hall is the dining room, which has a plaster ceiling and cornice, while to the west is a billiard room, featuring fielded panelling, a plaster cornice, and a rococo fireplace. The three rooms were probably decorated around 1758-59 by Capability Brown.[10] The dining room was vibrantly repainted by the Hare Krishnas in the 1970s-80s.[17]

 

The central room on the south side is a saloon, probably by Brown and Vassalli. It has an elaborate ceiling, with three panels, deep coving, and a cornice, along with two Ionic fireplaces, and Palladian doorcases.[10] George III was entertained by George Coventry, the 6th Earl, in the house's Saloon.[2] A drawing room is to the west of the saloon, and features rococo plasterwork and a marble fireplace.[10]

 

To the east of the saloon is the Tapestry Room.[10] This was designed in 1763-71, based on a design by Robert Adam, and contained tapestries and furniture covers possibly designed by Jacques Germain Soufflot, and made by Manufacture Nationale des Gobelins.[23] Around 1902 the ninth Earl sold the tapestries and seating to a Parisian dealer. In 1949 the Samuel H. Kress Foundation purchased the ceiling, floor, mantlepiece, chair rails, doors and the door surrounds, which were donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in 1958. In 1959 the Kress Foundation also helped the Metropolitan Museum acquire the chair and sofa frames, which they recovered using the original tapestry seats.[7][23] A copy of the ceiling was installed in place of the original.[10] As of 2016, the room is displayed as it would have looked after the tapestries had been sold, with a jug and ewer on display as the only original decoration of the room that remains in it. The adjacent library room is used to explain what happened to the tapestry room;[17] the former library was designed by Adam, and was dismantled except for the marble fireplace.[10]

 

At the west side of the building is a long gallery,[10] which was designed by Robert Adam and installed between 1761 and 1766. It is the best preserved of the original interior (little of the rest has survived in situ).[1] It has an octagonal panelled ceiling, and plaster reliefs of griffins. A half-hexagonal bay faces the garden. The room also contains a marble caryatid fireplace designed by J Wilton.[10] As of 2016, modern sculptures are displayed in empty niches along the Long Gallery

 

wikipedia

U.S. Marines with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment conduct MOUT training with Indonesian Marines during the Korps Marinir (KORMAR) Platoon Exchange 2019 program in Surabaya, Indonesia, August 9, 2019. The KORMAR platoon exchange program between Indonesia and the U.S. involves each country sending a platoon of Marines to live and train together at the other's military base. This program enhances the capability of both services and displays their continued commitment to share information and increase the ability to respond to crisis together. (U.S. Marine corps photo by Cpl. Eric Tso) www.dvidshub.net

The auto start and stop feature combined with the Kenworth Idle Management System for the Kenworth T680 76-inch sleeper enables truck operators to more effectively manage climate control and other hotel loads during truck downtime. The battery-based APU system for air conditioning is linked directly into the T680 ducting system. An optional fuel-fired heater provides full engine-off heating capability. The integrated system extends air conditioning performance and is appreciated by drivers who want cool comfort in their sleepers during their rest period.

Crewe Hall, a notable Jacobean mansion near Crewe Green in Cheshire, England, was built between 1615 and 1636 for Sir Randolph Crewe. Regarded as one of the finest Jacobean houses in Cheshire, it's listed at grade I. The hall underwent extensions in the 18th century and Victorian alterations by Edward Blore. After a fire in 1866, it was extensively restored by E. M. Barry, featuring works by various artists like J. Birnie Philip and Henry Weekes. The estate's park, landscaped by renowned designers including Capability Brown, is adorned with formal gardens by W. A. Nesfield. Now a hotel, restaurant, and health club, Crewe Hall retains its historic charm.

+++ 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 Imperial Japanese Army Air Force's fighter force, especially the Nakajima Ki-43, had been underestimated in its capability, numbers and the strategy of its commanders. Within a few months, Japanese forces had conquered vast areas of the Pacific and South East Asia. During these campaigns, the ill-prepared Allied air forces in the Pacific suffered devastating losses.

 

Because of political and cultural ties between the United Kingdom and Australia, British manufacturers were the main source of RAAF aircraft. However, the British aircraft industry had long been hard-pressed to meet the needs of the RAF. Although United States companies had enormous aircraft manufacturing capacity, their output was now intended first and foremost for US air units. Even if aircraft built overseas did become available, they would be shipped long distances in wartime conditions, with consequent delays and losses. As a consequence, CAC came into its own with the development of the Boomerang fighter, which was not operational before late 1942.

 

Following the outbreak of war with Japan, 51 Hurricane Mk IIs were sent as a stop-gap in crates to Singapore, with 24 pilots, the nucleus of five squadrons. They arrived on 3 January 1942, by which time the Allied fighter squadrons in Singapore, flying Brewster Buffalos, had been overwhelmed in the Malayan campaign. Even though the Hurricanes were a significant progress, they suffered in performance.

 

Because of inadequate early warning systems, Japanese air raids were able to destroy 30 Hurricanes on the ground in Sumatra, most of them in one raid on 7 February. After Japanese landings in Singapore, on 10 February, only 18 serviceable Hurricanes remained out of the original 99. After Java was invaded, some of the pilots were evacuated by sea to Australia. 31 Hurricane airframes, which had been on the wayby ship, not been assembled and lacked Merlin engines, were directed to Australia in the wake of events.

 

From these unfinished machines, the Hurricane Mk. VI was quickly devised: the airframes were mated with P&W Twin Wasp engines, which were produced under license at the CAC plant in Lidcombe, Sydney, for the RAAF's Boomerang and Bristol Beaufort. It was clear from the start that these Twin Wasp-powered machines would rather be stop-gaps and no true fighters, rather fighter bombers and more suited for the ground attack role. Hence, like the latest fighters at the time, planning for the Mk. VI included automatic cannons. As no such weapons were manufactured locally, a British-made Hispano-Suiza 20 mm which an Australian airman had collected as a souvenir in the Middle East was reverse engineered – and four of them replaced the eight and partly twelve 0.303 machine guns of the original Mk. IIB machines. Additionally, the pilot received extra armor plating, and the wings were reinforced for external ordnance.

 

The RAAF Mk. VI Hurricanes carried A60-02 through -32 registrations. As a side note, A60-01 was a single Hurricane Mk.I serialled V-7476. This aircraft served with No.2 and 3 Communications Flights RAAF and was used on occasion for experimental work at RAAF Base Laverton on the outskirts of Melbourne. The aircraft was scrapped in 1945.

The Hurricane Mk. VIs actively took part in Pacific operations with RAAF’s No. 4 Squadron and No. 5 Squadron, being joined by Boomerangs in early 1943. They were operated in New Guinea and during the Solomon Islands Campaign as well as the Borneo Campaign, mostly in the close support role and with marked success.

 

Flying in pairs (one to observe the ground, the other to observe the air around them), their tasks included bombing, strafing, close infantry support and artillery spotting. When attacking larger enemy formations, the Hurricanes often operated in conjunction with the smaller and much more agile Boomerang fighter. In this role, a Boomerang would get in close to confirm the identity of the target and mark it with a 20 lb (9 kg) smoke bomb with the "cooperating" Hurricane, Beaufort or Havoc delivering the major ordnance in a quick run and from a safer distance. The partnership between RAAF planes and Royal New Zealand Air Force Corsair fighter bombers during the Bougainville Campaign was said to be particularly effective.

 

The Australian Hurricane Mk. VIs soldiered on until early 1945, when they were finally retired. The Twin Wasp engines were used for spares, all airframes were scrapped, no plane survived the war.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.84 m)

Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m)

Height: 13 ft 1½ in (4.0 m)

Wing area: 257.5 ft² (23.92 m²)

Empty weight: 5,745 lb (2,605 kg)

Loaded weight: 7,670 lb (3,480 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,710 lb (3,950 kg)

 

Maximum speed: 331 mph (531 km/h)

Range: 650 mi (1.045 km)

Service ceiling: 36,000 ft (10,970 m)

Rate of climb: 2,303 ft/min (11.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 29.8 lb/ft² (121.9 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (0.25 kW/kg)

 

Engine: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)

 

Armament: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons; 2x 45-gallon (205 l) drop tanks or 2× 250 or 500 lb (110 or 230 kg) bombs

 

The kit and its assembly

The Hurricane Mk. VI is a whif, even though with little effort but a good story behind it. The original idea to mate a Hurricane with a radial engine came when I found a drawing of a Russian Hurricane, mated with a Schwezow ASch-82 engine. It looked… interesting. Not certain if this had been done for sure, but a great inspiration.

While browsing through the scrap heap I later found a Twin Wasp engine – that fueled the idea of a respective conversion. The Russian option was dead, but when I checked contemporary planes I came across the small Boomerang, and the historical facts were perfect for an obscure Australian Hurricane variant.

 

The rest was quickly done: the basic kit is a Hurricane Mk. IIC (Trop) from Hobby Boss, the Twin Wasp comes from a wrecked Matchbox PB4Y Privateer. The original Merlin was simply cut away and replaced by the "new" and relatively small radial engine. A surprisingly easy task, even though I had to widen the area in front of the cockpit by about 1mm to each side. With some putty and a new exhaust pipe with flame dampers, the surgical part was quickly done. A pilot was added, too, in order to distract from the rather bleak cockpit.

 

To make the plane look more interesting and suitable for a display on the ground, the flaps were lowered (scratch-built) and vertical and horizontal stabilizer were moved away from OOB neutral position. Additionally, the cooler under the fuselage was omitted, what creates together with the radial engine a very different side view. This "Aussie'cane" looks stout but disturbingly realistic, like a Boomerang’s big brother!

 

Only other changes/additions are a pilot figure and two wing hardpoints, holding bombs. The rest is OOB.

  

Painting

I have always been a fan of all-green RAAF WWII planes, so I chose such a simple livery. Inspiration came from real-life 4. Squadron Boomerangs, so I adopted the “QE” code and tried to mimic the overall look.

Interior surfaces were kept in Humbrol 78 ('Cockpit Green', dry-painted with light grey). The plane was painted with “Foilage Green” on all outer surfaces - a tone which seems to be heavily debated. Most sources claim FS 34092 (Humbrol 149) as a nowaday's replacement, but to me, this color is just too green and blue-ish. IMHO, “Foilage Green” has a rather yellow-ish hue - Humbrol 75 ("Bronze Green") would be better, if it wasn't too dark.

 

After some trials I settled for Humbrol 105 ("Army Green"). I think it is a sound compromise. It resembles FS 34096, but is (much) less grey-ish and offers that yellow hue I was looking for. Heavy weathering was done, esp. at the panel lines with dry-painted FS 34096 (Testors) and some panels "bleached" with Humbrol 86 ("Light live Green"). After deacls had been applied, some dry brushing with olive drab and light grey added to the worn and faded look, as well as flaked paint around the engine and the wings' leading egdes and soot stains at exhausts and guns. I wanted to emphasize the harsh climate conditions and duties of this fictional machine.

 

Only other colors are typical white quick recognition markings on tail and wings, painted with a mix of Humbrol 130 and 196 for a very light grey, with some white dry painting on th eleading edges.For a final clear coat, I used a matte varnish which still has a light gloss to it - “Foilage Green” and RAAF finishes were AFAIK supposed to be semi-matte and of higher quality that USAF paintjobs.

 

Markings come mostly from the scrap box. The RAAF insignia were taken from a Vultee Vengeance aftermarket sheet by Kanga Decals, which also provided the mid sea grey codes. The Australian registration numbers were improvised with single white letters from TL Modellbau decal sheets.

 

All in all I am happy with the result - a simple measure, a good story and even a very simple livery that allows room for imagination and painting effects. A nice lil' whif, the "Aussie'cane" Mk. VI.

One of NATO's Strategic Airlift Capability C-17s about to land on runway 23 at Glasgow after flying from Oslo. NATO operate 3 C-17 transporters as part of their Strategic Airlift Capability, with the 3 aircraft being operated by the Hungarian Air Force, with personnel from across NATO. The 3 aircraft are based at Papa Air Base, Hungary.

www.grimsthorpe.co.uk/

 

_MG_0701_350D24-105mmF_4L

British Railways Class 60 60002 with Railfreight Petroleum Livery at Barnetby with Ore Empties on the 22nd August 1996.

Crewe Hall, a notable Jacobean mansion near Crewe Green in Cheshire, England, was built between 1615 and 1636 for Sir Randolph Crewe. Regarded as one of the finest Jacobean houses in Cheshire, it's listed at grade I. The hall underwent extensions in the 18th century and Victorian alterations by Edward Blore. After a fire in 1866, it was extensively restored by E. M. Barry, featuring works by various artists like J. Birnie Philip and Henry Weekes. The estate's park, landscaped by renowned designers including Capability Brown, is adorned with formal gardens by W. A. Nesfield. Now a hotel, restaurant, and health club, Crewe Hall retains its historic charm.

Pasted from Wikipedia: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

 

• • • • •

 

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

 

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

 

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Development

•• 1.1 Early development

•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes

•• 1.3 Controversy

•• 1.4 Recent development

• 2 Design

• 3 Operational history

•• 3.1 US Marine Corps

•• 3.2 US Air Force

•• 3.3 Potential operators

• 4 Variants

• 5 Operators

• 6 Notable accidents

• 7 Specifications (MV-22B)

• 8 Notable appearances in media

• 9 See also

• 10 References

• 11 External links

 

Development

 

Early development

 

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

 

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

 

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

 

Flight testing and design changes

 

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey's first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

 

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program's second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

 

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

 

Controversy

 

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

 

The V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

 

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

 

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

 

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

 

Recent development

 

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $70 million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

 

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

 

Design

 

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22's wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

 

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

 

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

 

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

 

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

 

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

 

Operational history

 

US Marine Corps

 

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

 

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

 

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey's first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey's self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

 

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq's western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

 

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

 

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy's smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

 

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

 

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra's Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

 

US Air Force

 

The Air Force's first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW's fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

 

The US Air Force's first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

 

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

 

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

 

Potential operators

 

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

 

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

 

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

 

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

 

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

 

Variants

  

• V-22A 

•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

  

• HV-22 

•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

  

• SV-22 

•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

  

• MV-22B 

•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps' CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

  

• CV-22B 

•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

 

Operators

 

•  United States

 

• United States Air Force

 

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida

•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

 

• United States Marine Corps

 

•• VMM-161

•• VMM-162

•• VMM-261

•• VMM-263

•• VMM-264

•• VMM-266

•• VMM-365

•• VMMT-204 - Training squadron

•• VMX-22 - Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

 

Notable accidents

 

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

 

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

 

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

 

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

 

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

 

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

 

Specifications (MV-22B)

 

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

 

General characteristics

 

• Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)

• Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)

• Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)

• Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)

• Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

• Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)

• Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)

• Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)

• Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)

• Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

• Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

 

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]

• Cruise speed: 241 knots (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

• Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

• Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)

• Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)

• Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

• 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× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

 

Notable appearances in media

 

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

 

See also

 

• Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC - first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

 

Related development

 

• Bell XV-15[106]

• Bell/Agusta BA609

• Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

 

Comparable aircraft

 

• Canadair CL-84

• LTV XC-142

 

Related lists

 

• List of military aircraft of the United States

• List of VTOL aircraft

 

References

 

Bibliography

 

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.

• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

 

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

 

• Official Boeing V-22 site

• Official Bell V-22 site

• V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html

• CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site

• www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

• www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

• Onward and Upward

• "Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

= Photoghraphed by my Wife in August Year 1967.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

The Vought F4U Corsair was an American fighter aircraft that saw service primarily in World War II and the Korean War. Demand for the aircraft soon overwhelmed Vought's manufacturing capability, resulting in production by Goodyear and Brewster: Goodyear-built Corsairs were designated FG and Brewster-built aircraft F3A. From the first prototype delivery to the U.S. Navy in 1940, to final delivery in 1953 to the French, 12,571 F4U Corsairs were manufactured, in 16 separate models, in the longest production run of any piston-engined fighter in U.S. history (1942–53).

 

The Corsair was designed as a carrier-based aircraft but its difficult carrier landing performance rendered it unsuitable for Navy use until the carrier landing issues were overcome by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. The Corsair thus came to and retained prominence in its area of greatest deployment: land based use by the U.S. Marines.

 

The Corsair served only to a lesser degree in the U.S. Navy, the role of the dominant U.S. carrier based fighter in the second part of the war was thus filled by the Grumman F6F Hellcat, powered by the same Double Wasp engine first flown on the Corsair's first prototype in 1940. In addition to its use by the U.S. and British, the Corsair was also used by the Royal New Zealand Air Force, the French Navy Aéronavale and other, smaller, air forces until the 1960s.

 

A little known fact is that, under the Lend-Lease act, a small number of F4U-1A/D "Corsair" fighter planes was also delivered to the Soviet Union. The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled "An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States", was a program under which the United States supplied Free France, the United Kingdom, the Republic of China, and later the Soviet Union and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and August 1945. This included warships and warplanes, along with other weaponry. In general the aid was free, although some hardware (such as ships) were returned after the war. In return, the U.S. was given leases on army and naval bases in Allied territory during the war. Canada operated a similar smaller program under a different name.

 

The F4U, being a high performance fighter at its time, was included into support deliveries only from early 1945 on, and the machines earmarked for foreign operations were mostly 2nd hand aircraft that had served with the USMC in the Pacific TO. These planes were directly delivered from US units to various IAPs (IAP = Istrebitelnyi Aviatsionnyj Polk = Fighter Aviation Regiment) on the Pacific coast and formally part of the Soviet Union's Pacific Fleet air arm. The machines, overhauled in field workshops, became operational in Spring 1945 and were operated from land bases only. The core of the Soviet Corsair operations took place primarily in the Sea of Okhotsk region, mostly in the form of bomber escorts and CAS missions for advancing army troops.

 

Upon delivery, the Soviet Corsairs generally wore their former standard US Navy three color camouflage scheme. Only the national markings and tactical codes were quickly oversprayed with whatever paint was at hand, and prominent Red Star markings were applied in standard positions. Later, during routine maintenance overhauls, some machines received individual paint schemes. Several machines for the ground attack role were also retrofitted with Soviet bomb shackles and launch rails for indigenous unguided missiles like the RS-82 or RS-132.

 

One notable operation in which Soviet F4U took part in was the liberation of southern Sakhalin in August-September 1945. During the war against Japan, the Pacific Ocean Fleet successfully landed a number of operational and tactical landing bodies, mostly in close cooperation with the Soviet Army units. After repudiating the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union invaded southern Sakhalin, the Soviet attack started on August 11, 1945, a few days before the surrender of Japan. The Soviet 56th Rifle Corps, part of the 16th Army, consisting of the 79th Rifle Division, the 2nd Rifle Brigade, the 5th Rifle Brigade and the 214 Armored Brigade, attacked the Japanese 88th Infantry Division.

 

Although the Soviet Red Army outnumbered the Japanese by three to one, they advanced only slowly due to strong Japanese resistance. It was not until the 113th Rifle Brigade and the 365th Independent Naval Infantry Rifle Battalion from Sovetskaya Gavan landed on Tōro, a seashore village of western Karafuto on August 16 that the Soviets broke the Japanese defense line. Japanese resistance grew weaker after this landing. Actual fighting continued until August 21. From August 22 to August 23, most remaining Japanese units agreed to a ceasefire. The Soviets completed the conquest of Karafuto on August 25, 1945 by occupying the capital of Toyohara.

 

Further operations with Soviet F4U involvement were the liberation of the Kuril Islands and of several ports along the eastern coast of Korea, eventually reaching Port-Artur (Lüshunkou) at the coast of the Yellow Sea. Roundabout 150 F4U-1A/Ds were operated by the Soviet Pacific Fleet's air arm, and after the end of hostilities almost all of the war-worn aircraft were scrapped.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 33 ft 4 in (10.1 m)

Wingspan: 41 ft 0 in (12.5 m)

Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)

Wing area: 314 ft2 (29.17 m²)

Empty weight: 8,982 lb (4,073 kg)

Loaded weight: 11,432 lb (5,185 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Pratt & Whitney R-2800-8 radial engine, 2,000 hp (1,491 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 417 mph (362 kn/671 km/h)

Range: 1,015 mi (882 nmi/1,633 km)

Service ceiling: 36,900 ft (11,247 m)

Rate of climb: 2,890 ft/min (15.2 m/s)

 

Armament:

6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns with 400 RPG

Up to 2,000 lb (910 kg) of external ordnance, incl. unguided missiles and bombs of up to 1,000 lb (454 kg) caliber;

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is actually a tribute build. It's based upon a profile drawing, posted in 2010 by Czech fellow modeler Wenzel a.k.a. PantherG at whatifmodelers.com. I found the idea of a Lend-Lease Corsair charming, esp. the overpainted markings on a standard USN scheme.

I kept the concept in the back of my mind, and the "Soviet Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017 was a good motivation to finally turn the idea into hardware.

 

The kit is Academy's F4U-1D, IMHO a pretty good rendition of the early Corsair, even though with some fishy details like the exhausts. Anyway, the kit was mostly built OOB with just some minor modifications. The only true whiffy addition are the RS-82 missiles and their respective launch rails, resin aftermarket parts from AML Models, and the modified bomb on the ventral hardpoint which is to look more Soviet.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing fancy, intentionally, and basically close to the inspiring profile. The Corsair was painted in standard USN colors of Dark Sea Blue ANA 607, Intermediate Blue ANA 608 and Insignia White ANA 601 (= FS 35042, 35164 and 37875). I used Modelmaster 1718, Humbrol 144 and 147, respectively, the latter being a very light grey (FS 36495), leaving room for post-shading with pure white. The places, where formerly USN markings had been, were painted with typical Russian tones: Green (Humbrol 114) on the upper surfaces and flanks, and Blue under the wings (Humbrol 115).

 

The model was thoroughly weathered, including some panels in slightly different tones, and received a black ink wash, dry-brushed panel post-shading and some aluminum stains on the leading edges and around the cockpit for simulated chipped paint.

 

The Soviet markings were puzzled together from the spares box and several aftermarket sheets, including big Red Stars from a P-47D in Soviet service and several Lend Lease P-40Ns, including a specimen operated by the Northern Fleet which donated the nice anchor symbol and the patriotic mural.

 

After a final dry brushing treatment with shades of grey, some oil stains (with Tamiya’s Smoke) and grinded graphite around the exhausts, machine guns and the wing undersides around the RS-82 launch rails, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A simple whif, but the USN Corsair with Red Stars looks interesting and strangely plausible when you take other Allied aircraft under the Lend Lease program into account – a decent initial entry for the group build. The overpainted former US markings do not stand out as much as I expected, but this just adds to the subtle overall impression, IMHO.

With greetings to Wenzel and his creative input – some good ideas just take time to enter the hardware stage! :D

+++ 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 Imperial Japanese Army Air Force's fighter force, especially the Nakajima Ki-43, had been underestimated in its capability, numbers and the strategy of its commanders. Within a few months, Japanese forces had conquered vast areas of the Pacific and South East Asia. During these campaigns, the ill-prepared Allied air forces in the Pacific suffered devastating losses.

 

Because of political and cultural ties between the United Kingdom and Australia, British manufacturers were the main source of RAAF aircraft. However, the British aircraft industry had long been hard-pressed to meet the needs of the RAF. Although United States companies had enormous aircraft manufacturing capacity, their output was now intended first and foremost for US air units. Even if aircraft built overseas did become available, they would be shipped long distances in wartime conditions, with consequent delays and losses. As a consequence, CAC came into its own with the development of the Boomerang fighter, which was not operational before late 1942.

 

Following the outbreak of war with Japan, 51 Hurricane Mk IIs were sent as a stop-gap in crates to Singapore, with 24 pilots, the nucleus of five squadrons. They arrived on 3 January 1942, by which time the Allied fighter squadrons in Singapore, flying Brewster Buffalos, had been overwhelmed in the Malayan campaign. Even though the Hurricanes were a significant progress, they suffered in performance.

 

Because of inadequate early warning systems, Japanese air raids were able to destroy 30 Hurricanes on the ground in Sumatra, most of them in one raid on 7 February. After Japanese landings in Singapore, on 10 February, only 18 serviceable Hurricanes remained out of the original 99. After Java was invaded, some of the pilots were evacuated by sea to Australia. 31 Hurricane airframes, which had been on the wayby ship, not been assembled and lacked Merlin engines, were directed to Australia in the wake of events.

 

From these unfinished machines, the Hurricane Mk. VI was quickly devised: the airframes were mated with P&W Twin Wasp engines, which were produced under license at the CAC plant in Lidcombe, Sydney, for the RAAF's Boomerang and Bristol Beaufort. It was clear from the start that these Twin Wasp-powered machines would rather be stop-gaps and no true fighters, rather fighter bombers and more suited for the ground attack role. Hence, like the latest fighters at the time, planning for the Mk. VI included automatic cannons. As no such weapons were manufactured locally, a British-made Hispano-Suiza 20 mm which an Australian airman had collected as a souvenir in the Middle East was reverse engineered – and four of them replaced the eight and partly twelve 0.303 machine guns of the original Mk. IIB machines. Additionally, the pilot received extra armor plating, and the wings were reinforced for external ordnance.

 

The RAAF Mk. VI Hurricanes carried A60-02 through -32 registrations. As a side note, A60-01 was a single Hurricane Mk.I serialled V-7476. This aircraft served with No.2 and 3 Communications Flights RAAF and was used on occasion for experimental work at RAAF Base Laverton on the outskirts of Melbourne. The aircraft was scrapped in 1945.

The Hurricane Mk. VIs actively took part in Pacific operations with RAAF’s No. 4 Squadron and No. 5 Squadron, being joined by Boomerangs in early 1943. They were operated in New Guinea and during the Solomon Islands Campaign as well as the Borneo Campaign, mostly in the close support role and with marked success.

 

Flying in pairs (one to observe the ground, the other to observe the air around them), their tasks included bombing, strafing, close infantry support and artillery spotting. When attacking larger enemy formations, the Hurricanes often operated in conjunction with the smaller and much more agile Boomerang fighter. In this role, a Boomerang would get in close to confirm the identity of the target and mark it with a 20 lb (9 kg) smoke bomb with the "cooperating" Hurricane, Beaufort or Havoc delivering the major ordnance in a quick run and from a safer distance. The partnership between RAAF planes and Royal New Zealand Air Force Corsair fighter bombers during the Bougainville Campaign was said to be particularly effective.

 

The Australian Hurricane Mk. VIs soldiered on until early 1945, when they were finally retired. The Twin Wasp engines were used for spares, all airframes were scrapped, no plane survived the war.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.84 m)

Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m)

Height: 13 ft 1½ in (4.0 m)

Wing area: 257.5 ft² (23.92 m²)

Empty weight: 5,745 lb (2,605 kg)

Loaded weight: 7,670 lb (3,480 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,710 lb (3,950 kg)

 

Maximum speed: 331 mph (531 km/h)

Range: 650 mi (1.045 km)

Service ceiling: 36,000 ft (10,970 m)

Rate of climb: 2,303 ft/min (11.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 29.8 lb/ft² (121.9 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (0.25 kW/kg)

 

Engine: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)

 

Armament: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons; 2x 45-gallon (205 l) drop tanks or 2× 250 or 500 lb (110 or 230 kg) bombs

 

The kit and its assembly

The Hurricane Mk. VI is a whif, even though with little effort but a good story behind it. The original idea to mate a Hurricane with a radial engine came when I found a drawing of a Russian Hurricane, mated with a Schwezow ASch-82 engine. It looked… interesting. Not certain if this had been done for sure, but a great inspiration.

While browsing through the scrap heap I later found a Twin Wasp engine – that fueled the idea of a respective conversion. The Russian option was dead, but when I checked contemporary planes I came across the small Boomerang, and the historical facts were perfect for an obscure Australian Hurricane variant.

 

The rest was quickly done: the basic kit is a Hurricane Mk. IIC (Trop) from Hobby Boss, the Twin Wasp comes from a wrecked Matchbox PB4Y Privateer. The original Merlin was simply cut away and replaced by the "new" and relatively small radial engine. A surprisingly easy task, even though I had to widen the area in front of the cockpit by about 1mm to each side. With some putty and a new exhaust pipe with flame dampers, the surgical part was quickly done. A pilot was added, too, in order to distract from the rather bleak cockpit.

 

To make the plane look more interesting and suitable for a display on the ground, the flaps were lowered (scratch-built) and vertical and horizontal stabilizer were moved away from OOB neutral position. Additionally, the cooler under the fuselage was omitted, what creates together with the radial engine a very different side view. This "Aussie'cane" looks stout but disturbingly realistic, like a Boomerang’s big brother!

 

Only other changes/additions are a pilot figure and two wing hardpoints, holding bombs. The rest is OOB.

  

Painting

I have always been a fan of all-green RAAF WWII planes, so I chose such a simple livery. Inspiration came from real-life 4. Squadron Boomerangs, so I adopted the “QE” code and tried to mimic the overall look.

Interior surfaces were kept in Humbrol 78 ('Cockpit Green', dry-painted with light grey). The plane was painted with “Foilage Green” on all outer surfaces - a tone which seems to be heavily debated. Most sources claim FS 34092 (Humbrol 149) as a nowaday's replacement, but to me, this color is just too green and blue-ish. IMHO, “Foilage Green” has a rather yellow-ish hue - Humbrol 75 ("Bronze Green") would be better, if it wasn't too dark.

 

After some trials I settled for Humbrol 105 ("Army Green"). I think it is a sound compromise. It resembles FS 34096, but is (much) less grey-ish and offers that yellow hue I was looking for. Heavy weathering was done, esp. at the panel lines with dry-painted FS 34096 (Testors) and some panels "bleached" with Humbrol 86 ("Light live Green"). After deacls had been applied, some dry brushing with olive drab and light grey added to the worn and faded look, as well as flaked paint around the engine and the wings' leading egdes and soot stains at exhausts and guns. I wanted to emphasize the harsh climate conditions and duties of this fictional machine.

 

Only other colors are typical white quick recognition markings on tail and wings, painted with a mix of Humbrol 130 and 196 for a very light grey, with some white dry painting on th eleading edges.For a final clear coat, I used a matte varnish which still has a light gloss to it - “Foilage Green” and RAAF finishes were AFAIK supposed to be semi-matte and of higher quality that USAF paintjobs.

 

Markings come mostly from the scrap box. The RAAF insignia were taken from a Vultee Vengeance aftermarket sheet by Kanga Decals, which also provided the mid sea grey codes. The Australian registration numbers were improvised with single white letters from TL Modellbau decal sheets.

 

All in all I am happy with the result - a simple measure, a good story and even a very simple livery that allows room for imagination and painting effects. A nice lil' whif, the "Aussie'cane" Mk. VI.

Here's our 19-minute geek-out on AI, quantum computing and autonomous vehicles, with the velveteen podcaster Mike Koenigs at Near Future Summit 2019.

 

“I have never been more excited. I love learning. I love technology, I’m a geek at heart. There’s more learning and more frontiers than ever before. Specifically, there’s a lot going on, obviously, in autonomous vehicles and driving that will touch all of our lives when we switch to these robo taxi fleets, and it’s just a better experience in every way, three times safer, three times cheaper”

 

“Quantum computing is as weird as the name implies. It uses quantum mechanics as the fundamental basis of computation in a way that is unlike any computer you’ve ever heard of before. The important thing to keep in mind is it’s not just ‘another supercomputer.’ It engages the computational resources of the refractive echoes of trillions of parallel universes? I mean, like, your mind explodes.”

02 Boeing C-17A Globemaster III

C17 477FF2

NATO Strategic Airlift Capability

08-0002 c/nF-210

BRK

METAR EYSA 021550Z 11009KT CAVOK 22/14 Q1013 NOSIG=

Ickworth House, Horringer, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

 

The House was built between the years of 1795 and 1829 to the designs of the Italian Architect Mario Asprucci, his most noted work being the Villa Borghese. It was this work that Frederick Hervey, the then 4th Earl of Bristol and Bishop of Derry had seen.

Asprucci’s plans were then taken up by the brothers Francis & Joseph Sandys, English architects.

The Parkland, of which there is 1,800 acres in total, was designed by Capability Brown and was Italianate in style. This style much loved by the 4th Earl.

Most of the friezes running around the rotunda were based upon John Flaxman’s illustrations of The Iliad and The Odyssey although, within the entrance portico there are some panels designed by Lady Caroline, the Earl’s Granddaughter and are based upon the Roman Olympic Games.

There are many works of art inside the house and very much well worth the visit.

 

A very hot and dry day at English Heritage, Audley End near Saffron Walden. This is one of the finest Jacobean Houses in England, although it is only a third of its original size today. It was the family seat of the Baybrooke family with grounds laid out by Capability Brown.