DISCLAIMER

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

 

The Indian HAL HG-30 Bāja (‘Hawk’) had been designed and manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in the early 60ies, when it became clear that the Indian Air Force was left without a capable and rather simple aircraft for these roles - the “jet age” had been in full development, but fast and large aircraft like the Su-7 or Hawker Hunter were just not suited for low-altitude missions against day and night visible ground targets in a broad area.

 

Indian military planners assumed that potential aggressor will first disable airfields, so the Bāja was designed to take-off from short unprepared runways, and it was readily available to be loaded with weapons and supplied through a flexible system of auxiliary airfields that required no special preparations, especially in mountainous regions.

 

The resulting HG-30 Bāja was a light, single-engine, low-wing single-seat aircraft with a metal airframe, capable of performing close air support, counter insurgency (COIN), and reconnaissance missions. The type featured a license-built Rolls Royce Dart turboprop engine and a reinforced, retractable tricycle landing gear for operations on rugged terrain. The unpressurized cockpit was placed as far forward and high as possible, offering the pilot an excellent view. The ejection seat was armored and the cockpit lined with nylon flak curtains.

The first HG-30 prototype flew in February 1962, and a total of 89 examples of the Bāja were built between 1963 and 1965, including two pre-production aircraft. These introduced some improvements like fixed wingtip tanks, a bulged canopy which improved the rear view or self-sealing and foam-filled fuselage tanks.

 

Armament consisted of four fixed 20mm cannons in the wings, plus unguided missiles, unguided bombs or napalm tanks under the wings and the fuselage on a total of 11 hardpoints. The inner pair under the wings as well as the centerline pylon were able to carry 1.000 lbs each and were ‘wet’ for optional drop tanks. The next pair could carry 500 lbs each, and the outer six attachment points were reserved for missile rails or single bombs of up to 200 lbs caliber. A total external ordnance load of up to 4.500 lbs could be carried, even though this was rarely practiced since it severely hampered handling.

 

The Bāja was exclusively used by the Indian Air Force, serving with 3rd (‘Cobras’) and 5th (‘Tuskers’) Squadrons in the Eastern and Western regions, alongside Toofani and Ajeet fighter bombers. Even though there was some foreign interest (e .g. from Israel and Yugoslavia,) no export sales came to fruition.

A tandem-seated trainer version was envisaged, but never left the drawing board, since Hindustan had already developed the HJT-16 Kiran jet trainer for the IAF which was more suitable, esp. with its side-by-side cockpit. Even a maritime version with foldable outer wings, arresting hook and structural reinforcements was considered for the Indian Navy.

 

The HG-30 did not make it in time into service for the five-week Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, but later saw serious action in the course of the Bangladesh Liberation War and the ensuing next clash between India and Pakistan in December 1971, when all aircraft (originally delivered in a natural metal finish) quickly received improvised camouflage schemes.

 

The 1971 campaign settled down to series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar and close-support attacks by fighters, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets, into which the HG-30s were heavily involved. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against Pakistan's forward air bases in the West until the end of the war, and large scale interdiction and close-support operations were maintained.

The HG-30 excelled at close air support. Its straight wings allowed it to engage targets 150 MPH slower than swept-wing jet fighters. This slower speed improved shooting and bombing accuracy, enabling pilots to achieve an average accuracy of less than 40 feet, and the turboprop engine offered a much better fuel consumption than the jet engines of that era.

While it was not a fast aircraft and its pilots were a bit looked down upon by their jet pilot colleagues, the HG-30 was well liked by its crews because of its agility, stability at low speed, ease of service under field conditions and the crucial ability to absorb a lot of punishment with its rigid and simple structure.

 

After the 1971 conflict the Bāja served with the IAF without any further warfare duty until 1993, when, after the loss of about two dozen aircraft due to enemy fire and (only three) accidents, the type was completely retired and its COIN duties taken over by Mi-25 and Mi-35 helicopters, which had been gradually introduced into IAF service since 1984.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 10.23 m (33 ft 6¼ in)

Wingspan: 12.38 m (40 ft 7¼ in) incl. wing tip tanks

Height: 3.95 m (12 ft 11¼ in)

Empty weight: 7,689 lb (3,488 kg)

Max. take-off weight: Loaded weight: 11,652 lb (5,285 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls Royce Dart RDa.7 turboprop engine, with 1.815 ehp (1.354 kW)/1.630 shp (1.220 kW) at 15,000 rpm

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 469 mph (755 km/h) at sea level and in clean configuration

Stall speed: 88 km/h (48 knots 55 mph)

Service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,363 m)

Rate of climb: 5,020 ft/min (25.5 m/s)

Range: 1,385 miles (2,228 km) at max. take-off weight

 

Armament:

4× 20mm cannons (2 per wing) with 250 RPG

A total of 11 underwing and fuselage hardpoints with a capacity of 4.500 lbs (2.034 kg); provisions to carry combinations of general purpose or cluster bombs, machine gun pods, unguided missiles, air-to-ground rocket pods, fuel drop tanks, and napalm tanks.

     

The kit and its assembly

This fictional COIN aircraft came to be when I stumbled across the vintage Heller Breguet Alizé kit in 1:100 scale. I did some math and came to the conclusion that the kit would make a pretty plausible single-seat propeller aircraft in 1:72...

 

Finding a story and a potential user was more of a challenge. I finally settled on India – not only because the country had and has a potent aircraft industry, a COIN aircraft (apart from obsolete WWII types) would have matched well into the IAF in the early 70ies. Brazil was another manufacturer candidate – but then I had the vision of Indian Su-7 and their unique camouflage scheme, and this was what the kit was to evolve to! Muahahah!

 

What started as a simple adaptation idea turned into a true Frankenstein job, because only little was left from the Heller Alizé – the kit is SO crappy…

 

What was thrown into the mix:

• Fuselage, rudder and front wheel doors from the Heller Alizé

• Horizontal stabilizers from an Airfix P-51 Mustang

• Wings are the outer parts from an Airfix Fw 189, clipped and with new landing gear wells

• Landing gear comes from a Hobby Boss F-86, the main wheels from the scrap box

• Cockpit tub comes from a Heller Alpha Jet, seat and pilot from the scrap box

• The canopy comes from a Hobby Boss F4U Corsair

• Ordnance hardpoints were cut from styrene strips

• Propeller consists of a spinner from a Matchbox Mitsubishi Zero and blades from two AH-1 tail rotors

• Ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box; the six retarder bombs appeared appropriate, the four missile pods were built from Matchbox parts. The wingtip tanks are streamlines 1.000 lbs bombs.

 

The only major sculpting work was done around the nose, in order to make the bigger propeller fiat and to simulate an appropriate air intake for the engine. Overall this thing looks pretty goofy, rather jet-like, with the slightly swept wings. On the other side, the Bāja does not look bad at all, and it has that “Small man’s A-10” aura to it.

 

Putting the parts together only posed two trouble zones: the canopy and the wings. The Corsair canopy would more or less fit, getting it in place and shaping the spine intersection was more demanding than expected. Still not perfect, but this was a “quick and dirty” project with a poor basis, anyway, so I don’t bother much.

Another tricky thing were the wings and getting them on the fuselage. That the Fw 189 wings ended up here has a reason: the original kit provided two pairs of upper wing halves, the lower halves were lacking! Here these obsolete parts finally found a good use, even though the resulting wing is pretty thick and called for some serious putty work on the belly side… Anyway, this was still easier than trying to modify the Alizé wings into something useful, and a thick wing ain’t bad for low altitude and bigger external loads.

  

Painting and markings

As mentioned before, the garish paint scheme is inspired by IAF Su-7 fighter bombers during/after the India-Pakistani confrontation of 1971. It’s almost surreal, reason enough to use it. Since a 1:72 Su-7 takes up so much shelf space I was happy to find this smaller aircraft as a suitable placebo.

 

I used Su-7 pictures as benchmarks, and settled for the following enamels as basic tones for the upper grey, brown and green:

• Humbrol 176 (Neutral Grey, out of production), for a dull and bluish medium grey

• Testors 1583 (Rubber), a very dark, reddish brown

• Humbrol 114 (Russian Green, out of production)

 

For the lower sides I used Testors 2123 (Russian Underside Blue). The kit received a black ink wash and some dry painting for weathering/more depth. Judging real life aircraft pics of IAF Su-7 and MiG-21, the original underside tone is hardly different from the upper blue grey and it seems on some aircraft as if the upper tone had been wrapped around. The aircraft do not appear very uniform at all, anyway.

 

Together with the bright IAF roundels the result looks a bit as if that thing had been designed by 6 year old, but the livery has its charm - the thing looks VERY unique! The roundels come from a generic TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet, the tactical codes are single white letters from the same manufacturer. Other stencils, warning signs and the squadron emblem come from the scrap box – Indian aircraft tend to look rather bleak and purposeful, except when wearing war game markings...

   

In the end, a small and quick project. The model was assembled in just two days, basic painting done on the third day and decals plus some weathering and detail work on the forth – including pics. A new record, even though this one was not built for perfectionism, rather as a recycling kit with lots of stock material at hand. But overall the Bāja looks exotic and somehow quite convincing?

Some background:

The idea for a heavy infantry support vehicle capable of demolishing heavily defended buildings or fortified areas with a single shot came out of the experiences of the heavy urban fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. At the time, the Wehrmacht had only the Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B available for destroying buildings, a Sturmgeschütz III variant armed with a 15 cm sIG 33 heavy infantry gun. Twelve of them were lost in the fighting at Stalingrad. Its successor, the Sturmpanzer IV, also known by Allies as Brummbär, was in production from early 1943. This was essentially an improved version of the earlier design, mounting the same gun on the Panzer IV chassis with greatly improved armour protection.

 

While greatly improved compared to the earlier models, by this time infantry anti-tank weapons were improving dramatically, too, and the Wehrmacht still saw a need for a similar, but more heavily armoured and armed vehicle. Therefore, a decision was made to create a new vehicle based on the Tiger tank and arm it with a 210 mm howitzer. However, this weapon turned out not to be available at the time and was therefore replaced by a 380 mm rocket launcher, which was adapted from a Kriegsmarine depth charge launcher.

 

The 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 L/5.4 was a breech-loading barrel, which fired a short-range, rocket-propelled projectile roughly 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) long. The gun itself existed in two iterations at the time. One, the RaG 43 (Raketenabschuss-Gerät 43), was a ship-mounted anti-aircraft weapon used for firing a cable-spooled parachute-anchor creating a hazard for aircraft. The second, the RTG 38 (Raketen Tauch-Geschoss 38), was a land-based system, originally planned for use in coastal installations by the Kriegsmarine firing depth-charges against submarines with a range of about 3.000 m. For use in a vehicle, the RTG 38 was to find use as a demolition gun and had to be modified for that role. This modification work was carried out by Rheinmetall at their Sommerda works.

 

The design of the rocket system caused some problems. Modified for use in a vehicle, the recoil from the modified rocket-mortar was enormous, about 40-tonnes, and this meant that only a heavy chassis could be used to mount the gun. The hot rocket exhaust could not be vented into the fighting compartment nor could the barrel withstand the pressure if the gasses were not vented. Therefore, a ring of ventilation shafts was put around the barrel which channeled the exhaust and gave the weapon something of a pepperbox appearance.

 

The shells for the weapon were extremely heavy, far too heavy for a man to load manually. As a result, each of them had to be carried by means of a ceiling-mounted trolley from their rack to a roller-mounted tray at the breech. Once on the tray, four soldiers could then push it into the breech to load it. The whole process took 10 minutes per shot from loading, aiming, elevating and, finally, to firing.

There were a variety of rocket-assisted round types with a weight of up to 376 kg (829 lb), and a maximum range of up to 6,000 m (20,000 ft), which either contained a high explosive charge of 125 kg (276 lb) or a shaped charge for use against fortifications, which could penetrate up to 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) of reinforced concrete. The stated range of the former was 5,650 m (6,180 yd). A normal charge first accelerated the projectile to 45 m/s (150 ft/s) to leave the short, rifled barrel, the 40 kg (88 lb) rocket charge then boosted this to about 250 m/s (820 ft/s).

 

In September 1943 plans were made for Krupp to fabricate new Tiger I armored hulls for the Sturmtiger. The Tiger I hulls were to be sent to Henschel for chassis assembly and then to Alkett, where the superstructures would be mounted. The first prototype was ready and presented in October 1943. By May 1944, the Sturmtiger prototype had been kept busy with trials and firing tests for the development of range tables, but production had still not started yet and the concept was likely to be scrapped. Rather than ditch the idea though, orders were given that, instead of interrupting the production of the Tiger I, the Sturmtigers would be built on the chassis of Tiger I tanks which had already been in action and suffered serious damage. Twelve superstructures and RW 61 weapons were prepared and mounted on rebuilt Tiger I chassis. However, by August 1944 the dire need for this kind of vehicle led to the adaptation of another chassis to the 380 mm Sturmmörser: the SdKfz. 184, better known as “Ferdinand” (after its designer’s forename) and later, in an upgraded version, “Elefant”.

 

The Elefant (German for "elephant") was actually a heavy tank destroyer and the result of mismanagement and poor planning: Porsche GmbH had manufactured about 100 chassis for their unsuccessful proposal for the Tiger I tank, the so-called "Porsche Tiger". Both the successful Henschel proposal and the Porsche design used the same Krupp-designed turret—the Henschel design had its turret more-or-less centrally located on its hull, while the Porsche design placed the turret much closer to the front of the superstructure. Since the competing Henschel Tiger design was chosen for production, the Porsche chassis were no longer required for the Tiger tank project, and Porsche was left with 100 unfinished heavy tank hulls.

It was therefore decided that the Porsche chassis were to be used as the basis of a new heavy tank hunter, the Ferdinand, mounting Krupp's newly developed 88 mm (3.5 in) Panzerjägerkanone 43/2 (PaK 43) anti-tank gun with a new, long L71 barrel. This precise long-range weapon was intended to destroy enemy tanks before they came within their own range of effective fire, but in order to mount the very long and heavy weapon on the Porsche hull, its layout had to be completely redesigned.

 

Porsche’s SdKfz. 184’s unusual petrol-electric transmission made it much easier to relocate the engines than would be the case on a mechanical-transmission vehicle, since the engines could be mounted anywhere, and only the length of the power cables needed to be altered, as opposed to re-designing the driveshafts and locating the engines for the easiest routing of power shafts to the gearbox. Without the forward-mounted turret of the Porsche Tiger prototype, the twin engines were relocated to the front, where the turret had been, leaving room ahead of them for the driver and radio operator. As the engines were placed in the middle, the driver and the radio operator were isolated from the rest of the crew and could be addressed only by intercom. The now empty rear half of the hull was covered with a heavily armored, full five-sided casemate with slightly sloped upper faces and armored solid roof, and turned into a crew compartment, mounting a single 8.8 cm Pak 43 cannon in the forward face of the casemate.

 

From this readily available basis, the SdKfz. 184/1 was hurriedly developed. It differed from the tank hunter primarily through its new casemate that held the 380 mm Raketenwerfer. Since the SdKfz. 184/1 was intended for use in urban areas in close range street fighting, it needed to be heavily armoured to survive. Its front plate had a greater slope than the Ferdinand while the sides were more vertical and the roof was flat. Its sloped (at 47° from vertical) frontal casemate armor was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick, while its superstructure side and rear plates had a strength of 82 mm (3.2 in). The SdKfz.184/1 also received add-on armor of 100 mm thickness, bolted to the hull’s original vertical front plates, increasing the thickness to 200 mm but adding 5 tons of weight. All these measures pushed the weight of the vehicle up from the Ferdinand’s already bulky 65 t to 75 t, limiting the vehicle’s manoeuvrability even further. Located at the rear of the loading hatch was a Nahverteidigungswaffe launcher which was used for close defense against infantry with SMi 35 anti-personnel mines, even though smoke grenades or signal flares could be fired with the device in all directions, too. For close-range defense, a 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun was carried in a ball mount in the front plate, an addition that was introduced to the Elefant tank hunters, too, after the SdKfz. 184 had during its initial deployments turned out to be very vulnerable to infantry attacks.

 

Due to the size of the RW 61 and the bulkiness of the ammunition, only fourteen rounds could be carried internally, of which one was already loaded, with another stored in the loading tray, and the rest were carried in two storage racks, leaving only little space for the crew of four in the rear compartment. To help with the loading of ammunition into the vehicle, a loading crane was fitted at the rear of the superstructure next to the loading hatch on the roof.

Due to the internal limits and the tactical nature of the vehicle, it was intended that each SdKfz. 184/1 (as well as each Sturmtiger) would be accompanied by an ammunition carrier, typically based on the Panzer IV chassis, but the lack of resources did not make this possible. There were even plans to build a dedicated, heavily armored ammunition carrier on the Tiger I chassis, but only one such carrier was completed and tested, it never reached production status.

 

By the time the first RW 61 carriers had become available, Germany had lost the initiative, with the Wehrmacht being almost exclusively on the defensive rather than the offensive, and this new tactical situation significantly weakened the value of both Sturmtiger and Sturmelefant, how the SdKfz 184/1 was semi-officially baptized. Nevertheless, three new Panzer companies were raised to operate the Sturmpanzer types: Panzer Sturmmörser Kompanien (PzStuMrKp) ("Armored Assault Mortar Company") 1000, 1001 and 1002. These originally were supposed to be equipped with fourteen vehicles each, but this figure was later reduced to four each, divided into two platoons, consisting of mixed vehicle types – whatever was available and operational.

 

PzStuMrKp 1000 was raised on 13 August 1944 and fought during the Warsaw Uprising with two vehicles, as did the prototype in a separate action, which may have been the only time the Sturmtiger was used in its intended role. PzStuMrKp 1001 and 1002 followed in September and October. Both PzStuMrKp 1000 and 1001 served during the Ardennes Offensive, with a total of four Sturmtiger and three Sturmelefanten.

After this offensive, the Sturmpanzer were used in the defence of Germany, mainly on the Western Front. During the battle for the bridge at Remagen, German forces mobilized Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 (with a total of 7 vehicles, five Sturmtiger and two Sturmelefanten) to take part in the battle. The tanks were originally tasked with using their mortars against the bridge itself, though it was discovered that they lacked the accuracy needed to hit the bridge and cause significant damage with precise hits to vital structures. During this action, one of the Sturmtigers in Sturmmörserkompanie 1001 near Düren and Euskirchen allegedly hit a group of stationary Shermans tanks in a village with a 380mm round, resulting in nearly all the Shermans being put out of action and their crews killed or wounded - the only recorded tank-on-tank combat a Sturmtiger was ever engaged in. After the bridge fell to the Allies, Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 were tasked with bombardment of Allied forces to cover the German retreat, as opposed to the bunker busting for which they had originally been designed for. None was actually destroyed through enemy fire, but many vehicles had to be given up due to mechanical failures or the lack of fuel. Most were blown up by their crews, but a few fell into allied hands in an operational state.

 

Total production numbers of the SdKfz. 184/1 are uncertain but, being an emergency product and based on a limited chassis supply, the number of vehicles that left the Nibelungenwerke in Austria was no more than ten – also because the tank hunter conversion had top priority and the exotic RW 61 launcher was in very limited supply. As a consequence, only a total of 18 Sturmtiger had been finished by December 1945 and put into service, too. However, the 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 remained in production and was in early 1946 adapted to the new Einheitspanzer E-50/75 chassis.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Six (driver, radio operator/machine gunner in the front cabin,

commander, gunner, 2× loader in the casemate section)

Weight: 75 tons

Length: 7,05 m (23 ft 1½ in)

Width: 3,38 m (11 ft 1 in)

Height w/o crane: 3,02 m (9 ft 10¾ in)

Ground clearance: 1ft 6¾ in (48 cm)

Climbing: 2 ft 6½ in (78 cm)

Fording depth: 3 ft 3¼ (1m)

Trench crossing: 8 ft 7 ¾ in (2,64 m)

Suspension: Longitudinal torsion-bar

Fuel capacity: 1.050 liters

 

Armour:

62 to 200 mm (2.44 to 7.87 in)

 

Performance:

30 km/h (19 mph) on road

15 km/h (10 miles per hour () off road

Operational range: 150 km (93 mi) on road

90 km (56 mi) cross-country

Power/weight: 8 hp/ton

 

Engine:

2× Maybach HL120 TRM petrol engines with 300 PS (246 hp, 221 kW) each, powering…

2× Siemens-Schuckert D1495a 500 Volt electric engines with 320 PS (316 hp, 230 kW) each

 

Transmission:

Electric

 

Armament:

1x 380 mm RW 61 rocket launcher L/5.4 with 14 rounds

1x 7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 34 machine gun with 600 rounds

1x 100 mm grenade launcher (firing anti-personnel mines, smoke grenades or signal flares)

  

The kit and its assembly:.

This fictional tank model is not my own idea, it is rather based on a picture of a similar kitbashing of an Elefant with a Sturmtiger casemate and its massive missile launcher – even though it was a rather crude model, with a casemate created from cardboard. However, I found the idea charming, even more so because the Ferdinand/Elefant was rather a rolling bunker than an agile tank hunter, despite its powerful weapon. Why not use the same chassis as a carrier for the Sturmtiger’s huge mortar as an assault SPG?

 

The resulting Sturmelefant was created as a kitbashing: the chassis is an early boxing of the Trumpeter Elefant, which comes not only with IP track segments but also alternative vinyl tracks (later boxing do not feature them), and casemate parts come from a Trumpeter Sturmtiger.

While one would think that switching the casemate would be straightforward affair, the conversion turned out to be more complex than expected. Both Elefant and Sturmtiger come with separate casemate pieces, but they are not compatible. The Sturmtiger casemate is 2mm wider than the Elefant’s hull, and its glacis plate is deeper than the Elefant’s, leaving 4mm wide gaps at the sides and the rear. One option could have been to trim down the glacis plate, but I found the roofline to become much too low – and the casemate’s length would have been reduced.

 

So, I used the Sturmtiger casemate “as is” and filled the gaps with styrene sheet strips. This worked, but the casemate’s width created now inward-bent sections that looked unplausible. Nobody, even grazed German engineers, would not have neglected the laws of structural integrity. What to do? Tailoring the casemate’s sides down would have been one route, but this would have had created a strange shape. The alternative I chose was to widen the flanks of the Elefant’s hull underneath the casemate, which was achieved with tailored 0.5 mm styrene sheet panels and some PSR – possible through the Elefant’s simple shape and the mudguards that run along the vehicle’s flanks.

Some more PSR was necessary to blend the rear into a coherent shape and to fill a small gap at the glacis plate’s base. Putty was also used to fill/hide almost all openings on the glacis plate, since no driver sight or ball mount for a machine gun was necessary anymore. New bolts between hull and casemate were created with small drops of white glue. The rest of the surface details were taken from the respective donor kits.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice. A classic Hinterhalt scheme would have been a natural choice, but since the Sturmelefant would have been converted from existing hulls with new parts, I decided to emphasize this heritage through a simple, uniform livery: all Ferdinand elements would be painted/left in a uniform Dunkelgelb (RAL, 7028, Humbrol 83), while the new casemate as well as the bolted-on front armor were left in a red primer livery, in two different shades (Humbrol 70 and 113). This looked a little too simple for my taste, so that I eventually added snaky lines in Dunkelgelb onto the primer-painted sections, blurring the contrast between the two tones.

 

Markings remained minimal, just three German crosses on the flanks and at the rear and a tactical code on the casemate – the latter in black and in a hand-written style, as if the vehicle had been rushed into frontline service.

 

After the decals had been secured under sone varnish the model received an overall washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint, some dry-brushing with light grey and some rust traces, before it was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish and received some dirt stains with mixed watercolors and finally, after the tracks had been mounted, some artist pigments as physical dust on the lower areas.

  

Again a project that appeared simple but turned out to be more demanding because the parts would not fit as well as expected. The resulting bunker breaker looks plausible, less massive than the real Sturmtiger but still a menacing sight.

 

An interesting photo, not because of its subject, but because of the way it has come about.

 

I've found a way to trick the minimum synchronization time of a D80, without the expensive HSS capable flash units. But from the beginning:

 

I own a Nikon D80, some lenses and a variety of flash units. My "flagship" is a Yongnuo YN565EX and two YN560II serve me as "workhorses" next to a Nikon SB-25 (and some other, older equipment from analog times).

 

A few days ago put a Facebook friend of mine, Galllo, an interesting task in his blog:

"Take a photo with flash exposure, with 1/4000th second, that is correctly exposed and no black bars ...

WITHOUT HSS / FP SYNC TO USE!"

 

Ok, my YN565EX is not capable of HSS and I always wanted to know, what I'm missing ;)

 

Under the following conditions, my trick seems to work reliably:

 

- I have set the D80 to "m"-mode, shutter speed is 1/1000 to 1/4000

(at least shorter than the regular sync speed)

 

- in the hot shoe of the D80 is the YN565EX, mode "m", power = 1/128,

Reflector head turned about 130 degrees to the back towards the YN560II

 

- diagonally behind me is one YN560II, mode "S1", power = 1/1.

Full power is important, even at 1/2 Power this trick goes wrong (I've tried!)

 

And off you go. Lack of sun today, I took ​​a picture of one of my favorite colleagues (here in the inspection of a desk lamp). I think even if the light is turned on, the direction and the strength of the shadow in the picture is relatively clear and the Exif data also.

In the image "4849 1 over 4000 fail" I only reduced the power of the YN560II from 1/1 to 1/2 - and it no longer worked.

 

The reason why this trick works at all, is the measurement pre-flash which the D80 sends over the YN565EX .

 

This measurement pre-flash occurs BEFORE the the focal plane shutter begins to open and ignites the YN560II, which works as an optical slave.

 

Only when the YN560II fires at full power, the flash duration seems to be long enough in order to properly expose the image.

 

At half the power of the 560II, you can only at 1/500 sec recognize a narrow strip that is exposed by lightning

(DSC 4854 1 over 500 half)

and only at 1/320 sec the Shutter is open long enough again to be able to exploit the shorter duration of the flash

(DSC 4856 over 1 320, little bit overexposed;) )

 

For a better understanding, I show a schematic of the setup (HSS-Hack D80) and some "photographic evidence".

 

( Thanks to Galllo for the provision of lighting sympols for Photoshop an PS Elements ).

 

Pictures and Text from Gizmag

For motorcyclists wishing to balance the inequities of the road-going pecking order, this could be the perfect mount. Vespa's 150 TAP might only be good for 40 mph, but the integrated M20 light anti-armor cannon shoots 75 mm rounds capable of penetrating 100 mm of armor from four miles.

Many motorcyclists over the years have wished for more "presence" with which to balance the inequities of the road-going pecking order, but until I wandered into the newly opened Vespa Museum near the Australian Albert Park Formula One Circuit this week, I had no idea that there had ever been a production two-wheeler which could command complete respect from fellow-roadgoers

n the late 1950s, French Vespa licensee ACMA (Ateliers de Construction de Motocycles et Automobiles) produced 500 (perhaps more) examples of this military Vespa with integrated M20 recoilless rifle / light anti-armor cannon, in two production runs in 1956 and 1959.

 

Though there's a lot of dubious information on the Vespa 150 TAP on the internet, much of which claims the rider could fire the M20 on the move, a close inspection of the 150 TAP convinced me that it was not set up to be fired from the scooter, partly due to the lack of access to the firing mechanism of the American-made M20 recoilless rifle, partly due to its mounting slightly across the frame (which would no doubt have resulted in some handling difficulties for the rider of the lightweight 150 kg scooter – recoilless is only a relative term in this instant), and partly due to the thin saddle covering, which might well have resulted in a fate worse than death. There's also the slight issue of aiming the M20 – not much point in getting that much firepower in place with limited ammunition and wasting it.

 

The idea behind a military Vespa was not entirely new, even though the iconic freedom machine of the Baby Boomers was less than a decade old when it was pressed into military service.

 

The Italian Vespa factory had developed a Vespa Force Armate (Armed Forces) prototype between 1949 and 1951 which boasted many advantages over the military motorcycles of the time: lighter weight; better low speed maneuverability; lower fuel consumption; the ability to carry a spare wheel and to change it rapidly on either end (if you think fixing a motorcycle tire is problematic, try doing it while people are shooting at you); and thanks to the scooter's reliable drive train (chains were one of the weaknesses of motorcycles of the period), less likelihood of being stranded in a hostile environment.

Vespa's factory-developed Vespa Force Armate prototype was envisaged with a variety of options, including mounting a submachine-gun on the handlebars, a radio under the saddle and an armored leg shield.

 

Though NATO trials showed the Vespa Force Armate was only 3 mph (5 km/h) down on the much larger traditional military bikes of the time in terms of top speed, and resulted in glowing appraisals. But after more than two years of negotiations, Enrico Piaggio canned the model. In a letter sent by Piaggio himself in 1952, he concluded he was “not interested in canvassing for State Orders since we know that its organs pay low prices and late” and that he was convinced that “the military are not worth the time of day.”

 

Hence when the French military decided it wanted a better mobility option for its airborne special forces ("Troupes Aéro Portées", hence the subsequent “TAP” acronym) than its existing American-made WWII Cushman scooters for the Algerian War, it organized a competition between French manufacturers for a replacement model.

 

In the end, it boiled down to a three-way shoot-out between prototypes based on the Valmobile 100, the Bernardet 250 and the Vespa. French Vespa licensee ACMA won the gig.

 

Despite an unmistakably different profile, the Vespa 150 TAP differed little from the Vespa scooter of the time. It used a 150cc two-stroke engine derived by ACMA from the Vespa 125 motor, with different bore and stroke to the Vespa 150 engine from the factory.

Other than the engine, plus the M20 light anti-armor cannon, rack and ammunition mounts, the only major differences to a standard Vespa were a strengthened frame and lower gearing which gave it a top speed of just 40 mph (64 km/h).

 

The TAPs were designed to be dropped into theater by parachute on a palette, protected by hay-bales, fully assembled and ready for almost immediate action. As such, the TAP offered a highly mobile lethal capability with which to counter guerrillas – the M20 was originally designed as an anti-tank weapon and using a HEAT warhead, it was claimed to be capable of penetrating 100mm of armor and striking from a distance of 7,000 yards (6.4 km). The 150 TAP was often deployed with a trailer, which was used for additional supplies and a lightweight stand for the M20.

 

Though the M20 with HEAT warhead was found to be ineffective against up-armored T-34 tanks during the Korean War, it was ideal against more makeshift field fortifications and used quite effectively during the Algerian and Indochine conflicts (the second ultimately becoming the Vietnam War).

 

Alternative warheads were available for the M20, one of which could lay a smokescreen – another helpful capability in the asymmetric conflicts in which it was used.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Supermarine Seafire was a naval version of the Supermarine Spitfire adapted for operation from aircraft carriers. It was analogous in concept to the Hawker Sea Hurricane, a navalized version of the Spitfire's stablemate, the Hawker Hurricane. The name Seafire was derived from the abbreviation of the longer name Sea Spitfire.

 

The idea of adopting a navalized, carrier-capable version of the Supermarine Spitfire had been mooted by the Admiralty as early as May 1938. Despite a pressing need to replace various types of obsolete aircraft that were still in operation with the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), some opposed the notion, such as Winston Churchill, although these disputes were often a result of an overriding priority being placed on maximizing production of land-based Spitfires instead. During 1941 and early 1942, the concept was again pushed for by the Admiralty, culminating in an initial batch of Seafire Mk Ib fighters being provided in late 1941, which were mainly used for pilots to gain experience operating the type at sea. While there were concerns over the low strength of its undercarriage, which had not been strengthened like many naval aircraft would have been, its performance was found to be acceptable.

 

From 1942 onwards, further Seafire models were quickly ordered, including the first operationally-viable Seafire F Mk III variant. This led to the type rapidly spreading throughout the FAA. In November 1942, the first combat use of the Seafire occurred during Operation Torch, the Allied landings in North Africa. In July 1943, the Seafire was used to provide air cover for the Allied invasion of Sicily; and reprised this role in September 1943 during the subsequent Allied invasion of Italy. During 1944, the type was again used in quantity to provide aerial support to Allied ground forces during the Normandy landings and Operation Dragoon in Southern France. During the latter half of 1944, the Seafire became a part of the aerial component of the British Pacific Fleet, where it quickly proved to be a capable interceptor against the feared kamikaze attacks by Japanese pilots which had become increasingly common during the final years of the Pacific War. Several Seafire variants were produced during WWII, more or less mirroring the development of its land-based ancestor.

 

The Seafire continued to be used for some time after the end of the war, and new, dedicated versions were developed and exported. The FAA opted to promptly withdraw all of its Merlin-powered Seafires and replace them with Griffon-powered counterparts. The type saw further active combat use during the Korean War, in which FAA Seafires performed hundreds of missions in the ground attack and combat air patrol roles against North Korean forces during 1950. The Seafire was withdrawn from FAA service during the 1950s and was replaced by the newer Hawker Sea Fury, the last piston engine fighter to be used by the service, along with the first generation of jet-propelled naval fighters, such as the de Havilland Vampire, Supermarine Attacker, and Hawker Sea Hawk.

 

After WWII, the Royal Canadian Navy and French Aviation Navale also obtained Seafires to operate from ex-Royal Navy aircraft carriers. France received a total of 140 Seafires of various versions from 1946 on, including 114 Seafire Mk IIIs in two tranches (35 of them were set aside for spare part) until 1948, and these were followed in 1949 by fifteen Mk. 15 fighters and twelve FR Mk. 23 armed photo reconnaissance aircraft. Additionally, twenty land-based Mk. IXs were delivered to Naval Air Station Cuers-Pierrefeu as trainers.

 

The Seafire Mk. 23 was a dedicated post-war export version. It combined several old and new features and was the final “new” Spitfire variant to be powered by a Merlin engine, namely a Rolls-Royce Merlin 66M with 1,720 hp (1,283 kW) that drove a four-blade propeller. The Mk. 23 was originally built as a fighter (as Seafire F Mk. 23), but most machines were delivered or later converted with provisions for being fitted with two F24 cameras in the rear fuselage and received the service designation FR Mk. 23 (or just FR.23). Only 32 of this interim post-war version were built by Cunliffe-Owen, and all of them were sold to foreign customers.

 

Like the Seafire 17, the 23 had a cut-down rear fuselage and teardrop canopy, which afforded a better all-round field of view than the original cockpit. The windscreen was modified, too, to a rounded section, with narrow quarter windows, rather than the flat windscreen used on land-based Spitfires. As a novel feature the Seafire 23 featured a "sting" arrestor hook instead of the previous V-shaped ventral arrangement.

The fuel capacity was 120 gal (545 l) distributed in two main forward fuselage tanks: the lower tank carried 48 gal (218 l) while the upper tank carried 36 gal (163 l), plus two fuel tanks built into the leading edges of the wings with capacities of 12.5 (57 l) and 5.5 gal (25 l) respectively. It featured a reinforced main undercarriage with longer oleos and a lower rebound ratio, a measure to tame the deck behavior of the Mk. 15 and reducing the propensity of the propeller tips "pecking" the deck during an arrested landing. The softer oleos also stopped the aircraft from occasionally bouncing over the arrestor wires and into the crash barrier.

The wings were taken over from the contemporary Spitfire 21 and therefore not foldable. However, this saved weight and complexity, and the Seafire’s compact dimensions made this flaw acceptable for its operators. The wings were furthermore reinforced, with a stronger main spar necessitated by the new undercarriage, and as a bonus they were able to carry heavier underwing loads than previous Seafire variants. This made the type not only suitable for classic dogfighting (basic armament consisted of four short-barreled 20 mm Hispano V cannon in the outer wings), but also for attack missions with bombs and unguided rockets.

 

The Seafire’s Aéronavale service was quite short, even though they saw hot battle duty. 24 Mk. IIIs were deployed on the carrier Arromanches in 1948 when it sailed for Vietnam to fight in the First Indochina War. The French Seafires operated from land bases and from Arromanches on ground attack missions against the Viet Minh before being withdrawn from combat operations in January 1949.

After returning to European waters, the Aéronavale’s Seafire frontline units were re-equipped with the more modern and capable Seafire 15s and FR 23s, but these were also quickly replaced by Grumman F6F Hellcats from American surplus stock, starting already in 1950. The fighters were retired from carrier operations and soon relegated to training and liaison duties, and eventually scrapped. However, the FR.23s were at this time the only carrier-capable photo reconnaissance aircraft in the Aéronavale’s ranks, so that these machines remained active with Flottille 1.F until 1955, but their career was rather short, too, and immediately ended when the first naval jets became available and raised the performance bar.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 31 ft 10 in (9.70 m)

Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)

Height: 12 ft 9 in (3.89 m) tail down with propeller blade vertical

Wing area: 242.1 ft² (22.5 m²)

Empty weight: 5,564 lb (2,524 kg)

Gross weight: 7,415 lb (3,363 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Merlin 66M V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine,

delivering 1,720 hp (1,283 kW) at 11,000 ft and driving a 4-bladed constant-speed propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 404 mph (650 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

Cruise speed: 272 mph (438 km/h, 236 kn)

Range: 493 mi (793 km) on internal fuel at cruising speed

965 mi (1,553 km) with 90 gal drop tank

Service ceiling: 42,500 ft (12,954 m)

Rate of climb: 4,745 ft/min (24.1 m/s) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

Time to altitude: 20,000 ft (6,096 m) in 8 minutes 6 seconds

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano V cannon; 175 rpg inboard, 150 rpg outboard

Hardpoints for up to 2× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs (outer wings), plus 1× 500 lb (230 kg) bomb

(ventral hardpoint) or drop tanks, or up to 8× "60 lb" RP-3 rockets on zero-length launchers

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build was another attempt to reduce The Stash. The basis was a Special Hobby FR Mk. 47, which I had originally bought as a donor kit: the engine housing bulges of its Griffon engine were transplanted onto a racing P-51D Mustang. Most of the kit was still there, and from this basis I decided to create a fictional post-WWII Seafire/Spitfire variant.

 

With the Griffon fairings gone a Merlin engine was settled, and the rest developed spontaneously. The propeller was improvised, with a P-51D spinner (Academy kit) and blades from the OOB 5-blade propeller, which are slightly deeper than the blades from the Spitfire Mk. IX/XVI prop. In order to attach it to the hull and keep it movable, I implanted my standard metal axis/styrene tube arrangement.

 

With the smaller Merlin engine, I used the original, smaller Spitfire stabilizers but had to use the big, late rudder, due to the taller fin of the post-ware Spit-/Seafire models. The four-spoke wheels also belong to an earlier Seafire variant. Since it was an option in the kit, I went for a fuselage with camera openings (the kit comes with two alternative fuselages as well as a vast range of optional parts for probably ANY late Spit- and Seafire variant – and also for many fictional hybrids!), resulting in a low spine and a bubble canopy, what gives the aircraft IMHO very sleek and elegant lines. In order to maintain this impression I also used the short cannon barrels from the kit. For extended range on recce missions I furthermore gave the model the exotic underwing slipper tanks instead of the optional missile launch rail stubs under the outer wing sections. Another mod is the re-installment of the small oil cooler under the left wing root from a Spitfire Mk. V instead of the symmetrical standard radiator pair – just another subtle sign that “something’s not right” here.

  

Painting and markings:

The decision to build this model as a French aircraft was inspired by a Caracal Decals set with an Aéronavale Seafire III from the Vietnam tour of duty in 1948, an aircraft with interesting roundels that still carried British FAA WWII colors (Dark Slate Grey/Dark Sea Grey, Sky). Later liveries of the type remain a little obscure, though, and information about them is contradictive. Some profiles show French Seafires in British colors, with uniform (Extra) Dark Sea Grey upper and Sky lower surfaces, combined with a high waterline – much like contemporary FAA aircraft like the Sea Fury. However, I am a bit in doubt concerning the Sky, because French naval aircraft of that era, esp. recce types like the Shorts Sunderland or PBY Catalina, were rather painted in white or very light grey, just with uniform dark grey upper surfaces, reminding of British Coastal Command WWII aircraft.

 

Since this model would be a whif, anyway, and for a pretty look, I adopted the latter design, backed by an undated profile of a contemporary Seafire Mk. XV from Flottille S.54, a training unit, probably from the Fifties - not any valid guarantee for authenticity, but it looks good, if not elegant!

Another option from that era would have been an all-blue USN style livery, which should look great on a Spitfire, too. But I wanted something more elegant and odd, underpinning the bubbletop Seafire’s clean lines.

 

I settled for Extra Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 123) and Light Grey (FS. 36495, Humbrol 147) as basic tones, with a very high waterline. The spinner was painted yellow, the only colorful marking. Being a post-war aircraft of British origin, the cockpit interior was painted in black (Revell 09, anthracite). The landing gear wells became RAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78), while the inside of the respective covers became Sky (Humbrol 90) – reflecting the RAF/FAA’s post-war practice of applying the external camouflage paint on these surfaces on Spit-/Seafires, too. On this specific aircraft the model displays, just the exterior had been painted over by the new operator. Looks weird, but it’s a nice detail.

 

The roundels came from the aforementioned 1948 Seafire Mk. III, and their odd design – esp. the large ones on the wings, and only the fuselage roundels carry the Aéronavale’s anchor icon and a yellow border – creates a slightly confusing look. Unfortunately, the roundels were not 100% opaque, this became only apparent after their application, and they did not adhere well, either.

The tactical code had to be improvised with single, black letters of various sizes – they come from a Hobby Boss F4F USN pre-WWII Wildcat, but were completely re-arrenged into the French format. The fin flash on the rudder had to be painted, with red and blue paint, in an attempt to match the decals’ tones, and separated by a white decal stripe. The anchor icon on the rudder had to be printed by myself, unfortunately the decal on the bow side partly disintegrated. Stencils were taken from the Special Hobby kit’s OOB sheet.

 

The model received a light black ink washing, post-panel shading with dry-brushing and some soot stains around the exhausts, but not too much weathering, since it would be relatively new. Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A relatively quick and simple build, and the Special Hobby kit went together with little problems – a very nice and versatile offering. The mods are subtle, but I like the slender look of this late Spitfire model, coupled with the elegant Merlin engine – combined into the fictional Mk. 23. The elegant livery just underlines the aircraft’s sleek lines. Not spectacular, but a pretty result.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.

 

In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.

 

The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).

 

For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.

 

The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.

 

In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.

 

Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.

 

Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.

 

Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.

  

Specifications:

Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)

Weight: 22.6 t

Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)

Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)

Height: XXX

Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)

Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering

 

Armor:

Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds

 

Performance:

Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads

Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)

Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel

 

Engine:

1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,

delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel

 

Armament:

1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)

1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds

Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars

  

The kit and its assembly:

I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.

 

This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.

 

Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).

 

An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!

Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.

Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).

 

Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.

  

Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.

 

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).

 

The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.

 

The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties, which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.

The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

The versatile aircraft also underwent constant upgrade programs, leading to improved versions like the VF-1N and P. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards, placed in a streamlined fairing on the upper side of the nose, just in front of the cockpit. This system allowed for long-range search and track modes, freeing the pilot from the need to give away his position with active radar emissions, and it could also be used for target illumination and guiding precision weapons.

Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECM measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

A limited number of machines was also, when the type was replaced in the fighter units by the VF-4, handed over to U.N.S.A.F. units and modified into fighter bombers for the exclusive use within Earth's atmosphere, intended as a supplement to the dedicated VFA-1 ground attack Valkyrie variant. The machine’s prime task would be to attack and neutralize potential invaders’ landing vehicles, plus general close air support for ground troops and battlefield interdiction missions.

This conversion included structural reinforcements and additional weapon hardpoints under the air intakes, improved avionics as well as active and passive sensor systems from the VF-1P in a modified head unit with two laser cannon. These revamped aircraft received an "a" suffix (Alpha for attack, the Greek letter was chosen in order to avoid confusion with the widespread standard VF-1A variant and VF-1JA updates) to their original designation. Roundabout 120 VF-1s, mostly VF-1As, -Ns and a few -Js were converted to the a-standard between 2017 and 2019 and served at air bases in Africa, Northern America and Australia until 2032.

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters in several variants.

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

  

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.Spacy Marines

 

Accommodation:

Single pilot in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

 

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

 

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip);

 

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

2x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min

4x underwing and 2x underfuselage hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including:

- 12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

- 12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

- 6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

- 4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

- or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another build of one of these vintage ARII kits, primarily for the (fictional) livery. This one was inspired by a profile found in a source book (the "VF-1 Master File" from Softbank Publishing), where I found a profile of a late VF-1P from 2024 in a pale, three-tone desert paint scheme, similar to an IDF aircraft, with some white trim on the wings and a white radome. While this machine basically looked attractive, I was a little confused by its supposed operation theatre: Australia. There, over a typical outback landscape, the paint scheme would IMHO hardly work, the tones being much too light and just "wrong". From this, the idea was born to create a "Valkyroo"!

 

Since the model would rather center around the paint scheme, the VF-1, an “S” variant kit, remained basically OOB. Nevertheless, it received some standard mods and some extras. The basic updates include some additional blade antennae (leaving out the dorsal antennae for a Block 13/14 aircraft), a pilot figure and a modified dashboard. This time the VF-1 would have its landing gear extended, but the ventral gun pod was nevertheless modified to accept one of my home-made VF-1 standard display stands for in-flight beauty pics over the Australian desert.

 

Since the machine would, in its wraparound paint scheme, rather look like a low-level fighter bomber and mud mover, the ordnance was changed from a dozen AMM-1 air-to-air missiles to something grittier. I gave the kit a pair of GBUs on the inner wing stations, which are Paveway bombs from an 1:72 Hasegawa ordnance set, but modified into optically-guided weapons since the original laser sensor with its ring-shaped stabilizer would be quite large at 1:100.

On the outer pylons the VF-1 received four streamlined pods with unguided missiles, left over from KP MiG-21s which are pretty small and slender for their 1:72 scale. Under the 1:100 VF-1 they work well.

I furthermore gave it another pair of hardpoints under the air intakes, holding an ECM and a FLIR pod (both from a Dragon 1:144 RAF Tornado GR.1, the FLIR is a reversed chaff dispenser w/o fins). That’s not canonical, but this one here is fictional, anyway.

 

On the legs, small chaff/flare dispensers made from styrene strips were added, and small radar warning fairings adorn the nose and the tail. Thin styrene profile strips were added on the legs and the fins, for a little more external structure, and a small laser range finder fairing was mounted under the VF-1’s nose (also from the 1:144 Tonka).

In order to emphasize this Valkyrie's updated and modified status, I modified the horribly misshaped “S” head unit, lowering and narrowing the cranium’s rear part and reducing the number of lasers from four to just two. For the in-flight pictures a pilot figure was added to the cockpit, which also had the dashboard extended downwards to the console between the pilot’s feet.

  

Painting and markings:

The goal was to apply an effective (and potentially) attractive paint scheme that would be appropriate for the Australian desert/outback landscape, with its distinct red sand, low, pale shrubs and occasional dark rocks and trees. I checked both RAAF schemes as well as landscape pictures, and eventually created a four-tone wraparound scheme, somewhat inspired by unique RAAF DHC-4s and Pilatus Porter transporter liveries, as well as the SAC bomber scheme that was/is used on RAAF C-130. The US Army MERCD scheme also has some influence. However, the result is not a copy of an existing scheme, the scheme rather evolved gradually – even though, once it was done, it somewhat reminds of the famous Swedish “Fields & Meadows” pattern, just with lighter colors, even though this was not intended!

 

Due to the model’s small size and the potentially bright Australian theatre of operation, I did not want the disruptive scheme to become too dark. Consequently, the wraparound scheme consists of four tones: splotches of Brown Yellow (Humbrol 94) and IJN Grey Green (Tamiya XF-76), two tones with similar brightness, are the basis. Next came a medium red brown (Leather, Humbrol 62) and finally some Bronze Green (Humbrol 75), the latter intended to break up the aircraft's silhouette through a strong color contrast.

For a subtle counter-shading effect against the sky, relatively more of the Sand and IJN Grey Green was used on the undersides and the dark green was not applied underneath at all. The radome, in order to set it slightly apart from the rest of the airframe, as well as some other dielectric fairings, were painted with Hemp (Humbrol 168).

 

The cockpit became standard medium grey (Humbrol 140) with a brown seat. The landing gear was painted in classic white, while the air intakes and some other openings were painted in dark grey (Revell 77).

 

In an attempt to further subdue the aircraft's overall visual profile, I avoided any flashy trim and rather went for monochrome markings in black. The low-viz U.N. Spacy “kite” roundels were created and printed at home. The eagle emblems on the fins belong, in real life, to an F-15E prototype (Italeri kit), the tactical codes were puzzled together from A-10 and T-4 decal sheets. Most characteristic VF-1 stencils come from the OOB sheet, some lines were created with generic decal material.

Due to the model’s small size, only some light, overall dry-brushing with hemp and light grey was done, and then the kit was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

 

A camouflaged VF-1 surely looks odd, esp. in desert colors, but there actually are several canonical aircraft painted in such a fashion, to be found in various official Macross publications - in fact, this model is the attempt to create a more plausible livery than one that I found in such a sourcebook. IMHO, the home-brew disruptive four-tone scheme for this "Valkyroo" VF-1 looks quite attractive, and thanks to the selected tones it also makes the subtle Australia connection. Those small Valkyrie kits never get boring, at least to me! :D

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.

 

In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.

 

The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).

 

For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.

 

The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.

 

In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.

 

Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.

 

Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.

 

Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.

  

Specifications:

Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)

Weight: 22.6 t

Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)

Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)

Height: XXX

Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)

Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering

 

Armor:

Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds

 

Performance:

Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads

Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)

Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel

 

Engine:

1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,

delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel

 

Armament:

1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)

1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds

Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars

  

The kit and its assembly:

I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.

 

This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.

 

Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).

 

An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!

Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.

Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).

 

Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.

  

Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.

 

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).

 

The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.

 

The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties, which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.

 

The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

 

The versatile aircraft also underwent constant upgrade programs, leading to improved versions like the VF-1N and P. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards. Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECM measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters in several variants.

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

  

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N. Spacy Marines

 

Accommodation:

Single pilot in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

 

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Powerplant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

 

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)

 

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

1x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min

4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including:

- 12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

- 12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

- 6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

- 4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

- or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another spontaneous interim build in a busy time - if I want to build something "on autopilot", an ARII VF-1 in fighter mode is a safe bet. The trigger was that I realized that I had, despite having built far more than twenty VF-1s so far, none of them carried a US Navy "low viz" paint scheme? No idea why this had slipped my attention - even though I had already built one in a USAF "Egypt One" scheme and a modified (non-transformable) VF-1D in a low contrast Keith Ferris splinter scheme with USN colors.

 

I dug out VF-1 fighter from the pile and built the kit mostly OOB - but with some detail updates. This time, the kit would receive an extended landing gear and an open canopy for ground display. Consequently, I added side consoles and a dashboard extension to the cockpit. On the wings, the slats and the flaps were lowered, but not extended, and for additional excitement I opened the spoilers on the wings - because their red interior would be a nice contrast to the overall grey aircraft (see below).

Characteristic blade antennae were added to the nose flanks and on the spine, and the pilot figure was only added for the beauty pics.

 

The ordnance was in part taken OOB, too, with six AMM-1 missiles on the outer pylons but an 1:100 AN/ALQ-131 ECM pod (from a Revell 1:100 A-10) and a single stand-off missile (an 1:144 AGM-86 ALCM, left over from an Academy B-1B kit, just mounted upside down) on the inner pair of pylons.

Even though the model would later stand on its own legs, I added the option to attach a display (my almost-patented wire construction that uses the OOB display base) to the back of the ventral gun pod.

  

Painting and markings:

I am not certain if the "Compass Ghost" paint scheme is actually canonical for the Macross universe - Hasegawa offered such a "low viz" VF-1 as an option in one of their fighter kits, but I haven't found any sign of a USN paint scheme in official source material, except for some all light-grey Battroids that do not look like a "Compass Ghost" aircraft/mecha. After 2009, many VF-1s were officially painted in a low-viz scheme - but this would rather be an overall FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey) livery with full color markings than a totally subdued multi-grey paint scheme?

 

However, I found the idea plausible, and also took it as a challenge. Consequently, the aircraft was painted in typical USN colors: FS 36320 (Dark Compass Ghost Grey) from Modelmaster on the upper surfaces and FS 36375 (Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 127) from below. The area around the cockpit was painted with FS 35237 (Grey Blue, Humbrol 145), inspired by USN F-14 Tomcats, as well as the head unit.

Air intakes, the gun pod and some details were painted with Revell 77 (RAL 7012), the land gear was painted glossy white. The cockpit was held in standard colors, with medium gray interior, a black ejection seat and reddish brown upholstery and brown "black boxes". As a stark contrast to the all-grey exterior, I painted the interior of the spoilers on the wings in bright red (Revell 330, RAL 3000 Feuerrot) and added thin red decal strips to the lowered slats, too.

 

Many markings like the roundels and the modex' were designed and printed on clear decal sheet with an inkjet printer, and any other bright marking was replaced with grey alternatives from the decal scrap box. The lightning markings on the fins come belong to a Malaysian MiG-29, taken from a Begemot sheet. All in all I wanted a very "dry" and subdued look, with only the ordnance not being light bluish grey.

 

Once painted the kit received a light black ink wash and the engraved panel lines were traced with a very soft pencil, with some additional thin panel lines and details. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

I guess that I might be able to build this kit blindfolded, and the whole affair was completed in just three days, since the paint scheme itself was not complex. The result is interesting, though, and a nice contrast to the normally very bright and colorful VF-1s in my collection.

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).

 

The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.

 

The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties, which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.

The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

The versatile aircraft also underwent constant upgrade programs, leading to improved versions like the VF-1N and P. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards, placed in a streamlined fairing on the upper side of the nose, just in front of the cockpit. This system allowed for long-range search and track modes, freeing the pilot from the need to give away his position with active radar emissions, and it could also be used for target illumination and guiding precision weapons.

Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECM measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

A limited number of machines was also, when the type was replaced in the fighter units by the VF-4, handed over to U.N.S.A.F. units and modified into fighter bombers for the exclusive use within Earth's atmosphere, intended as a supplement to the dedicated VFA-1 ground attack Valkyrie variant. The machine’s prime task would be to attack and neutralize potential invaders’ landing vehicles, plus general close air support for ground troops and battlefield interdiction missions.

This conversion included structural reinforcements and additional weapon hardpoints under the air intakes, improved avionics as well as active and passive sensor systems from the VF-1P in a modified head unit with two laser cannon. These revamped aircraft received an "a" suffix (Alpha for attack, the Greek letter was chosen in order to avoid confusion with the widespread standard VF-1A variant and VF-1JA updates) to their original designation. Roundabout 120 VF-1s, mostly VF-1As, -Ns and a few -Js were converted to the a-standard between 2017 and 2019 and served at air bases in Africa, Northern America and Australia until 2032.

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters in several variants.

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

  

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.Spacy Marines

 

Accommodation:

Single pilot in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

 

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

 

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip);

 

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

2x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min

4x underwing and 2x underfuselage hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including:

- 12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

- 12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

- 6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

- 4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

- or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another build of one of these vintage ARII kits, primarily for the (fictional) livery. This one was inspired by a profile found in a source book (the "VF-1 Master File" from Softbank Publishing), where I found a profile of a late VF-1P from 2024 in a pale, three-tone desert paint scheme, similar to an IDF aircraft, with some white trim on the wings and a white radome. While this machine basically looked attractive, I was a little confused by its supposed operation theatre: Australia. There, over a typical outback landscape, the paint scheme would IMHO hardly work, the tones being much too light and just "wrong". From this, the idea was born to create a "Valkyroo"!

 

Since the model would rather center around the paint scheme, the VF-1, an “S” variant kit, remained basically OOB. Nevertheless, it received some standard mods and some extras. The basic updates include some additional blade antennae (leaving out the dorsal antennae for a Block 13/14 aircraft), a pilot figure and a modified dashboard. This time the VF-1 would have its landing gear extended, but the ventral gun pod was nevertheless modified to accept one of my home-made VF-1 standard display stands for in-flight beauty pics over the Australian desert.

 

Since the machine would, in its wraparound paint scheme, rather look like a low-level fighter bomber and mud mover, the ordnance was changed from a dozen AMM-1 air-to-air missiles to something grittier. I gave the kit a pair of GBUs on the inner wing stations, which are Paveway bombs from an 1:72 Hasegawa ordnance set, but modified into optically-guided weapons since the original laser sensor with its ring-shaped stabilizer would be quite large at 1:100.

On the outer pylons the VF-1 received four streamlined pods with unguided missiles, left over from KP MiG-21s which are pretty small and slender for their 1:72 scale. Under the 1:100 VF-1 they work well.

I furthermore gave it another pair of hardpoints under the air intakes, holding an ECM and a FLIR pod (both from a Dragon 1:144 RAF Tornado GR.1, the FLIR is a reversed chaff dispenser w/o fins). That’s not canonical, but this one here is fictional, anyway.

 

On the legs, small chaff/flare dispensers made from styrene strips were added, and small radar warning fairings adorn the nose and the tail. Thin styrene profile strips were added on the legs and the fins, for a little more external structure, and a small laser range finder fairing was mounted under the VF-1’s nose (also from the 1:144 Tonka).

In order to emphasize this Valkyrie's updated and modified status, I modified the horribly misshaped “S” head unit, lowering and narrowing the cranium’s rear part and reducing the number of lasers from four to just two. For the in-flight pictures a pilot figure was added to the cockpit, which also had the dashboard extended downwards to the console between the pilot’s feet.

  

Painting and markings:

The goal was to apply an effective (and potentially) attractive paint scheme that would be appropriate for the Australian desert/outback landscape, with its distinct red sand, low, pale shrubs and occasional dark rocks and trees. I checked both RAAF schemes as well as landscape pictures, and eventually created a four-tone wraparound scheme, somewhat inspired by unique RAAF DHC-4s and Pilatus Porter transporter liveries, as well as the SAC bomber scheme that was/is used on RAAF C-130. The US Army MERCD scheme also has some influence. However, the result is not a copy of an existing scheme, the scheme rather evolved gradually – even though, once it was done, it somewhat reminds of the famous Swedish “Fields & Meadows” pattern, just with lighter colors, even though this was not intended!

 

Due to the model’s small size and the potentially bright Australian theatre of operation, I did not want the disruptive scheme to become too dark. Consequently, the wraparound scheme consists of four tones: splotches of Brown Yellow (Humbrol 94) and IJN Grey Green (Tamiya XF-76), two tones with similar brightness, are the basis. Next came a medium red brown (Leather, Humbrol 62) and finally some Bronze Green (Humbrol 75), the latter intended to break up the aircraft's silhouette through a strong color contrast.

For a subtle counter-shading effect against the sky, relatively more of the Sand and IJN Grey Green was used on the undersides and the dark green was not applied underneath at all. The radome, in order to set it slightly apart from the rest of the airframe, as well as some other dielectric fairings, were painted with Hemp (Humbrol 168).

 

The cockpit became standard medium grey (Humbrol 140) with a brown seat. The landing gear was painted in classic white, while the air intakes and some other openings were painted in dark grey (Revell 77).

 

In an attempt to further subdue the aircraft's overall visual profile, I avoided any flashy trim and rather went for monochrome markings in black. The low-viz U.N. Spacy “kite” roundels were created and printed at home. The eagle emblems on the fins belong, in real life, to an F-15E prototype (Italeri kit), the tactical codes were puzzled together from A-10 and T-4 decal sheets. Most characteristic VF-1 stencils come from the OOB sheet, some lines were created with generic decal material.

Due to the model’s small size, only some light, overall dry-brushing with hemp and light grey was done, and then the kit was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

 

A camouflaged VF-1 surely looks odd, esp. in desert colors, but there actually are several canonical aircraft painted in such a fashion, to be found in various official Macross publications - in fact, this model is the attempt to create a more plausible livery than one that I found in such a sourcebook. IMHO, the home-brew disruptive four-tone scheme for this "Valkyroo" VF-1 looks quite attractive, and thanks to the selected tones it also makes the subtle Australia connection. Those small Valkyrie kits never get boring, at least to me! :D

Some background:

The idea for a heavy infantry support vehicle capable of demolishing heavily defended buildings or fortified areas with a single shot came out of the experiences of the heavy urban fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. At the time, the Wehrmacht had only the Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B available for destroying buildings, a Sturmgeschütz III variant armed with a 15 cm sIG 33 heavy infantry gun. Twelve of them were lost in the fighting at Stalingrad. Its successor, the Sturmpanzer IV, also known by Allies as Brummbär, was in production from early 1943. This was essentially an improved version of the earlier design, mounting the same gun on the Panzer IV chassis with greatly improved armour protection.

 

While greatly improved compared to the earlier models, by this time infantry anti-tank weapons were improving dramatically, too, and the Wehrmacht still saw a need for a similar, but more heavily armoured and armed vehicle. Therefore, a decision was made to create a new vehicle based on the Tiger tank and arm it with a 210 mm howitzer. However, this weapon turned out not to be available at the time and was therefore replaced by a 380 mm rocket launcher, which was adapted from a Kriegsmarine depth charge launcher.

 

The 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 L/5.4 was a breech-loading barrel, which fired a short-range, rocket-propelled projectile roughly 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) long. The gun itself existed in two iterations at the time. One, the RaG 43 (Raketenabschuss-Gerät 43), was a ship-mounted anti-aircraft weapon used for firing a cable-spooled parachute-anchor creating a hazard for aircraft. The second, the RTG 38 (Raketen Tauch-Geschoss 38), was a land-based system, originally planned for use in coastal installations by the Kriegsmarine firing depth-charges against submarines with a range of about 3.000 m. For use in a vehicle, the RTG 38 was to find use as a demolition gun and had to be modified for that role. This modification work was carried out by Rheinmetall at their Sommerda works.

 

The design of the rocket system caused some problems. Modified for use in a vehicle, the recoil from the modified rocket-mortar was enormous, about 40-tonnes, and this meant that only a heavy chassis could be used to mount the gun. The hot rocket exhaust could not be vented into the fighting compartment nor could the barrel withstand the pressure if the gasses were not vented. Therefore, a ring of ventilation shafts was put around the barrel which channeled the exhaust and gave the weapon something of a pepperbox appearance.

 

The shells for the weapon were extremely heavy, far too heavy for a man to load manually. As a result, each of them had to be carried by means of a ceiling-mounted trolley from their rack to a roller-mounted tray at the breech. Once on the tray, four soldiers could then push it into the breech to load it. The whole process took 10 minutes per shot from loading, aiming, elevating and, finally, to firing.

There were a variety of rocket-assisted round types with a weight of up to 376 kg (829 lb), and a maximum range of up to 6,000 m (20,000 ft), which either contained a high explosive charge of 125 kg (276 lb) or a shaped charge for use against fortifications, which could penetrate up to 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) of reinforced concrete. The stated range of the former was 5,650 m (6,180 yd). A normal charge first accelerated the projectile to 45 m/s (150 ft/s) to leave the short, rifled barrel, the 40 kg (88 lb) rocket charge then boosted this to about 250 m/s (820 ft/s).

 

In September 1943 plans were made for Krupp to fabricate new Tiger I armored hulls for the Sturmtiger. The Tiger I hulls were to be sent to Henschel for chassis assembly and then to Alkett, where the superstructures would be mounted. The first prototype was ready and presented in October 1943. By May 1944, the Sturmtiger prototype had been kept busy with trials and firing tests for the development of range tables, but production had still not started yet and the concept was likely to be scrapped. Rather than ditch the idea though, orders were given that, instead of interrupting the production of the Tiger I, the Sturmtigers would be built on the chassis of Tiger I tanks which had already been in action and suffered serious damage. Twelve superstructures and RW 61 weapons were prepared and mounted on rebuilt Tiger I chassis. However, by August 1944 the dire need for this kind of vehicle led to the adaptation of another chassis to the 380 mm Sturmmörser: the SdKfz. 184, better known as “Ferdinand” (after its designer’s forename) and later, in an upgraded version, “Elefant”.

 

The Elefant (German for "elephant") was actually a heavy tank destroyer and the result of mismanagement and poor planning: Porsche GmbH had manufactured about 100 chassis for their unsuccessful proposal for the Tiger I tank, the so-called "Porsche Tiger". Both the successful Henschel proposal and the Porsche design used the same Krupp-designed turret—the Henschel design had its turret more-or-less centrally located on its hull, while the Porsche design placed the turret much closer to the front of the superstructure. Since the competing Henschel Tiger design was chosen for production, the Porsche chassis were no longer required for the Tiger tank project, and Porsche was left with 100 unfinished heavy tank hulls.

It was therefore decided that the Porsche chassis were to be used as the basis of a new heavy tank hunter, the Ferdinand, mounting Krupp's newly developed 88 mm (3.5 in) Panzerjägerkanone 43/2 (PaK 43) anti-tank gun with a new, long L71 barrel. This precise long-range weapon was intended to destroy enemy tanks before they came within their own range of effective fire, but in order to mount the very long and heavy weapon on the Porsche hull, its layout had to be completely redesigned.

 

Porsche’s SdKfz. 184’s unusual petrol-electric transmission made it much easier to relocate the engines than would be the case on a mechanical-transmission vehicle, since the engines could be mounted anywhere, and only the length of the power cables needed to be altered, as opposed to re-designing the driveshafts and locating the engines for the easiest routing of power shafts to the gearbox. Without the forward-mounted turret of the Porsche Tiger prototype, the twin engines were relocated to the front, where the turret had been, leaving room ahead of them for the driver and radio operator. As the engines were placed in the middle, the driver and the radio operator were isolated from the rest of the crew and could be addressed only by intercom. The now empty rear half of the hull was covered with a heavily armored, full five-sided casemate with slightly sloped upper faces and armored solid roof, and turned into a crew compartment, mounting a single 8.8 cm Pak 43 cannon in the forward face of the casemate.

 

From this readily available basis, the SdKfz. 184/1 was hurriedly developed. It differed from the tank hunter primarily through its new casemate that held the 380 mm Raketenwerfer. Since the SdKfz. 184/1 was intended for use in urban areas in close range street fighting, it needed to be heavily armoured to survive. Its front plate had a greater slope than the Ferdinand while the sides were more vertical and the roof was flat. Its sloped (at 47° from vertical) frontal casemate armor was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick, while its superstructure side and rear plates had a strength of 82 mm (3.2 in). The SdKfz.184/1 also received add-on armor of 100 mm thickness, bolted to the hull’s original vertical front plates, increasing the thickness to 200 mm but adding 5 tons of weight. All these measures pushed the weight of the vehicle up from the Ferdinand’s already bulky 65 t to 75 t, limiting the vehicle’s manoeuvrability even further. Located at the rear of the loading hatch was a Nahverteidigungswaffe launcher which was used for close defense against infantry with SMi 35 anti-personnel mines, even though smoke grenades or signal flares could be fired with the device in all directions, too. For close-range defense, a 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun was carried in a ball mount in the front plate, an addition that was introduced to the Elefant tank hunters, too, after the SdKfz. 184 had during its initial deployments turned out to be very vulnerable to infantry attacks.

 

Due to the size of the RW 61 and the bulkiness of the ammunition, only fourteen rounds could be carried internally, of which one was already loaded, with another stored in the loading tray, and the rest were carried in two storage racks, leaving only little space for the crew of four in the rear compartment. To help with the loading of ammunition into the vehicle, a loading crane was fitted at the rear of the superstructure next to the loading hatch on the roof.

Due to the internal limits and the tactical nature of the vehicle, it was intended that each SdKfz. 184/1 (as well as each Sturmtiger) would be accompanied by an ammunition carrier, typically based on the Panzer IV chassis, but the lack of resources did not make this possible. There were even plans to build a dedicated, heavily armored ammunition carrier on the Tiger I chassis, but only one such carrier was completed and tested, it never reached production status.

 

By the time the first RW 61 carriers had become available, Germany had lost the initiative, with the Wehrmacht being almost exclusively on the defensive rather than the offensive, and this new tactical situation significantly weakened the value of both Sturmtiger and Sturmelefant, how the SdKfz 184/1 was semi-officially baptized. Nevertheless, three new Panzer companies were raised to operate the Sturmpanzer types: Panzer Sturmmörser Kompanien (PzStuMrKp) ("Armored Assault Mortar Company") 1000, 1001 and 1002. These originally were supposed to be equipped with fourteen vehicles each, but this figure was later reduced to four each, divided into two platoons, consisting of mixed vehicle types – whatever was available and operational.

 

PzStuMrKp 1000 was raised on 13 August 1944 and fought during the Warsaw Uprising with two vehicles, as did the prototype in a separate action, which may have been the only time the Sturmtiger was used in its intended role. PzStuMrKp 1001 and 1002 followed in September and October. Both PzStuMrKp 1000 and 1001 served during the Ardennes Offensive, with a total of four Sturmtiger and three Sturmelefanten.

After this offensive, the Sturmpanzer were used in the defence of Germany, mainly on the Western Front. During the battle for the bridge at Remagen, German forces mobilized Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 (with a total of 7 vehicles, five Sturmtiger and two Sturmelefanten) to take part in the battle. The tanks were originally tasked with using their mortars against the bridge itself, though it was discovered that they lacked the accuracy needed to hit the bridge and cause significant damage with precise hits to vital structures. During this action, one of the Sturmtigers in Sturmmörserkompanie 1001 near Düren and Euskirchen allegedly hit a group of stationary Shermans tanks in a village with a 380mm round, resulting in nearly all the Shermans being put out of action and their crews killed or wounded - the only recorded tank-on-tank combat a Sturmtiger was ever engaged in. After the bridge fell to the Allies, Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 were tasked with bombardment of Allied forces to cover the German retreat, as opposed to the bunker busting for which they had originally been designed for. None was actually destroyed through enemy fire, but many vehicles had to be given up due to mechanical failures or the lack of fuel. Most were blown up by their crews, but a few fell into allied hands in an operational state.

 

Total production numbers of the SdKfz. 184/1 are uncertain but, being an emergency product and based on a limited chassis supply, the number of vehicles that left the Nibelungenwerke in Austria was no more than ten – also because the tank hunter conversion had top priority and the exotic RW 61 launcher was in very limited supply. As a consequence, only a total of 18 Sturmtiger had been finished by December 1945 and put into service, too. However, the 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 remained in production and was in early 1946 adapted to the new Einheitspanzer E-50/75 chassis.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Six (driver, radio operator/machine gunner in the front cabin,

commander, gunner, 2× loader in the casemate section)

Weight: 75 tons

Length: 7,05 m (23 ft 1½ in)

Width: 3,38 m (11 ft 1 in)

Height w/o crane: 3,02 m (9 ft 10¾ in)

Ground clearance: 1ft 6¾ in (48 cm)

Climbing: 2 ft 6½ in (78 cm)

Fording depth: 3 ft 3¼ (1m)

Trench crossing: 8 ft 7 ¾ in (2,64 m)

Suspension: Longitudinal torsion-bar

Fuel capacity: 1.050 liters

 

Armour:

62 to 200 mm (2.44 to 7.87 in)

 

Performance:

30 km/h (19 mph) on road

15 km/h (10 miles per hour () off road

Operational range: 150 km (93 mi) on road

90 km (56 mi) cross-country

Power/weight: 8 hp/ton

 

Engine:

2× Maybach HL120 TRM petrol engines with 300 PS (246 hp, 221 kW) each, powering…

2× Siemens-Schuckert D1495a 500 Volt electric engines with 320 PS (316 hp, 230 kW) each

 

Transmission:

Electric

 

Armament:

1x 380 mm RW 61 rocket launcher L/5.4 with 14 rounds

1x 7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 34 machine gun with 600 rounds

1x 100 mm grenade launcher (firing anti-personnel mines, smoke grenades or signal flares)

  

The kit and its assembly:.

This fictional tank model is not my own idea, it is rather based on a picture of a similar kitbashing of an Elefant with a Sturmtiger casemate and its massive missile launcher – even though it was a rather crude model, with a casemate created from cardboard. However, I found the idea charming, even more so because the Ferdinand/Elefant was rather a rolling bunker than an agile tank hunter, despite its powerful weapon. Why not use the same chassis as a carrier for the Sturmtiger’s huge mortar as an assault SPG?

 

The resulting Sturmelefant was created as a kitbashing: the chassis is an early boxing of the Trumpeter Elefant, which comes not only with IP track segments but also alternative vinyl tracks (later boxing do not feature them), and casemate parts come from a Trumpeter Sturmtiger.

While one would think that switching the casemate would be straightforward affair, the conversion turned out to be more complex than expected. Both Elefant and Sturmtiger come with separate casemate pieces, but they are not compatible. The Sturmtiger casemate is 2mm wider than the Elefant’s hull, and its glacis plate is deeper than the Elefant’s, leaving 4mm wide gaps at the sides and the rear. One option could have been to trim down the glacis plate, but I found the roofline to become much too low – and the casemate’s length would have been reduced.

 

So, I used the Sturmtiger casemate “as is” and filled the gaps with styrene sheet strips. This worked, but the casemate’s width created now inward-bent sections that looked unplausible. Nobody, even grazed German engineers, would not have neglected the laws of structural integrity. What to do? Tailoring the casemate’s sides down would have been one route, but this would have had created a strange shape. The alternative I chose was to widen the flanks of the Elefant’s hull underneath the casemate, which was achieved with tailored 0.5 mm styrene sheet panels and some PSR – possible through the Elefant’s simple shape and the mudguards that run along the vehicle’s flanks.

Some more PSR was necessary to blend the rear into a coherent shape and to fill a small gap at the glacis plate’s base. Putty was also used to fill/hide almost all openings on the glacis plate, since no driver sight or ball mount for a machine gun was necessary anymore. New bolts between hull and casemate were created with small drops of white glue. The rest of the surface details were taken from the respective donor kits.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice. A classic Hinterhalt scheme would have been a natural choice, but since the Sturmelefant would have been converted from existing hulls with new parts, I decided to emphasize this heritage through a simple, uniform livery: all Ferdinand elements would be painted/left in a uniform Dunkelgelb (RAL, 7028, Humbrol 83), while the new casemate as well as the bolted-on front armor were left in a red primer livery, in two different shades (Humbrol 70 and 113). This looked a little too simple for my taste, so that I eventually added snaky lines in Dunkelgelb onto the primer-painted sections, blurring the contrast between the two tones.

 

Markings remained minimal, just three German crosses on the flanks and at the rear and a tactical code on the casemate – the latter in black and in a hand-written style, as if the vehicle had been rushed into frontline service.

 

After the decals had been secured under sone varnish the model received an overall washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint, some dry-brushing with light grey and some rust traces, before it was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish and received some dirt stains with mixed watercolors and finally, after the tracks had been mounted, some artist pigments as physical dust on the lower areas.

  

Again a project that appeared simple but turned out to be more demanding because the parts would not fit as well as expected. The resulting bunker breaker looks plausible, less massive than the real Sturmtiger but still a menacing sight.

 

Some background:

The idea for a heavy infantry support vehicle capable of demolishing heavily defended buildings or fortified areas with a single shot came out of the experiences of the heavy urban fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. At the time, the Wehrmacht had only the Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B available for destroying buildings, a Sturmgeschütz III variant armed with a 15 cm sIG 33 heavy infantry gun. Twelve of them were lost in the fighting at Stalingrad. Its successor, the Sturmpanzer IV, also known by Allies as Brummbär, was in production from early 1943. This was essentially an improved version of the earlier design, mounting the same gun on the Panzer IV chassis with greatly improved armour protection.

 

While greatly improved compared to the earlier models, by this time infantry anti-tank weapons were improving dramatically, too, and the Wehrmacht still saw a need for a similar, but more heavily armoured and armed vehicle. Therefore, a decision was made to create a new vehicle based on the Tiger tank and arm it with a 210 mm howitzer. However, this weapon turned out not to be available at the time and was therefore replaced by a 380 mm rocket launcher, which was adapted from a Kriegsmarine depth charge launcher.

 

The 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 L/5.4 was a breech-loading barrel, which fired a short-range, rocket-propelled projectile roughly 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) long. The gun itself existed in two iterations at the time. One, the RaG 43 (Raketenabschuss-Gerät 43), was a ship-mounted anti-aircraft weapon used for firing a cable-spooled parachute-anchor creating a hazard for aircraft. The second, the RTG 38 (Raketen Tauch-Geschoss 38), was a land-based system, originally planned for use in coastal installations by the Kriegsmarine firing depth-charges against submarines with a range of about 3.000 m. For use in a vehicle, the RTG 38 was to find use as a demolition gun and had to be modified for that role. This modification work was carried out by Rheinmetall at their Sommerda works.

 

The design of the rocket system caused some problems. Modified for use in a vehicle, the recoil from the modified rocket-mortar was enormous, about 40-tonnes, and this meant that only a heavy chassis could be used to mount the gun. The hot rocket exhaust could not be vented into the fighting compartment nor could the barrel withstand the pressure if the gasses were not vented. Therefore, a ring of ventilation shafts was put around the barrel which channeled the exhaust and gave the weapon something of a pepperbox appearance.

 

The shells for the weapon were extremely heavy, far too heavy for a man to load manually. As a result, each of them had to be carried by means of a ceiling-mounted trolley from their rack to a roller-mounted tray at the breech. Once on the tray, four soldiers could then push it into the breech to load it. The whole process took 10 minutes per shot from loading, aiming, elevating and, finally, to firing.

There were a variety of rocket-assisted round types with a weight of up to 376 kg (829 lb), and a maximum range of up to 6,000 m (20,000 ft), which either contained a high explosive charge of 125 kg (276 lb) or a shaped charge for use against fortifications, which could penetrate up to 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) of reinforced concrete. The stated range of the former was 5,650 m (6,180 yd). A normal charge first accelerated the projectile to 45 m/s (150 ft/s) to leave the short, rifled barrel, the 40 kg (88 lb) rocket charge then boosted this to about 250 m/s (820 ft/s).

 

In September 1943 plans were made for Krupp to fabricate new Tiger I armored hulls for the Sturmtiger. The Tiger I hulls were to be sent to Henschel for chassis assembly and then to Alkett, where the superstructures would be mounted. The first prototype was ready and presented in October 1943. By May 1944, the Sturmtiger prototype had been kept busy with trials and firing tests for the development of range tables, but production had still not started yet and the concept was likely to be scrapped. Rather than ditch the idea though, orders were given that, instead of interrupting the production of the Tiger I, the Sturmtigers would be built on the chassis of Tiger I tanks which had already been in action and suffered serious damage. Twelve superstructures and RW 61 weapons were prepared and mounted on rebuilt Tiger I chassis. However, by August 1944 the dire need for this kind of vehicle led to the adaptation of another chassis to the 380 mm Sturmmörser: the SdKfz. 184, better known as “Ferdinand” (after its designer’s forename) and later, in an upgraded version, “Elefant”.

 

The Elefant (German for "elephant") was actually a heavy tank destroyer and the result of mismanagement and poor planning: Porsche GmbH had manufactured about 100 chassis for their unsuccessful proposal for the Tiger I tank, the so-called "Porsche Tiger". Both the successful Henschel proposal and the Porsche design used the same Krupp-designed turret—the Henschel design had its turret more-or-less centrally located on its hull, while the Porsche design placed the turret much closer to the front of the superstructure. Since the competing Henschel Tiger design was chosen for production, the Porsche chassis were no longer required for the Tiger tank project, and Porsche was left with 100 unfinished heavy tank hulls.

It was therefore decided that the Porsche chassis were to be used as the basis of a new heavy tank hunter, the Ferdinand, mounting Krupp's newly developed 88 mm (3.5 in) Panzerjägerkanone 43/2 (PaK 43) anti-tank gun with a new, long L71 barrel. This precise long-range weapon was intended to destroy enemy tanks before they came within their own range of effective fire, but in order to mount the very long and heavy weapon on the Porsche hull, its layout had to be completely redesigned.

 

Porsche’s SdKfz. 184’s unusual petrol-electric transmission made it much easier to relocate the engines than would be the case on a mechanical-transmission vehicle, since the engines could be mounted anywhere, and only the length of the power cables needed to be altered, as opposed to re-designing the driveshafts and locating the engines for the easiest routing of power shafts to the gearbox. Without the forward-mounted turret of the Porsche Tiger prototype, the twin engines were relocated to the front, where the turret had been, leaving room ahead of them for the driver and radio operator. As the engines were placed in the middle, the driver and the radio operator were isolated from the rest of the crew and could be addressed only by intercom. The now empty rear half of the hull was covered with a heavily armored, full five-sided casemate with slightly sloped upper faces and armored solid roof, and turned into a crew compartment, mounting a single 8.8 cm Pak 43 cannon in the forward face of the casemate.

 

From this readily available basis, the SdKfz. 184/1 was hurriedly developed. It differed from the tank hunter primarily through its new casemate that held the 380 mm Raketenwerfer. Since the SdKfz. 184/1 was intended for use in urban areas in close range street fighting, it needed to be heavily armoured to survive. Its front plate had a greater slope than the Ferdinand while the sides were more vertical and the roof was flat. Its sloped (at 47° from vertical) frontal casemate armor was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick, while its superstructure side and rear plates had a strength of 82 mm (3.2 in). The SdKfz.184/1 also received add-on armor of 100 mm thickness, bolted to the hull’s original vertical front plates, increasing the thickness to 200 mm but adding 5 tons of weight. All these measures pushed the weight of the vehicle up from the Ferdinand’s already bulky 65 t to 75 t, limiting the vehicle’s manoeuvrability even further. Located at the rear of the loading hatch was a Nahverteidigungswaffe launcher which was used for close defense against infantry with SMi 35 anti-personnel mines, even though smoke grenades or signal flares could be fired with the device in all directions, too. For close-range defense, a 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun was carried in a ball mount in the front plate, an addition that was introduced to the Elefant tank hunters, too, after the SdKfz. 184 had during its initial deployments turned out to be very vulnerable to infantry attacks.

 

Due to the size of the RW 61 and the bulkiness of the ammunition, only fourteen rounds could be carried internally, of which one was already loaded, with another stored in the loading tray, and the rest were carried in two storage racks, leaving only little space for the crew of four in the rear compartment. To help with the loading of ammunition into the vehicle, a loading crane was fitted at the rear of the superstructure next to the loading hatch on the roof.

Due to the internal limits and the tactical nature of the vehicle, it was intended that each SdKfz. 184/1 (as well as each Sturmtiger) would be accompanied by an ammunition carrier, typically based on the Panzer IV chassis, but the lack of resources did not make this possible. There were even plans to build a dedicated, heavily armored ammunition carrier on the Tiger I chassis, but only one such carrier was completed and tested, it never reached production status.

 

By the time the first RW 61 carriers had become available, Germany had lost the initiative, with the Wehrmacht being almost exclusively on the defensive rather than the offensive, and this new tactical situation significantly weakened the value of both Sturmtiger and Sturmelefant, how the SdKfz 184/1 was semi-officially baptized. Nevertheless, three new Panzer companies were raised to operate the Sturmpanzer types: Panzer Sturmmörser Kompanien (PzStuMrKp) ("Armored Assault Mortar Company") 1000, 1001 and 1002. These originally were supposed to be equipped with fourteen vehicles each, but this figure was later reduced to four each, divided into two platoons, consisting of mixed vehicle types – whatever was available and operational.

 

PzStuMrKp 1000 was raised on 13 August 1944 and fought during the Warsaw Uprising with two vehicles, as did the prototype in a separate action, which may have been the only time the Sturmtiger was used in its intended role. PzStuMrKp 1001 and 1002 followed in September and October. Both PzStuMrKp 1000 and 1001 served during the Ardennes Offensive, with a total of four Sturmtiger and three Sturmelefanten.

After this offensive, the Sturmpanzer were used in the defence of Germany, mainly on the Western Front. During the battle for the bridge at Remagen, German forces mobilized Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 (with a total of 7 vehicles, five Sturmtiger and two Sturmelefanten) to take part in the battle. The tanks were originally tasked with using their mortars against the bridge itself, though it was discovered that they lacked the accuracy needed to hit the bridge and cause significant damage with precise hits to vital structures. During this action, one of the Sturmtigers in Sturmmörserkompanie 1001 near Düren and Euskirchen allegedly hit a group of stationary Shermans tanks in a village with a 380mm round, resulting in nearly all the Shermans being put out of action and their crews killed or wounded - the only recorded tank-on-tank combat a Sturmtiger was ever engaged in. After the bridge fell to the Allies, Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 were tasked with bombardment of Allied forces to cover the German retreat, as opposed to the bunker busting for which they had originally been designed for. None was actually destroyed through enemy fire, but many vehicles had to be given up due to mechanical failures or the lack of fuel. Most were blown up by their crews, but a few fell into allied hands in an operational state.

 

Total production numbers of the SdKfz. 184/1 are uncertain but, being an emergency product and based on a limited chassis supply, the number of vehicles that left the Nibelungenwerke in Austria was no more than ten – also because the tank hunter conversion had top priority and the exotic RW 61 launcher was in very limited supply. As a consequence, only a total of 18 Sturmtiger had been finished by December 1945 and put into service, too. However, the 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 remained in production and was in early 1946 adapted to the new Einheitspanzer E-50/75 chassis.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Six (driver, radio operator/machine gunner in the front cabin,

commander, gunner, 2× loader in the casemate section)

Weight: 75 tons

Length: 7,05 m (23 ft 1½ in)

Width: 3,38 m (11 ft 1 in)

Height w/o crane: 3,02 m (9 ft 10¾ in)

Ground clearance: 1ft 6¾ in (48 cm)

Climbing: 2 ft 6½ in (78 cm)

Fording depth: 3 ft 3¼ (1m)

Trench crossing: 8 ft 7 ¾ in (2,64 m)

Suspension: Longitudinal torsion-bar

Fuel capacity: 1.050 liters

 

Armour:

62 to 200 mm (2.44 to 7.87 in)

 

Performance:

30 km/h (19 mph) on road

15 km/h (10 miles per hour () off road

Operational range: 150 km (93 mi) on road

90 km (56 mi) cross-country

Power/weight: 8 hp/ton

 

Engine:

2× Maybach HL120 TRM petrol engines with 300 PS (246 hp, 221 kW) each, powering…

2× Siemens-Schuckert D1495a 500 Volt electric engines with 320 PS (316 hp, 230 kW) each

 

Transmission:

Electric

 

Armament:

1x 380 mm RW 61 rocket launcher L/5.4 with 14 rounds

1x 7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 34 machine gun with 600 rounds

1x 100 mm grenade launcher (firing anti-personnel mines, smoke grenades or signal flares)

  

The kit and its assembly:.

This fictional tank model is not my own idea, it is rather based on a picture of a similar kitbashing of an Elefant with a Sturmtiger casemate and its massive missile launcher – even though it was a rather crude model, with a casemate created from cardboard. However, I found the idea charming, even more so because the Ferdinand/Elefant was rather a rolling bunker than an agile tank hunter, despite its powerful weapon. Why not use the same chassis as a carrier for the Sturmtiger’s huge mortar as an assault SPG?

 

The resulting Sturmelefant was created as a kitbashing: the chassis is an early boxing of the Trumpeter Elefant, which comes not only with IP track segments but also alternative vinyl tracks (later boxing do not feature them), and casemate parts come from a Trumpeter Sturmtiger.

While one would think that switching the casemate would be straightforward affair, the conversion turned out to be more complex than expected. Both Elefant and Sturmtiger come with separate casemate pieces, but they are not compatible. The Sturmtiger casemate is 2mm wider than the Elefant’s hull, and its glacis plate is deeper than the Elefant’s, leaving 4mm wide gaps at the sides and the rear. One option could have been to trim down the glacis plate, but I found the roofline to become much too low – and the casemate’s length would have been reduced.

 

So, I used the Sturmtiger casemate “as is” and filled the gaps with styrene sheet strips. This worked, but the casemate’s width created now inward-bent sections that looked unplausible. Nobody, even grazed German engineers, would not have neglected the laws of structural integrity. What to do? Tailoring the casemate’s sides down would have been one route, but this would have had created a strange shape. The alternative I chose was to widen the flanks of the Elefant’s hull underneath the casemate, which was achieved with tailored 0.5 mm styrene sheet panels and some PSR – possible through the Elefant’s simple shape and the mudguards that run along the vehicle’s flanks.

Some more PSR was necessary to blend the rear into a coherent shape and to fill a small gap at the glacis plate’s base. Putty was also used to fill/hide almost all openings on the glacis plate, since no driver sight or ball mount for a machine gun was necessary anymore. New bolts between hull and casemate were created with small drops of white glue. The rest of the surface details were taken from the respective donor kits.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice. A classic Hinterhalt scheme would have been a natural choice, but since the Sturmelefant would have been converted from existing hulls with new parts, I decided to emphasize this heritage through a simple, uniform livery: all Ferdinand elements would be painted/left in a uniform Dunkelgelb (RAL, 7028, Humbrol 83), while the new casemate as well as the bolted-on front armor were left in a red primer livery, in two different shades (Humbrol 70 and 113). This looked a little too simple for my taste, so that I eventually added snaky lines in Dunkelgelb onto the primer-painted sections, blurring the contrast between the two tones.

 

Markings remained minimal, just three German crosses on the flanks and at the rear and a tactical code on the casemate – the latter in black and in a hand-written style, as if the vehicle had been rushed into frontline service.

 

After the decals had been secured under sone varnish the model received an overall washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint, some dry-brushing with light grey and some rust traces, before it was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish and received some dirt stains with mixed watercolors and finally, after the tracks had been mounted, some artist pigments as physical dust on the lower areas.

  

Again a project that appeared simple but turned out to be more demanding because the parts would not fit as well as expected. The resulting bunker breaker looks plausible, less massive than the real Sturmtiger but still a menacing sight.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

After the Falklands War, Argentina was not only left with a much reduced aerial strike force – budget restraints, inner and external political pressure as well as delivery boycotts plagued the country for years in its efforts to rejuvenate the air force. Recent years were troublesome, too. In early 2005 the top seventeen brigadiers of the Air Force, including the Chief of Staff, Brigadier General Carlos Rohde, were sacked by President Néstor Kirchner following a scandal involving drug trafficking through Ezeiza International Airport. The primary concerns of the Air Force as of 2010 were the establishment of a radar network for control of the country's airspace, the replacement of its older combat aircraft (Mirage III, Mirage V) and the incorporation of new technologies. The possibility of purchasing surplus French Air Force Mirage 2000C fighters, like the option chosen by the Brazilian Air Force, had been considered.

 

As of 2010, budgetary constraints continued, leading to the disbanding of the Boeing 707 transport squadron and maintenance problems for half of the C-130 Hercules fleet. In August 2010 a contract was signed for two Mi-17E helicopters, plus an option on a further three, to support Antarctic bases. All the time, though, the FAA had been seeking to replace its ageing force with a more capable and more serviceable modern aircraft. Argentina’s Super Étendard fighters, which had been used to launch Exocet missiles in the 1980s and still served, come from France. Its Mirage III/ V/ “Nesher” fighters were originally bought second-hand from Israel and Peru, but they had deteriorated badly. Its A-4P Skyhawk models were originally sold to Argentina by the USA but phased out in 1999, the more modern A-4AR “Fightinghawks” were rebuilt and modernized ex USMC A-4Ms. What was left of those deliveries made up the bulk of the Argentinian jet fleet.

 

The acquisition of Spanish Mirage F1Ms, IAI Kfir Block 60s from Israel and Saab Gripen E/Fs from Sweden was considered, but all of those deals stalled, for various reasons. The Mirage F1 deal was scrapped by the Spanish government after pressure of the UK to not assist in FAA modernization over tensions between the countries over the Falkland Islands. The UK also managed to successfully veto the sale of Gripen E/Fs, as 30% of the Gripen's parts were manufactured there. British diplomacy furthermore worked to delay Argentina’s proposed Super Étendard modernization. To make matters worse, despite steadily worsening relations with Britain under the Obama administration, the USA would neither sell Argentina any jet fighters, nor supply spare parts or engines.

 

This only left Argentina with the original source for its Nesher/Dagger/Finger fighters as a reliable and (moreover) affordable option: Israel. The (realistic) object of desire was the successor of the Nesher, the Kfir, which entered service with the IAF in 1975. The Kfir was, like the Nesher, a Mirage III/V derivative, but a major improvement. Substantial structural changes had been made and IAI replaced the original Atar 9C of French origin with a more powerful J79 turbojet, which had been used at the time by IDF F-4 Phantom IIs of American origin, too. The Kfir received during its career progressive modifications to its airframe (in the form of canards which improved the fighter’s handling considerably), radar, electronics, and weapons, and these upgrades continued even after the Kfirs were retired from Israeli service in the late 1990s, on behalf of export customers like Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka.

 

The Kfir’s retirement in Israeli service led to a great number of surplus airframes with considerable flying hours left, so that the Kfir C.10/Block 60, a dedicated export variant with many updates, was developed on their basis and offered to foreign customers. These machines carried modern multi-mode radars and electronics on par with contemporary F-16 Block 40/50s, giving them the ability to use beyond visual range aerial weapons, advanced short range AAMs, and a variety of precision strike weapons. However, it would take a brave Kfir pilot to face a Eurofighter Typhoon in single combat… even so, the late an updated Kfirs were capable and redoubtable fighters.

Their combat radius was a bit short, though, due to the thirsty and somewhat outdated J79 engine, but their aerial refueling capability compensated for this flaw and made them well-suited to intimidation and presence patrols. The Kfir’s relatively small price tag made it, despite the airframe’s overall age, very attractive for small nations with limited defense budgets – and consequently it attained Argentinian interest.

 

Argentinian negotiations went so far that Israel not only agreed to sell 18 revamped Kfir fighters from ex-IDF overstock, IAI also offered to adapt the airframes to a different engine, the French Atar 9K-50 afterburning turbojet, which were not part of the deal, though. This appeared like a backward roll, since the Kfir was originally constructed to replace the French Atar 9C with the American J79 in Israel’s Mirage III/V copy – but this move was the only way to provide Argentina with a suitable engine that was freely available on the Western world market without British or American bans and interventions.

 

The result of this deal became the so-called Kfir C.9, even though this was just an internal designation at IAI and never officially adopted in order to avoid political problems. In the course of 2013 and 2014, the engine-less Kfir airframes were delivered as knocked-down kits via ship to Argentina. At Argentina’s nationalized aircraft manufacturer Fábrica Argentina de Aviones SA (FAdeA) in Córdoba they were mated with the new engines, imported separately from France, and equipped with imported and domestic avionics. In Argentinian service and to the public, the aircraft became known as FAdeA “IA-96A” and was, keeping up the FAA’s tradition to christen its fleet of various Mirage III derivatives after domestic animals, called “Quique” (lesser grison).

 

The IA-96A/Kfir C.9 was specifically tailored to the Argentinian needs and restrictions. Despite wishes to buy Kfirs according to the more versatile and capable C.10 export standard with a modern Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar, Argentina’s highly limited defense budget and other equipment constraints imposed by foreign suppliers and governments only allowed the procurement of what basically was a re-engined Kfir C.7 with some minor updates.

In contrast to the Kfir C.10, the older C.7 was only outfitted with the Elta EL/M-2021B radar. This was a multi-mode radar, too, which still offered air-to-air and air-to-surface capability, but it was less powerful than the C.10 standard and offered only a relatively short range of max. 46 mi/74 km.

Like the Israeli C.7, the C.9 had inflight refueling capability through a fixed but removable probe, and it featured a HOTAS-configured cockpit. Individual updates were a new, frameless wrap-around windshield for a better field of view, two 127×177mm MFDs in the cockpit, full HMD capability, a simple TAV38 laser rangefinder in a small fairing under nose, and improved avionics to deploy state-of-the-art guided weapons of Israeli and French origin (see below).

 

Outwardly, the C.9’s biggest difference to the original C.7 configuration – even though it was not very obvious – was the modified rear fuselage, which had to be changed in order to cover the longer and more slender Atar 9K-50 engine and its afterburner. In fact, the original IAI Nesher blueprints and toolings had been dusted off and used to produce these new parts.

Since the lighter Atar 9K-50 would not need the J79’s extra cooling and had a lower air mass flow, the Kfir’s characteristic auxiliary air intake at the fin’s root as well as several prominent air scoops along the fuselage disappeared, giving the aircraft a more streamlined look. As a positive side effect, this measure, together with the slimmer fuselage, improved aerodynamics, compensating for the slight reduction of overall thrust through the engine swap, and the longer fuselage made the aircraft directionally more stable, so that no fin fillet was necessary anymore. With the resulting short fin, the IA-96’s profile resembled that of the South African Atlas Cheetah E a lot, even though the latter were modernized Mirage IIIs and not converted IAI Kfirs. Compared with the Kfir C.7, top speed and service ceiling were slightly reduced, but the Atar 9K-50 consumed considerably less fuel, so that the unrefueled range of the short-legged Kfir with its thirsty J79 was markedly improved. The new engine was furthermore more responsive, so that overall performance and agility of the IA-96A remained on par with the Kfir or became even slightly better.

 

Beyond the aircraft order, Argentina also procured a modernized weapon arsenal from Israel for its new multi-role fighter generation. This included an undisclosed number of Derby medium range air-to-air missiles with an active-radar seeker, BVR capability and a range of 28 mi (45 km), Gabriel III anti-ship missiles with fire-and-forget capabilities and a range of more than 40 mi (60 km), as well as Griffin LGB guidance sets that could be added to various standard iron and cluster bombs. Furthermore, ten second-hand Thomson-CSF ATLIS II laser/electro-optical targeting pods were procured from France. Even though these pods lacked FLIR capabilities and were limited to being primarily a daylight/clear-weather system, they gave the Quique, in combination with the Griffin LGBs, full precision strike capability, esp. against ship targets – a clear political statement into the British direction.

 

The Quique fleet was supposed to replace all the older FAA types. With the roll-out of the first IA-96A in early 2015, all vintage FAA Mirages were officially decommissioned in November of the same year. Furthermore, all FAA’s A-4 Skyhawks were grounded as of January 2016, too (also for the lack of spares), even though a handful A-4ARs remained airworthy as a reserve and the rest in storage. Quique deliveries ended in September 2017 with the eighteenth machine, and all of them were allocated to FAA’s Grupo 5 de Caza at Villa Reynolds, 200 km (125 ml) in the South of Córdoba, where they had been assembled. However, since becoming operational, the aircraft were frequently deployed to other Argentinian air bases, including El Plumerillo Military Air Base in the Mendoza Province at the Chilean border and Rio Gallegos in Patagonia, in reach of the Malvinas/Falklands Islands.

 

If future budgets allow it, ten more IA-96A/Kfir C.9 might be ordered soon in order to replace the Argentinian Navy’s vintage Super Étendard fleet (which has been, since the decommissioning of ARA Veinticinco de Mayo in the late Eighties, land-based, anyway). The acquisition of four to six two-seaters, also modernized ex-IDF aircraft following the IA-96A pattern, with full attack capability and tentatively designated IA-96B, has been under consideration, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.65 m (51 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 8.22 m (27 ft 0 in)

Height: 4.55 m (14 ft 11 in)

Wing area: 34.8 m² (375 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,285 kg (16,061 lb)

Gross weight: 11,603 kg (25,580 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,200 kg (35,715 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× SNECMA Atar 9K50C-11 afterburning turbojet engine,

49.2 kN (11,100 lbf) dry thrust and 70.6 kN (15,900 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,350 km/h (1,460 mph, 1,270 kn) / Mach 2.2 at high altitude

1,390 km/h (860 mph; 750 kn) at sea level

Combat range: 1,300 km (810 mi, 700 nmi), clean, with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 2,600 km (1,600 mi, 1,400 nmi) w. three 1,300 l (340 US gal; 290 imp gal) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 17,000 m (56,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 233 m/s (45,900 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2× Rafael-built 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 553 cannon with 140 RPG

Nine external hardpoints for a maximum payload of 5,775 kg (12,732 lb) and a wide range of ordnance, including bombs such as the Mark 80 series, unguided air-to-ground rocket pods, Paveway and Griffin series of LGBs, guided air-to-ground missiles like the AGM-65 Maverick, and AIM-9 Sidewinders, Shafrir/Python/Derby-series AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This what-if model was inspired by a short entry about the IAI Kfir I had found at Wikipedia: a proposed C.9 variant for Argentina, as a revamped and re-engined C.7, even though the entry lacked any further details and I was not able to dig anything about the C.9 up in the WWW. However, I tried to interpret this scarce basis and deduct a model from it, because the story was/is so good. Having recently read a lot about the Argentinian Mirage III/Nesher fleet and the Malvinas/Falklands conflict helped a lot, too. With many import limitations imposed by Great Britain and the USA as well as Argentina’s highly restricted budget, I eventually settled upon the idea of a rather simple, re-engined Kfir of C.7 standard, so that outwardly not much had to be changed – a better radar would have been desirable (Block 60 standard), but I’d assume that this would not have been possible with Argentina’s highly limited funds that already prevented updates to the existing and rather vintage (if not outdated) aircraft fleet.

 

The basis for the model is a Hasegawa Kfir, which I bought without box (and it turned it to lack the dashboard). The Hasegawa Kfir is a C.2 and the model is very similar to the Italeri kit (a C.7, but it is virtually identical), but it has a much better fit, goes together more easily and calls for considerably less PSR. As another bonus, the Hasegawa kit comes with a wider range of ordnance and also has the construction benefit of a connecting ventral “floor”, which makes the fuselage more stable and therefor suitable for my modification (see below).

 

The different engine for the C.9 variant was the biggest challenge – the Kfir’s rear fuselage is wider and shorter than the Mirage III’s with the Atar engine. These are just subtle differences at 1:72 scale, but not easy to realize: I needed a completely new rear fuselage! As a convenient solution, I dug out a PM Model Nesher (which is no Nesher at all, just a poor Mirage III at best) from the donor bank and let the saw sing. This kit is horrible in many ways (really, stay away!), but it’s tail section and the jet nozzle, pimped with an afterburner interior, were acceptable as conversion fodder.

 

Blending the (crappy!) Mirage III parts into the crisp Hasegawa Kfir took some serious PSR, though, including the need to fill 3mm wide gaps along the delta wing roots and bridging disparate fuselage shapes and diameters at the implant’s intersections. The Kfir’s fin was re-transplanted and lost its characteristic auxiliary air intake for the J79 engine, so that the profile became more Mirage III/V-esque. Due to the longer afterburner section, the brake parachute fairing had to be extended, too. The longer (just 3-4mm), more slender tail section and the cleaner fin change the Kfir’s look markedly – for the better, IMHO, and the model could also depict an Atlas Cheetah E!

 

Further minor mods include an in-flight refueling receptacle, scratched from wire and white glue for the tip, the modified windshield (the OOB part was simply sanded smooth and polished back again to transparency) and the ordnance; the Gabriel ASMs were created on the basis of a photograph, and they once were AIM-54 Phoenix AAMs from a Matchbox F-14, modified with new wings, a blunted tip and a pitot made from thin wire. Their pylons were once parts of F-14 wing root pylons from an Italeri F-14, with launch rails made from styrene profiles. The Derby AAMs are heavily modified Matchbox Sidewinders with an extended, pointed tip, mounted onto the OOB pylons. The ventral drop tank comes from the Hasegawa kit.

  

Painting and markings:

This was quite a challenge, because I wanted to apply something modern and plausible, yet avoid standard paint schemes. In fact, a realistic Argentinian Kfir C.9 from the late 2010s would probably have been painted in an overall pale grey or in two pale shades of grey with little contrast (as applied to the very late Mirage IIIs and the A-4ARs), with subdued low-viz markings and no roundels at all. I found this boring, but I also did not want to apply a retro SEA scheme, as used on the Nesher/Dagger/Finger during the Falklands War.

 

After turning over many options in my mind, I settled upon a two-tone grey livery, somewhat of a compromise between air superiority and attack operations, esp. over open water. The pattern was inspired by the livery of late Turkish RF-4Es, which were supposed to be painted in FS 36118 over an FS 36270 (or 36375, sources are contradictive and pictures inconclusive) overall base with a rising waterline towards the rear and the light undersides color spilling over to the wings’ upper surfaces. This scheme is simple, but looks pretty interesting, breaks up the aircraft’s outlines effectively, and it could be easily adapted to the delta-wing Kfir.

However, I changed two details in favor of an IMHO better camouflage effect at height. Firstly, the fin’s upper section was painted in the light grey (it’s all dark grey on the Turkish Phantoms), what IMHO reduces the strong contrast against the sky and the horizon. For a similar reason I secondly raised the underside’s light grey waterline towards the nose, so that the upper dark grey area became an integral anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen and the aircraft show less contrast from a frontal point of view. On the Turkish F-4s, the dark grey slopes downwards for a wrap-around area directly behind the radome.

 

I used Humbrol 125 (FS 36118, a pretty bluish interpretation of “Gunship Gray”) and 126 (FS 36270, US Medium Grey) as basic colors. The Gunship Gray was, after a light washing with black ink, post-shaded with FS 35164 (Humbrol 144), giving the dark grey an even more bluish hue, while the Medium Grey was treated with FS 36320.

The cockpit was painted in Camouflage Grey (Humbrol 156), the landing gear with the wells as well as the air intake ducts in standard gloss white (Humbrol 22). The Derby AAMs became light grey (Humbrol 127) with a beige radome tip, while the Gabriel ASM received a multi-color livery in black, white and light grey.

 

Decals and markings are purely fictional - as mentioned above, I’d assume that a real-world FAA Kfir would these days only carry minimal national markings in the form of a simple fin flash, no roundels at all and just a tiny tactical code (if at all), and everything toned-down or black. However, I wanted the model to be identified more easily, so I added some more markings, including small but full-color FAA roundels on fuselage and wings as well as full-color fin flashes, all procured from an Airfix Pucará sheet. The “Fuerza Aérea Argentina” inscription on the nose came from a Colorado Decals Mirage III/V sheet. The tactical code was taken from an Airfix sheet for an Argentinian Mirage III – it’s actually “I-016”, just turned upside down for a (much) higher/later number. 😉

 

After shading effects, the model only received little weathering in the form of graphite around the jet nozzle and the guns under the air intakes. Then it was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

In the end a rather subtle conversion – even though the different rear fuselage was a major PSR stunt! The most obvious modification is probably the intake-less fin? The transplanted, different rear fuselage is hard to recognize and only true Mirage/Kfir experts might tell the changes – or the model is directly mistaken for a Mirage V fighter bomber? And even though the model carries a grey-in-grey scheme which I originally wanted to avoid, I think that the bluish touch and the integral, wavy pattern still look interesting?

However, I also like the story behind this whif that has real life roots – the real Kfir C.9 just failed to materialize because of lack of funding, and its introduction would certainly have had severe consequences for the unstable Argentinian-British relationships, since this capable aircraft would certainly pose a serious threat to the shaky peace in the Southern Atlantic and have stirred up the more or less dormant Falklands/Malvinas conflict again.

The soft hum of Jefferson Airplane’s melodic, acoustic instrumental song, Embryonic Journey, surfs on the spaces of air reserved for sound in my room. I have always figured Grace Slick’s tremendous voice to be capable of providing a gentle anthem for my ruminations and reflections. Some of my finest musings came from a comparable scene: a dark and open room filled with flickering light and jumping shadows which have been discarded by the atomic tangerine flames wavering in the fireplace beside me. The flames pop and jump, dancing to songs like Today or Comin’ Back to Me. Sometimes I wonder if the fire is listening to the words of the songs, the romantic strums of the guitar, or the beating drum. The fire is very much alive, as are the eroding mountains, the bleeding sandstone walls, the gliding and wild running rivers, the unbreakable rocks sleeping on the valley floors and the accumulating snow in the higher elevations.

The desert air is daubed with a frigid shade of winter tonight. Maybe my memory has been selectively blurred by four years of patient study through countless textbooks, for I recall much warmer winter air blanketing the southwest landscape this time of year. Nevertheless, wintertime has arrived with a rush of brittle air and frosty temperatures across the American desert lands. Paralleling the winter season is the holiday season. From Hanukah to Christmas, Kwanza, Boxing Day, and even the Earth’s Winter Solstice, the shifting weather always seems to be enough reason to bring families together for large meals, gifts, and holiday cheer. We have a small and very untraditional family. At the end of the day it is just Greg, me, and little Miss Charlotte. Our extended families are spread from Oregon to Wisconsin, Texas, and even back East in Massachusetts. We typically spend the holiday season on the road, in the wild, with cameras, tents, and sleeping bags, but this year the weather required warmer lodging. The world is so much more discreet in the winter. The parks are not full; the roads in the higher elevations, those that are away from ski resorts and public commons, are typically empty. It is much more possible to be alone in a winter landscape in the Southwest than any other time of year. Our small trio requires silence and solitude—the nutrients of our souls. Fittingly so, this holiday season we escaped the city in search of that peaceful silence that our spirits were craving.

We had no set destination. No determined or mapped out places. We spent a day cooking and dehydrating foods for the journey, packing winter clothing snow boots, camera gear and writing equipment. We looked at weather maps and forecasts without a decision of where to go. The following morning, on Christmas Eve, I folded a bronzed cashmere blanket around the floor of our miniature schnauzer’s dog kennel, grabbed her leash, and fastened her collar. Hester is a salt and pepper colored schnauzer. She’s a little over a year old and a terrifically happy puppy that loves to hike, travel, and run up and down sandstone canyons and mountain trails. She quickly made her way into the grey box where she travels. Greg positioned her in the backseat of the car, next to Charlotte. He secured the door and we sat in our own chairs, buckled seat belts, and then backed the car out of the garage. As we sat parked in the driveway, watching the garage door slowly seal the open air away from our home, Greg looked to me and asked, “Where are we heading?” I sat for a moment, thinking of the weather, our two young companions, and the time we had set aside for the trip and replied, “Utah. Let’s go to Utah”. Greg flashed his charming smile and backed out of the driveway. And as simple as that we were on our way.

The highway led us through a maze of holiday shoppers and travelers. Las Vegas was bleeding with anxieties. Drivers flushed their rage by honking and screaming at one another, a far cry from the holiday cheer everyone talks about this time of year. On any average day there are about a hundred thousand or more tourists in the city. Yearly, about forty million visitors come to see the glitter in the Mojave. The holiday season sees a rush of travelers that pile in to this desert valley in such large amounts that on New Year’s Eve the strip is closed off to allow only foot traffic. Las Vegas is the glittering land of consumerism. Everything in this city is designed for the purchaser: the lavish restaurants and casinos, the shimmering lights of the strip that sing a song to visitors, asking them for coins and dollars or swipes of whatever type of plastic they have tucked away in their wallets. “Buy. Buy. Buy.” it sings. More money flows in this city during the course of half an hour than most people make in a year. You can find almost anything you could ever need or desire in this intensifying metropolis. Even dreams. Dreams are for sale in Las Vegas. With a simple bet and the ensuing pull of a lever it is possible, or so we are taught to think, to win a better life. That better life opens the door to more money which equates to more consumption and thus higher rates of environmental degradation.

In an over-consumption culture, we seem to always overlook the connection of how our purchasing behavior and choices impact the world around us. According to National Geographic writer Hillary Mayell, “Approximately 1.7 billion people worldwide now belong to the “consumer class” –the group of people characterized by diets of highly processed food, desire for bigger houses, more and bigger cars, higher levels of debt, and lifestyles devoted to the accumulation of non-essential goods” (Mayell). As hard as it may be while living in an unsustainable city like Las Vegas, Greg and I strive to have sustainable living practices as much as possible. Fittingly so, this is one reason we rarely participate in the consumerism that gridlocks shopping malls and stores this time of year. Instead of spending hours in checkout lines, we find ourselves desperately seeking an escape from the reminder of how materialistic, acquisitive, and unsustainable our species continues to become. As shoppers raced to malls in search of last minute gifts, we were quickly racing out of the valley, leaving behind Las Vegas and the hectic urgency of Sin City.

We drove over four hours, breaking away from society like prisoners absconding. We entered Utah and began our climb into the higher elevations. The temperature gauge on the dash slowly dipped below freezing as we ascended into the mountains. Rural Utah existed outside of my car window, flashing by with each stretch of mile, showcasing quaint and warm homes with smoke billowing out of the chimneys. Small stores were dark and flashed the word “CLOSED” in bright red lights, reminding travelers that consumerism was not as important as quiet time with family. There are still stores that close on Christmas Eve. Yes, they do exist. These places rightfully relieve employees of their occupational duties, encouraging them to embrace loved ones without interruption. They forego the monetary gains of staying open—gains achieved to promote over-consumption and quench the thirst of the hungry shopper.

Greg and I discussed the relationship between story and sense of place as we drove through the countryside. Words are some of the most powerful tools we have in our human arsenal. More authoritative than any weapon ever created, words have the unique and contrasting ability to create peace and war. You see, we can sew them together to form the quilted patterns of oral and written narratives. They can facilitate others to understand the senses of place that are described in stories. Oral narratives existed long before written history tracked the patriarchal dominance of man over nature. Words have always been used by humans to communicate significant events, relationships between humans, and the significance of understanding the interconnectedness of all life forms. Ralph Waldo Emerson understood the significance of reflection and words. He said, “A man's power to connect his thought with its proper symbol, and so to utter it, depends on the simplicity of his character, that is, upon his love of truth, and his desire to communicate it without loss.” Thus we use our words to communicate the veracity of the natural world and in our photographic quest Greg and I seek to pair this truth with visual evidence to underline the significance of conservation, sustainability, and systems thinking. Storytelling is a gentle art that enlivens the land and forces each of us to acknowledge our roles in helping sustain it.

 

The fire sitting next to me as I sit here this evening, writing this text, is just as alive as I am. It breathes and moves, dancing in the dark shadows of the evening. Its life is commanded by the availability of oxygen much like my own. Without oxygen we both die. It sustains us. Though we take different forms, me in my human body and fire in its ethereal and fluid figure, we are the same; two dependent life forms existing because of something else. My ancestors in the Muscogee Creek tribe explained the significance of fire through story. Their tale describes how the tribe enlisted the help of brave Rabbit to bring fire to their people.

Fire was sent by Thunderbirds, through lightning, to a tree, on an island, filled with Weasels. The Weasels were stingy with the fire and refused to give it to any other animal. Their island was surrounded by water too deep for people to cross. The humans sat on their land watching the smoke rise from the Sycamore tree which caught the first sparks from the lightning. It was wintertime and the tribe suffered greatly from the cold. They spoke to the other animals around them, asking for support and aid in their quest to obtain fire from the Weasels. Knowing the violent nature of the Weasel, only one animal rose to the occasion. Rabbit was brave. He could swim and run faster than the Weasels and he recognized how his skills in dancing would be able to allow him to join the weasels in their nightly ritual of fire and dance. He covered himself in the sticky material produced by pine wood and quickly swam to the Weasel’s island. The Weasels welcomed the Rabbit and his beautiful gift of dance by dancing around a huge fire. As they danced around the fire, the Weasel’s would approach the fire, bow, and then back away from it. The eager Weasel’s beckoned the Rabbit to lead them in the dance and he followed suit, leading the ritualized movement, coming closer to the fire. Rabbit bowed low as he got close to the fire and suddenly the pine tar on his hair exploded in flames. He escaped with the fire clinging to his head. The Weasel’s realized that they had been tricked and angrily chased after him but the Rabbit was too quick. He outran them and then jumped in the water, swimming his way to the people with his head on fire. Furiously the Weasels summoned the Thunderbirds to bring rain so the fire stole fire would be killed. The Thunderbirds answered the call and spread rain upon the Earth for three days. Rabbit protected the fire from the rain by building a fire in the embrace of an old hollow tree. After the rain ceased he brought the fire to the people. From then forward the Creeks housed fire in their homes when it rained. They protected the fire’s life much like the fire guarded them from the cold.

Stories can show us the significance of life and the importance of understanding how things like fire and mountains, valleys, and rivers sustain us and the responsibilities we have to protect them from harm. We are interconnected with everything around us. The landscapes that flashed by my window as we drove that cold night, the rivers we crossed, the snowflakes that began to fall silently against the lonely road before us. Everything is connected you see. Our journey into the cold winter countryside of southern Utah was intent on reminding us of that connection. I told the story of the Rabbit and Fire to Charlotte during our drive. She likes stories and always fills journals with many of her own creations. Storytelling has been a part of our family since long before she or I were ever born and it is something we attempt to continue in our own way.

As we turned down the road to Bryce Canyon National Park, the sun was coming to a rest on the Western horizon. We pulled into Ruby’s Inn, a nice old lodge located outside Bryce Canyon National Park and look around at the empty surrounding area. Stores and most of the hotels in the area were closed for the season. The quiet of the park was appreciated and paired well with the cold airs of winter that chilled the upper elevations. The first few flakes of a winter storm began falling as we unloaded our photography gear, food, and clothing from our vehicle into our room. The familiar, “I’m hungry”, cry from my nine year old daughter came soon after we shut the door of our rented abode. My stomach agreed with her plea and I went to the ice chest to prepare our Christmas Eve dinner.

We do not eat processed or junk/fast foods. Restaurant eating is met with hesitation these days since we have cleansed our diets to more sustainable practices. We travel with our own homemade yummies for each meal and snacks in between. This allows us to have control over what we’re putting into our bodies, it helps us save money, and it ensures that we’re getting the right nutrients we need. Road food is rarely a good idea for our crew. Instead, bringing our own food allows us to control our environmental impact. We refuse to contribute to the growing mass of landfill waste created by fast-food consumers.

Greg and I had made a vegetarian farrow and bean winter stew the day before our trip. It was a robust stew filled with a homemade herbed broth, the stewed tomatoes we had frozen from our fall harvest, heirloom carrots, and a medley of organic veggies including new potatoes, celery, onions, cabbage and dinosaur kale. We heated the soup on our Coleman stove, scooped a ladle full into individual bowls and then garnished them with freshly grated parmesan and a splash of olive oil. I heated a few southern buttermilk biscuits and handed one to Greg, tearing apart another to split between Charlotte and myself. We sat under a dim light in the motel room, enjoying the hearty stew and biscuits, celebrating our love and togetherness that Christmas Eve. It was quiet and peaceful—exactly what we wanted when we left the city. Later that evening, we enjoyed a chocolate bottom oatmeal pie for desert and drank some hot tea before bed.

The morning came quick and our alarm clock sung us awake at 6:00am. We dressed in layers. I had three pairs of pants on, three shirts and two jackets. Living in the Midwest on the shores of Lake Michigan had prepared me for the coldness of winter in any situation. Cold climate living provides residents with a knowledge that can only be gained from suffering through biting wind chills due to lack of preparation and proper dress. You only do that once in the Midwest and then forever afterward you arrive to cold situations over-dressed and over-prepared, realizing that it’s easier to lose a layer or two rather than being on the other end of the spectrum and needing another layer or two. Even with the layered clothing and preparation for the cold temperatures, sitting at 9,100 feet in the mountains, Bryce Canyon National Park becomes a frigid ice box once the mountain winds start howling. As we arrived at twilight to our first shooting spot for the morning, Hester and Charlotte cuddled between blankets in the back of the car. Charlotte sipped her breakfast tea and munched on some sheep milk yogurt, dehydrated berries and homemade nonfat granola. Greg and I surveyed our surroundings, looking for compositions and safe areas to set up our tripods. A tapestry of snow had fallen during our nighttime sleep, accumulating from 4-10 inches in different areas of the park. Being the first people in the canyon provided us with a carpet of untouched, shimmering, new snow. The winds were relentless, stinging the naked skin on my cheeks and nose and burning through the flesh on my lips. I wore my sunglasses to protect my eyes from the bitter gusts. Frost bite was a real concern that morning considering the strength and persistence of the cold winds. The wind chill wavered from 0 – 6 F and I pulled my outer winter jacket around my face attempting to protect it from the cold. Hours later my cheeks and nose would burn red with the kiss of winter and wind.

We stood outside in the soundless park, facing the blustering cold as the sun began to wake for the day. The snowy cloudbank muted the light from the sun’s rising, creating a subtle yellow orb in the sky with no streaking lights to fill the pillars in the canyon. A flat winter light imperceptibly illuminated the ground before us but it did not cause the snow to shimmer or the salmon colored rock to glow. The light wasn’t right. The temperatures stayed well below freezing even as the sun began to rise in the sky. This is always a risk that photographers take as they face extreme temperatures in search of the light. Light is never certain and predicting how the weather will be comes down to good fortune more times than not. It was Christmas Day and we were treated with a white Christmas in the canyon that morning. We went out again in the early afternoon in hopes of catching some rays of light in the canyon. The soft, white palette of snow contrasted the red hues of Bryce Canyon’s towering columns of limestone. Each season has its principal color and each color sings a different story. Spring is decorated with a rainbow of flowers but overwhelmingly the Earth bleeds with green hues. Summertime is filled with straw colored grasses, overheated trees, and the golden rays of a hot desert sun. Fall is awakened by the reds of ivies and the soft amber saturation of falling leaves in front of a stormy sky. But winter holds the purest color in its white precipitation. As I stood and looked at the formations in the canyon I thought about the meaning of their color, the language that is used to describe them, and the stories that have encapsulated their essence.

I was reminded of a story the Paiute tribe told about Bryce Canyon and how it came to be. In 1936, a Paiute Elder named Indian Dick narrated the legend of canyon:

"Before there were any Indians, the Legend People, To-when-an-ung-wa, lived in that place. There were many of them. They were of many kinds – birds, animals, lizards and such things, but they looked like people. They were not people. They had power to make themselves look that way. For some reason the Legend People in that place were bad; they did something that was not good, perhaps a fight, perhaps some stole something….the tale is not clear at this point. Because they were bad, Coyote turned them all into rocks. You can see them in that place now all turned into rocks; some standing in rows, some sitting down, some holding onto others. You can see their faces, with paint on them just as they were before they became rocks. The name of that place is Angka-ku-wass-a-wits (red painted faces). This is the story the people tell." (USNPS)

Charlotte stood beside me, munching on a homemade granola bar as I repeated the words of the story. We looked at the red hoodoos and imagined the legend coming to life. The Coyote, standing on the overlook at Sunrise Point, as a powerful trickster he turns the To-when-an-ung-wa people into stone for their bad deeds. According to Kevin Poe, Chief of Interpretation at the park, the To-when-an-ung-wa peoples “were notorious for living too heavily upon the land” (Robert & Poe). This is why they were punished. Their unsustainable behaviors and lack of appreciation for the interconnected and systemic nature of the natural world caused their demise. Poe states, “They would drink up all these streams and the rivers in the springtime so there would be no water left for all the other creatures come summer” (NPR). And in the fall Poe describes how they would eat all of the pine nuts, leaving none for the survival of other animals during the frigid winter. The shameless overconsumption of the resource forced the rest of the animals in the area to bring the injustices to the attention of Coyote. Tricking the To-when-an-ung-wa people, Coyote invited them to a lavish banquet to feast for an entire day. They accepted his invitation and arrived adorned in war paint and fantastically colored clothing. As they sat at Coyote’s table, Poe says the Coyote cast a spell that turned them to stone. “The To-when-an-ung-wa tried to flee up over the top of the canyon rim, and in so doing –almost like a scene from the “Titanic” - you see them trampling on top of each other, writhing bodies trying to escape over the edge of the canyon, and clustered right on the brink” (Robert & Poe). In this version of the story, it was the unsustainable practices of the To-when-an-ung-wa peoples that instigated their rocky fate.

 

At first glimpse these stories seem to provide a simple moral on the importance of sustainability practices and good behavior. What fascinates me about these tales is that they move beyond simple moral narratives, reinforcing the significance of calling a place by its true name. The Paitue elder and Kevin Poe both referred to the structures of the canyon as people, naming them “To-when-an-ung-wa”. Saying that name in a whisper on the rim of the canyon, I was reminded of the significance this landscape held to the Paiute peoples. This canyon was not named Bryce. The tribe that lived in harmony with this landscape had called it “Anga-ku-wass-a-wits”, naming it aptly for the red painted faces of the unsustainable “To-when-an-ung-wa” peoples that now stand silently in the canyon. “Anga-ku-wass-a-wits” is an endonym, a name for a geographical feature or place that is used by the people who originate from the area. “Bryce Canyon” then is an exonym, or a name that is used by outsiders to reference a certain area. I strongly believe in calling a landscape by its real name by using the languages from first peoples and try to find the appropriate endonyms and stories about each location we visit.

My mother named me after the romantic Russian love story “Dr. Zhivago” written by Boris Pasternak. I have read the story countless times and even fallen in love with the film version. One of my favorite parts of the story is documented in the following quote. It has resonated with me for as long as I can remember and has helped inspire me to call each thing by its right name and to inspire my own child to bear witness to the remarkable beauties our world has to offer.

“Lara walked along the tracks following a path worn by pilgrims and then turned into the fields. Here she stopped and, closing her eyes, took a deep breath of the flower-scented air of the broad expanse around her. It was dearer to her than her kin, better than a lover, wiser than a book. For a moment she rediscovered the purpose of her life. She was here on earth to grasp the meaning of its wild enchantment and to call each thing by its right name, or, if this were not within her power, to give birth out of love for life to successors who would do it in her place.” ― Boris Pasternak

The visit to Anga-ku-wass-a-wits was the first part of our winter journey. We photographed in the cold of the canyon studying how snow storms moved across the landscape and how shadows and light danced together on the hundreds of hoodoo-people that stand as reminders of the importance of sustainability practices. The light never quite took off the way we had imagined it would, but at the end of the day, Greg and I both are satisfied with the images we made and the time we spent in the canyon, as a family, on Christmas day. It definitely was not a typical American holiday, but then again, we strive to be anything other than normal. We celebrated the holiday with living trees that were decorated in a delicate arrangement of snowflakes that had fallen during our visit. These trees were alive like you and I. They were alive like the flickering fire that sits beside me in my study this evening. This is the same fire that Rabbit stole from the Weasels and brought to my people to protect. We respected the trees and honored the canyon and the Paiute peoples who walked on the trails long ago. The gifts we gave to each other bore no resemblance to the material goods of common culture. We gave each other time, thoughtful discourse, and love. What more could anyone ask for from the people they love during the holidays? We gifted ourselves another experience in a lonely landscape and it was because of this remarkable present that we became closer to the lands of southern Utah and were better able to understand their unique stories and the disappearing languages that should been used to describe them. It is my hope that this tale of our winter journey serves a similar purpose to those who find themselves navigating through the words of my text. I hope that it inspires you to find a lonely landscape and to learn its history and stories. Speak the rightful names of the areas you visit and try to connect their history to your own experiences. In doing so, you will be more capable of translating the language of the land. This act of translation guides us on our own journey, chasing the light.

 

My teacup is empty and I am afraid morning again will come quickly. I am retiring for the evening, but do rest assure there will be more to come later…

 

References:

Drink Starbucks? Wake Up And Smell The Chemicals! (2014, September 2). Retrieved December 29, 2014, from foodbabe.com/2014/09/02/drink-starbucks-wake-up-and-smell...

Kaye, L. (2013, May 23). Starbucks Is in a Unique Position To Push Consumers To Waste Less. Will It? Retrieved December 29, 2014, from www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/starbu...

Mayell, Hillary. "As Consumerism Spreads, Earth Suffers, Study Says." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 12 Jan. 2004. Web. 28 Dec. 2014.

Siegel, Robert, and Kevin Poe. "A Paiute Take On Bryce Canyon's Hoodoos." NPR. NPR, 1 July 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2014. .

United States National Park Service. "American Indian History." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 28 Dec. 2014. Web. 29 Dec. 2014.

 

The Badshahi Mosque (Punjabi, Urdu: بادشاھی مسجد), or the 'Emperor's Mosque', in Lahore is the second largest mosque in Pakistan and South Asia and the fifth largest mosque in the world. It is Lahore's most famous landmark and a major tourist attraction epitomising the beauty, passion and grandeur of the Mughal era.

Capable of accommodating 10,000 worshippers in its main prayer hall and 100,000 in its courtyard and porticoes, it remained the largest mosque in the world from 1673 to 1986 (a period of 313 years), when overtaken in size by the completion of the Faisal Mosque in Islamabad. Today, it remains the second largest mosque in Pakistan and South Asia and the fifth largest mosque in the world after the Masjid al-Haram (Grand Mosque) of Mecca, the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (Prophet's Mosque) in Medina, the Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca and the Faisal Mosque in Islamabad.

To appreciate its large size, the four minarets of the Badshahi Mosque are 13.9 ft (4.2 m) taller than those of the Taj Mahal and the main platform of the Taj Mahal can fit inside the 278,784 sq ft (25,899.9 m2) courtyard of the Badshahi Mosque, which is the largest mosque courtyard in the world.

Construction of the Badshahi Mosque was ordered in May 1671 by the sixth Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb, who assumed the title 'Alamgir'. Construction took about two years and was completed in April 1673[1]. The construction work was carried out under the supervision of Aurangzeb's foster brother Muzaffar Hussain (also known as Fidaie Khan Koka) who was appointed Governor of Lahore in May 1671 and held this post until 1675. He was also Master of Ordnance to the Emperor. The mosque was built opposite the Lahore Fort, illustrating its stature in the Mughal Empire. In conjunction with the building of the mosque, a new gate was built at the Fort, named Alamgiri Gate after the Emperor.

Badshahi Mosque was somewhat damaged and misused during the glorious reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, some claim it was converted into a stable for his horses,[2] other sources say it was used as a gun powder magazine for military stores.[3] However, these claims can be dismissed as historical fallacies. During Maharaja Ranjit Singh's reign, Muslims were not allowed to enter the mosque to pray; they were only given a small place outside the mosque where they could worship as they had to be suppressed because they had previously displayed tyrannical tendencies during the periods of Muslim rule.

  

View from Minto Park

When the British took control of India, they would use the mosque for their military purposes by using the mosque for gun practices, cannons, etc. Even though they sensed Muslim hate for the British, they demolished a large portion of the wall of the mosque so the Muslims could not use it as a kind of "fort" for anti-British reasons. After a while, they finally returned it to the Muslims as a good will gesture, even though it was in terrible condition. It was then given to Badshahi Mosque Authority to restore it to its original glory.

From 1852 onwards, piecemeal repairs were carried out under the supervision of the Badshahi Mosque Authority. Extensive repairs were carried out from 1939 to 1960 at a cost of about 4.8 million rupees, which brought the mosque to its original shape and condition. The blueprint for the repairs was prepared by the late architect Nawab Zen Yar Jang Bahadur.

On the occasion of the second Islamic Summit held at Lahore on February 22, 1974, thirty-nine heads of Muslim states offered their Friday prayers in the Badshahi Masjid, led by Mawlānā Abdul Qadir Azad, the Khatib of the mosque.

A small museum is also attached to the mosque complex. It contains relics of the Prophet Muhammad, his cousin Ali, and his daughter, Fatimah.

In 2000, the marble inlay in the main vault was repaired under the supervision of Saleem Anjum Qureshi. In 2008, replacement work began to be carried out on the red sandstone tiles on the mosque's large courtyard, using red sandstone especially imported from the original source in Rajasthan, India

The architecture and design of the Badshahi Mosque closely resembles that of the slightly smaller Jama Mosque in Delhi, India, which was built in 1648 by Aurangzeb's father and predecessor, Emperor Shah Jahan. It is believed that Aurangzeb, in a bid to outdo his estranged father, had deliberately ordered that the Badshahi Mosque be larger than Delhi's Jama Mosque.

Like the character of its founder, the mosque is bold, vast and majestic in its expression. Its design was inspired by Islamic, Persian, Central Asian and Indian influences.

The interior of the mosque has rich embellishment in stucco tracery (Manbatkari) and a fresco touch on the ceiling panels, all in bold relief, as well as marble inlay.

The exterior is decorated with stone carving as well as marble inlay on red sandstone, specially of lotiform motifs in bold relief. The embellishment has Indo-Greek, Central Asian and Indian architectural influence both in technique and motifs.

  

Badshahi Masjid at night

  

Layout of the mosque

The skyline is furnished by beautiful ornamental merlons inlaid with marble lining adding grace to the perimeter of the mosque. In its various architectural features like the vast square courtyard, the side aisles (dalans), the four corner minars, the projecting central transept of the prayer chamber and the grand entrance gate, is summed up the history of development of mosque architecture of the Muslim world over the thousand years prior to its construction in 1673.

The north enclosure wall of the mosque was laid close to the Ravi River bank, so a majestic gateway could not be provided on that side and, to keep the symmetry the gate had to be omitted on the south wall as well. Thus, a four Aiwan plan like the earlier Delhi, Jamia Masjid could not be adopted here.

The walls were built with small kiln-burnt bricks laid in kankar, lime mortar (a kind of hydraulic lime) but have a veneer of red sandstone. The steps leading to the prayer chamber and its plinth are in variegated marble.

The prayer chamber is very deep and is divided into seven compartments by rich engraved arches carried on very heavy piers. Out of the 7 compartments, three double domes finished in marble have superb curvature, whilst the rest have curvilinear domes with a central rib in their interior and flat roof above. In the eastern front aisle, the ceiling of the compartment is flat (Qalamdani) with a curved border (ghalatan) at the cornice level.

The original floor of the courtyard was laid with small kiln-burnt bricks laid in the Mussalah pattern. The present red sandstone flooring was laid during the last thorough repairs (1939-60). Similarly, the original floor of the prayer chamber was in cut and dressed bricks with marble and Sang-i-Abri lining forming Mussalah and was also replaced by marble Mussalah during the last repairs.

•There are only two inscriptions in the mosque: one on the gateway

•the other of Kalimah in the prayer chamber under the main high vault

  

+++ 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 Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single seat subsonic carrier-capable attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta winged, single turbojet engined Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system.

 

The Skyhawk was a relatively lightweight aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg) in its late versions and had a top speed of more than 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h). The aircrafts supported a variety of missiles, bombs and other munitions, and late versions were capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II-era Boeing B-17 bomber.

 

The type saw an intensive career with the US Navy and the US Marine Corps, and is still in frontline use in several countries, e. g. Brazil and Argentina.

Another potential user was France. The story began with two different design requirements in the early 1950s for land-based, light fighters, one for the French Air Force and the other for NATO air forces. French manufacturer Dassault responded and used the same basic design for both these specifications, designated as the Étendard II and Étendard VI respectively, neither of which received any orders, though. The company also developed a larger and more powerful variant, which was called the Mystère XXIV, simultaneously as a private venture.

 

The French Navy, the Aéronavale, showed interest in the more powerful aircraft, and this interest in a lulti-purpose fighter for carrier operations led to a public competition which was opened to foreign submissions, too. Dassault constructed a prototype navalized version of the Mystère XXIV, now designated Étendard IVM, and the first prototype conducted its first flight on 24 July 1956. As contenders, Douglas offered a modified A4D-2 Skyhawk and from Great Britain the Supermarine Scimitar was proposed, but immediately rejected as being much too large and complex for the Aéronavale's needs.

 

In order to compare the potential contenders, the Étendard IVM was to be pitted against the Skyhawk, and so a total of six so-called A4D-2Fs, modified to French specifications, took part in an extensive field test over the course of the next 15 months against a total of seven Étendard prototypes (the last being a prototype for the Étendard IVP photo reconnaissance variant), which differed by engines and equipment details.

 

The French Skyhawk variant had, compared with the standard A4D-2 of the US Navy, improved navigation and flight control systems. The A4D-2F also featured a strengthened airframe and had air-to-air refueling capabilities. Specific to these machines were a TACAN receiver and a braking parachute under the tail for land operations.

 

Internal armament was, upon the potential customer’s request, changed from the original pair of American 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 200 RPG in the wing roots to a pair of 30mm DEFA cannon with 150 RPG. As a marketing measure, the A4D-2F was equipped with guidance avionics for the American AGM-12 Bullpup missile, in hope that France would procure this weapon together with the aircraft as a package and open the door for further weapon exports. Other ordnance included rocket pods, bombs, and drop tanks, carried on five external pylons (two more under the outer wings than the standard A4D-2).

 

Not being convinced of the AGM-12 and political preference of domestic equipment, French officials insisted on additional avionics for indigenous guided weapons like the Nord AA-20 air-to-air or the AS-20 air-to-ground missiles, as well as for the bigger, newly developed AS-30. Since the internal space of the AD4 airframe was limited, these additional components had to be housed in a long, spinal fairing that extended from the fin root forward, almost up to the cockpit. Another consequence of the scarce internal space was the need to provide radio-guidance for the French missiles through an external antenna pod, which was to be carried under the outer starboard pylon, together with two missiles on the inner pylons and an SNEB unguided missile pod (frequently empty) under the port outer pylon as aerodynamic counterbalance.

 

Trials between the contenders started in summer 1957, at first from land bases (primarily Landviseau in Brittany), but later, after its reconstruction with a four degree angled flight deck and a mirror landing sight, also aboard of the revamped French carrier ‘Arromanches’ (R 95, former HMS Colossus). The A4D-2F turned out to be the more effective fighter bomber, especially concerning the almost twice as high weapon load as the Étendard’s. On the other side, the Étendard benefitted from its Aida radar (the A4D-2F only had an AN/APN-141 radar altimeter and a state-of-the-art AN/ASN-19A navigation computer) and from strong supporters from both military and political deciders. Dassault kept lobbying for the indigenous aircraft, too, and, despite many shortcomings and limitations, the Étendard was chosen as the winning design. Even a proposed radar upgrade (just introduced with the A4D-3/A-4C for the US Navy) was during the late evaluation stages in 1958 would not change the French officials’ minds.

 

“Sufficiently satisfied” with its performance, the French Navy would procure for 69 Étendard IVM fighters and 21 Étendard IVP reconnaissance versions. The sextet of test Skyhawks was returned in late 1961 to the United States, where the airframes were at first stored and later underwent modifications at Lockheed Service Co. to become A-4Ps for the Argentine Air Force, delivered in 1966.

 

From 1962, the winning Étendard IVM was being deployed aboard the service's newly built Clemenceau-class aircraft carriers, the Clemenceau and Foch. Later, in 1972, the Skyhawk (in the form of a modified A-4M) made a return to France as an alternative to the stillborn Jaguar M, a navalized variant of the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar, which was intended to become the Étendard's replacement. But this effort was once more derailed by political lobbying by Dassault, who favored their own proposed upgraded version of the aircraft, which would later enter service as the Super Étendard.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 39' 4" (12 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in (8.38 m)

Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)

Wing area: 259 ft² (24.15 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 0008-1.1-25 root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip

Empty weight: 9,146 lb (4,152 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Curtiss-Wright J65-W-16A turbojet with 7,700 lbf (34 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 575 kn (661 mph, 1,064 km/h)

Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)

Combat radius: 625 nmi, 1,158 km

Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)

Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.51

g-limit: +8/-3 g

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannon, 150 RPG, in the wing roots

Total effective payload of up to 5,000 lbs (2,268 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lbs capability

- 2× Inboard wing: 2,200 lbs capability each

- 2× Outboard wing: 1,000 lbs capability each

   

The kit and its assembly:

This is another contribution to the “In the Navy” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com. The idea of a French Navy Skyhawk is not new and has been tackled before (in the form of CG renditions and model hardware alike), and I had been wanting to build one, too, for a long time – and the current GB was a good occasion to tackle a build.

 

The Skyhawk was actually tested by the Aéronavale, but, as described in the background, not until the early 1970s and together with the LTV A-7, when the Jaguar M came to nothing, not in the late 1950ies where this fictional model is rooted.

Anyway, I liked the Fifties idea much and spun a story around the Étendard’s introduction and a fictional competition for the Aéronavale’s next carrier-borne fighter bomber. The idea was further fueled by the relatively new Airfix model of the early A-4B, which would fit well into the project’s time frame. And I already had a respective kit stashed away for this project...

 

The Airfix kit is very nice, fit and detail (including, for instance a complete air intake section with a jet fan dummy, and it features a very good pilot figure, too) are excellent, even though some things like very thick sprue attachment points here and there and the waxy, rather soft styrene are a bit dubious. But it’s a good kit, nevertheless, and cleverly constructed: many seams disappear between natural panel lines, it’s a pleasant build.

 

Since this model was to be a kind of pre-production machine based on a relatively new standard aircraft, not much was changed. Most visible additions are the dorsal spine (a simple piece of sprue, blended onto the back and into the fin fillet) and the ordnance.

But there are minor changes, too: The cannon installation was also modified, from the original wing root position into slightly lower, bulged fairings for the more voluminous DEFA cannon. The fairings were carved from styrene profiles and outfitted with the OOB barrels. IDF Skyhawks/Ahit with 30mm cannons were the design benchmark, blending the fairings into the curved wing roots and hiding the original gun openings was actually the most challenging part of the build.

 

Some pitots and blade antennae were replaced or changed, too. Lead was cramped into the space between the cockpit and the air intake installation for a proper stance. The Airfix kit is in so far nice as this compartment is easily accessible from below, as long as the wings have not been mounted yet.

The cockpit, together with the pilot figure, were taken OOB, just the pilot’s head was modified to look sideways and an ejection trigger handle was added to the seat.

 

The pair of AS-30 once were AS-30Ls from an Italeri Mirage 2000 kit, slightly modified with a simple, conical tip and booster rocket nozzles on the tail. The corresponding underwing radar pod is a drop tank from a vintage Airfix Kaman Seasprite, while the other outer pylon carries a scratched camera pod, IIRC it once was a belly tank from a 1:144 F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

On purpose, relatively simple. The early French Étendard IVM was the benchmark with its blue-gray/white livery. Biggest challenges were actually to find an appropriate tone for the upper gray, which appears, much like the British Extra Dark Sea Gray, between anything from dark blue to medium gray, depending on light and surroundings, esp. with a glossy finish.

I could not find any definitive or convincing paint suggestions, what I found ranges between FS 36270 (Medium Gray, much too light) and FS 36118 (Gunship Gray, much too violet) and Humbrol 77 (Navy Blue, much too green) to a mix of Humbrol 57 and 33 (Sky Blue + Black!). Really weird… And to make matters worse, some Étendards were furthermore painted in a lighter blue-gray for operations over the Mediterranean Sea!

 

Since I wanted a unique tone, I settled upon Revell 79 (RAL 7031, Blaugrau) for the upper surfaces, a dark, petrol blue gray. The undersides were painted in an off-white tone (a grayish Volkswagen color from the Seventies!) with acrylic paint from the rattle can – with the benefit that the whole landing gear could be primed in the same turn, even though it was later painted over with pure white (Humbrol 130), which was also used on/in the air intakes. The cockpit interior was painted in bluish gray (FS 35237), the interior of the air brakes, slats and edges of the landing gear covers became bright red (Humbrol 60). The red markings around the air intakes were created with paint and decals. Another eye-catcher are the bright orange AS-30 test rounds.

 

A thin, black ink wash was applied to the kit in order to emphasize the engraved panel lines. Only light shading was added to the panels through dry-brushing, more for presentation drama than true weathering.

 

Most Aéronavale-specific markings come from an Academy Super Étendard decal sheet, most stencils come from the OOB Skyhawk sheet. As a kind of prototype and part of Douglas’ fictional marketing effort for the machine, I placed the French roundels in six positions and also added French flags ( the Étendard prototypes were similarly decorated, by the way). Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt varnish with a slight, sheen finish.

  

A relatively simple whif project, and a nice distraction from the many recent kitbashes and major conversions. The Aéronavale livery suits the Scooter well, and what I personally like a lot about this one is that it “tells the story” behind it – it’s more than a generic Skyhawk in French colors.

 

And, as a final twist of history, nowadays the Skyhawk actually IS in use on board of a French carrier: in the form of the Brazilian Naval Aviation’s AF-1, former Kuwaiti A-4KU airframes, from CV Sao Paulo, former French Navy carrier Foch! :D

 

Almost ALL the sample photos of this camera do not capture what it is capable of. I took these photos on program mode. Sharpness for the majority of the images is bumped up one notch, but with a sensor this size, it does a nice job of in camera sharpening. This was with the kit lens. Saturation and contrast were both left at default. There may be one or two where I bumped up contrast on the humming bird feeder, but the rest are regular photos strait from program mode. I am convinced that the majority of photos of this camera posted to flickr have HDR set to ON which is the camera default. So it is set to OFF on all the photos which may account for why there is more observed contrast.

 

This camera is fast. Ive owned the the Epm2, the canon t1i, the GF6 and this is by far my favorite camera. My camera search has after all these years officially ended. This is it.

 

I will say that when I first looked at the pictures, I looked at them on a dell laptop with a poor Intel graphics card. Even with a nice monitor viewed in windows viewer I was not all moved by the photos. Then I hooked that same external monitor (a dell s2340mc set on movie mode default) on a laptop with a good graphics card.... It looks fantastic. And Im positive its not just the monitor making the pictures look nice. Ive compared the pictures against other cameras. The sensor on this camera is outstanding. Ive compared the Nikon 3200, and several other DSLRs and still prefer this. it keeps good contrast and the black/contrast ratio in my opinion is one of the larger factors in bringing photos to life.

 

And THANK YOU Sony for NOT programming auto focus to fix on the nearest subject like canon does. I once used a Canon T1i, and that thing focused on everything CLOSE to the subject. It also overexposed everything. In fact that was one of the reasons I looked at this camera. The whole rebel series...even the upper rebels over all these years tend to overexpose everything on almost every mode with the ones Ive used. This one has a very very good metering system. Just overall very impressed. Fast speed. fast autofocus, good contrast ratio (OFF HDR MODE unlike the majority of uploads of this camera to flickr), defiantly a great camera. AND as an added bonus, there are hundreds of INEXPENSIVE lenses, including all the non-MD Minoltas

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.

 

In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.

 

The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).

 

For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.

 

The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.

 

In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.

 

Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.

 

Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.

 

Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.

  

Specifications:

Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)

Weight: 22.6 t

Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)

Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)

Height: XXX

Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)

Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering

 

Armor:

Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds

 

Performance:

Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads

Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)

Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel

 

Engine:

1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,

delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel

 

Armament:

1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)

1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds

Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars

  

The kit and its assembly:

I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.

 

This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.

 

Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).

 

An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!

Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.

Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).

 

Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.

  

Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

After the Falklands War, Argentina was not only left with a much reduced aerial strike force – budget restraints, inner and external political pressure as well as delivery boycotts plagued the country for years in its efforts to rejuvenate the air force. Recent years were troublesome, too. In early 2005 the top seventeen brigadiers of the Air Force, including the Chief of Staff, Brigadier General Carlos Rohde, were sacked by President Néstor Kirchner following a scandal involving drug trafficking through Ezeiza International Airport. The primary concerns of the Air Force as of 2010 were the establishment of a radar network for control of the country's airspace, the replacement of its older combat aircraft (Mirage III, Mirage V) and the incorporation of new technologies. The possibility of purchasing surplus French Air Force Mirage 2000C fighters, like the option chosen by the Brazilian Air Force, had been considered.

 

As of 2010, budgetary constraints continued, leading to the disbanding of the Boeing 707 transport squadron and maintenance problems for half of the C-130 Hercules fleet. In August 2010 a contract was signed for two Mi-17E helicopters, plus an option on a further three, to support Antarctic bases. All the time, though, the FAA had been seeking to replace its ageing force with a more capable and more serviceable modern aircraft. Argentina’s Super Étendard fighters, which had been used to launch Exocet missiles in the 1980s and still served, come from France. Its Mirage III/ V/ “Nesher” fighters were originally bought second-hand from Israel and Peru, but they had deteriorated badly. Its A-4P Skyhawk models were originally sold to Argentina by the USA but phased out in 1999, the more modern A-4AR “Fightinghawks” were rebuilt and modernized ex USMC A-4Ms. What was left of those deliveries made up the bulk of the Argentinian jet fleet.

 

The acquisition of Spanish Mirage F1Ms, IAI Kfir Block 60s from Israel and Saab Gripen E/Fs from Sweden was considered, but all of those deals stalled, for various reasons. The Mirage F1 deal was scrapped by the Spanish government after pressure of the UK to not assist in FAA modernization over tensions between the countries over the Falkland Islands. The UK also managed to successfully veto the sale of Gripen E/Fs, as 30% of the Gripen's parts were manufactured there. British diplomacy furthermore worked to delay Argentina’s proposed Super Étendard modernization. To make matters worse, despite steadily worsening relations with Britain under the Obama administration, the USA would neither sell Argentina any jet fighters, nor supply spare parts or engines.

 

This only left Argentina with the original source for its Nesher/Dagger/Finger fighters as a reliable and (moreover) affordable option: Israel. The (realistic) object of desire was the successor of the Nesher, the Kfir, which entered service with the IAF in 1975. The Kfir was, like the Nesher, a Mirage III/V derivative, but a major improvement. Substantial structural changes had been made and IAI replaced the original Atar 9C of French origin with a more powerful J79 turbojet, which had been used at the time by IDF F-4 Phantom IIs of American origin, too. The Kfir received during its career progressive modifications to its airframe (in the form of canards which improved the fighter’s handling considerably), radar, electronics, and weapons, and these upgrades continued even after the Kfirs were retired from Israeli service in the late 1990s, on behalf of export customers like Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka.

 

The Kfir’s retirement in Israeli service led to a great number of surplus airframes with considerable flying hours left, so that the Kfir C.10/Block 60, a dedicated export variant with many updates, was developed on their basis and offered to foreign customers. These machines carried modern multi-mode radars and electronics on par with contemporary F-16 Block 40/50s, giving them the ability to use beyond visual range aerial weapons, advanced short range AAMs, and a variety of precision strike weapons. However, it would take a brave Kfir pilot to face a Eurofighter Typhoon in single combat… even so, the late an updated Kfirs were capable and redoubtable fighters.

Their combat radius was a bit short, though, due to the thirsty and somewhat outdated J79 engine, but their aerial refueling capability compensated for this flaw and made them well-suited to intimidation and presence patrols. The Kfir’s relatively small price tag made it, despite the airframe’s overall age, very attractive for small nations with limited defense budgets – and consequently it attained Argentinian interest.

 

Argentinian negotiations went so far that Israel not only agreed to sell 18 revamped Kfir fighters from ex-IDF overstock, IAI also offered to adapt the airframes to a different engine, the French Atar 9K-50 afterburning turbojet, which were not part of the deal, though. This appeared like a backward roll, since the Kfir was originally constructed to replace the French Atar 9C with the American J79 in Israel’s Mirage III/V copy – but this move was the only way to provide Argentina with a suitable engine that was freely available on the Western world market without British or American bans and interventions.

 

The result of this deal became the so-called Kfir C.9, even though this was just an internal designation at IAI and never officially adopted in order to avoid political problems. In the course of 2013 and 2014, the engine-less Kfir airframes were delivered as knocked-down kits via ship to Argentina. At Argentina’s nationalized aircraft manufacturer Fábrica Argentina de Aviones SA (FAdeA) in Córdoba they were mated with the new engines, imported separately from France, and equipped with imported and domestic avionics. In Argentinian service and to the public, the aircraft became known as FAdeA “IA-96A” and was, keeping up the FAA’s tradition to christen its fleet of various Mirage III derivatives after domestic animals, called “Quique” (lesser grison).

 

The IA-96A/Kfir C.9 was specifically tailored to the Argentinian needs and restrictions. Despite wishes to buy Kfirs according to the more versatile and capable C.10 export standard with a modern Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar, Argentina’s highly limited defense budget and other equipment constraints imposed by foreign suppliers and governments only allowed the procurement of what basically was a re-engined Kfir C.7 with some minor updates.

In contrast to the Kfir C.10, the older C.7 was only outfitted with the Elta EL/M-2021B radar. This was a multi-mode radar, too, which still offered air-to-air and air-to-surface capability, but it was less powerful than the C.10 standard and offered only a relatively short range of max. 46 mi/74 km.

Like the Israeli C.7, the C.9 had inflight refueling capability through a fixed but removable probe, and it featured a HOTAS-configured cockpit. Individual updates were a new, frameless wrap-around windshield for a better field of view, two 127×177mm MFDs in the cockpit, full HMD capability, a simple TAV38 laser rangefinder in a small fairing under nose, and improved avionics to deploy state-of-the-art guided weapons of Israeli and French origin (see below).

 

Outwardly, the C.9’s biggest difference to the original C.7 configuration – even though it was not very obvious – was the modified rear fuselage, which had to be changed in order to cover the longer and more slender Atar 9K-50 engine and its afterburner. In fact, the original IAI Nesher blueprints and toolings had been dusted off and used to produce these new parts.

Since the lighter Atar 9K-50 would not need the J79’s extra cooling and had a lower air mass flow, the Kfir’s characteristic auxiliary air intake at the fin’s root as well as several prominent air scoops along the fuselage disappeared, giving the aircraft a more streamlined look. As a positive side effect, this measure, together with the slimmer fuselage, improved aerodynamics, compensating for the slight reduction of overall thrust through the engine swap, and the longer fuselage made the aircraft directionally more stable, so that no fin fillet was necessary anymore. With the resulting short fin, the IA-96’s profile resembled that of the South African Atlas Cheetah E a lot, even though the latter were modernized Mirage IIIs and not converted IAI Kfirs. Compared with the Kfir C.7, top speed and service ceiling were slightly reduced, but the Atar 9K-50 consumed considerably less fuel, so that the unrefueled range of the short-legged Kfir with its thirsty J79 was markedly improved. The new engine was furthermore more responsive, so that overall performance and agility of the IA-96A remained on par with the Kfir or became even slightly better.

 

Beyond the aircraft order, Argentina also procured a modernized weapon arsenal from Israel for its new multi-role fighter generation. This included an undisclosed number of Derby medium range air-to-air missiles with an active-radar seeker, BVR capability and a range of 28 mi (45 km), Gabriel III anti-ship missiles with fire-and-forget capabilities and a range of more than 40 mi (60 km), as well as Griffin LGB guidance sets that could be added to various standard iron and cluster bombs. Furthermore, ten second-hand Thomson-CSF ATLIS II laser/electro-optical targeting pods were procured from France. Even though these pods lacked FLIR capabilities and were limited to being primarily a daylight/clear-weather system, they gave the Quique, in combination with the Griffin LGBs, full precision strike capability, esp. against ship targets – a clear political statement into the British direction.

 

The Quique fleet was supposed to replace all the older FAA types. With the roll-out of the first IA-96A in early 2015, all vintage FAA Mirages were officially decommissioned in November of the same year. Furthermore, all FAA’s A-4 Skyhawks were grounded as of January 2016, too (also for the lack of spares), even though a handful A-4ARs remained airworthy as a reserve and the rest in storage. Quique deliveries ended in September 2017 with the eighteenth machine, and all of them were allocated to FAA’s Grupo 5 de Caza at Villa Reynolds, 200 km (125 ml) in the South of Córdoba, where they had been assembled. However, since becoming operational, the aircraft were frequently deployed to other Argentinian air bases, including El Plumerillo Military Air Base in the Mendoza Province at the Chilean border and Rio Gallegos in Patagonia, in reach of the Malvinas/Falklands Islands.

 

If future budgets allow it, ten more IA-96A/Kfir C.9 might be ordered soon in order to replace the Argentinian Navy’s vintage Super Étendard fleet (which has been, since the decommissioning of ARA Veinticinco de Mayo in the late Eighties, land-based, anyway). The acquisition of four to six two-seaters, also modernized ex-IDF aircraft following the IA-96A pattern, with full attack capability and tentatively designated IA-96B, has been under consideration, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.65 m (51 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 8.22 m (27 ft 0 in)

Height: 4.55 m (14 ft 11 in)

Wing area: 34.8 m² (375 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,285 kg (16,061 lb)

Gross weight: 11,603 kg (25,580 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,200 kg (35,715 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× SNECMA Atar 9K50C-11 afterburning turbojet engine,

49.2 kN (11,100 lbf) dry thrust and 70.6 kN (15,900 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,350 km/h (1,460 mph, 1,270 kn) / Mach 2.2 at high altitude

1,390 km/h (860 mph; 750 kn) at sea level

Combat range: 1,300 km (810 mi, 700 nmi), clean, with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 2,600 km (1,600 mi, 1,400 nmi) w. three 1,300 l (340 US gal; 290 imp gal) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 17,000 m (56,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 233 m/s (45,900 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2× Rafael-built 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 553 cannon with 140 RPG

Nine external hardpoints for a maximum payload of 5,775 kg (12,732 lb) and a wide range of ordnance, including bombs such as the Mark 80 series, unguided air-to-ground rocket pods, Paveway and Griffin series of LGBs, guided air-to-ground missiles like the AGM-65 Maverick, and AIM-9 Sidewinders, Shafrir/Python/Derby-series AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This what-if model was inspired by a short entry about the IAI Kfir I had found at Wikipedia: a proposed C.9 variant for Argentina, as a revamped and re-engined C.7, even though the entry lacked any further details and I was not able to dig anything about the C.9 up in the WWW. However, I tried to interpret this scarce basis and deduct a model from it, because the story was/is so good. Having recently read a lot about the Argentinian Mirage III/Nesher fleet and the Malvinas/Falklands conflict helped a lot, too. With many import limitations imposed by Great Britain and the USA as well as Argentina’s highly restricted budget, I eventually settled upon the idea of a rather simple, re-engined Kfir of C.7 standard, so that outwardly not much had to be changed – a better radar would have been desirable (Block 60 standard), but I’d assume that this would not have been possible with Argentina’s highly limited funds that already prevented updates to the existing and rather vintage (if not outdated) aircraft fleet.

 

The basis for the model is a Hasegawa Kfir, which I bought without box (and it turned it to lack the dashboard). The Hasegawa Kfir is a C.2 and the model is very similar to the Italeri kit (a C.7, but it is virtually identical), but it has a much better fit, goes together more easily and calls for considerably less PSR. As another bonus, the Hasegawa kit comes with a wider range of ordnance and also has the construction benefit of a connecting ventral “floor”, which makes the fuselage more stable and therefor suitable for my modification (see below).

 

The different engine for the C.9 variant was the biggest challenge – the Kfir’s rear fuselage is wider and shorter than the Mirage III’s with the Atar engine. These are just subtle differences at 1:72 scale, but not easy to realize: I needed a completely new rear fuselage! As a convenient solution, I dug out a PM Model Nesher (which is no Nesher at all, just a poor Mirage III at best) from the donor bank and let the saw sing. This kit is horrible in many ways (really, stay away!), but it’s tail section and the jet nozzle, pimped with an afterburner interior, were acceptable as conversion fodder.

 

Blending the (crappy!) Mirage III parts into the crisp Hasegawa Kfir took some serious PSR, though, including the need to fill 3mm wide gaps along the delta wing roots and bridging disparate fuselage shapes and diameters at the implant’s intersections. The Kfir’s fin was re-transplanted and lost its characteristic auxiliary air intake for the J79 engine, so that the profile became more Mirage III/V-esque. Due to the longer afterburner section, the brake parachute fairing had to be extended, too. The longer (just 3-4mm), more slender tail section and the cleaner fin change the Kfir’s look markedly – for the better, IMHO, and the model could also depict an Atlas Cheetah E!

 

Further minor mods include an in-flight refueling receptacle, scratched from wire and white glue for the tip, the modified windshield (the OOB part was simply sanded smooth and polished back again to transparency) and the ordnance; the Gabriel ASMs were created on the basis of a photograph, and they once were AIM-54 Phoenix AAMs from a Matchbox F-14, modified with new wings, a blunted tip and a pitot made from thin wire. Their pylons were once parts of F-14 wing root pylons from an Italeri F-14, with launch rails made from styrene profiles. The Derby AAMs are heavily modified Matchbox Sidewinders with an extended, pointed tip, mounted onto the OOB pylons. The ventral drop tank comes from the Hasegawa kit.

  

Painting and markings:

This was quite a challenge, because I wanted to apply something modern and plausible, yet avoid standard paint schemes. In fact, a realistic Argentinian Kfir C.9 from the late 2010s would probably have been painted in an overall pale grey or in two pale shades of grey with little contrast (as applied to the very late Mirage IIIs and the A-4ARs), with subdued low-viz markings and no roundels at all. I found this boring, but I also did not want to apply a retro SEA scheme, as used on the Nesher/Dagger/Finger during the Falklands War.

 

After turning over many options in my mind, I settled upon a two-tone grey livery, somewhat of a compromise between air superiority and attack operations, esp. over open water. The pattern was inspired by the livery of late Turkish RF-4Es, which were supposed to be painted in FS 36118 over an FS 36270 (or 36375, sources are contradictive and pictures inconclusive) overall base with a rising waterline towards the rear and the light undersides color spilling over to the wings’ upper surfaces. This scheme is simple, but looks pretty interesting, breaks up the aircraft’s outlines effectively, and it could be easily adapted to the delta-wing Kfir.

However, I changed two details in favor of an IMHO better camouflage effect at height. Firstly, the fin’s upper section was painted in the light grey (it’s all dark grey on the Turkish Phantoms), what IMHO reduces the strong contrast against the sky and the horizon. For a similar reason I secondly raised the underside’s light grey waterline towards the nose, so that the upper dark grey area became an integral anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen and the aircraft show less contrast from a frontal point of view. On the Turkish F-4s, the dark grey slopes downwards for a wrap-around area directly behind the radome.

 

I used Humbrol 125 (FS 36118, a pretty bluish interpretation of “Gunship Gray”) and 126 (FS 36270, US Medium Grey) as basic colors. The Gunship Gray was, after a light washing with black ink, post-shaded with FS 35164 (Humbrol 144), giving the dark grey an even more bluish hue, while the Medium Grey was treated with FS 36320.

The cockpit was painted in Camouflage Grey (Humbrol 156), the landing gear with the wells as well as the air intake ducts in standard gloss white (Humbrol 22). The Derby AAMs became light grey (Humbrol 127) with a beige radome tip, while the Gabriel ASM received a multi-color livery in black, white and light grey.

 

Decals and markings are purely fictional - as mentioned above, I’d assume that a real-world FAA Kfir would these days only carry minimal national markings in the form of a simple fin flash, no roundels at all and just a tiny tactical code (if at all), and everything toned-down or black. However, I wanted the model to be identified more easily, so I added some more markings, including small but full-color FAA roundels on fuselage and wings as well as full-color fin flashes, all procured from an Airfix Pucará sheet. The “Fuerza Aérea Argentina” inscription on the nose came from a Colorado Decals Mirage III/V sheet. The tactical code was taken from an Airfix sheet for an Argentinian Mirage III – it’s actually “I-016”, just turned upside down for a (much) higher/later number. 😉

 

After shading effects, the model only received little weathering in the form of graphite around the jet nozzle and the guns under the air intakes. Then it was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

In the end a rather subtle conversion – even though the different rear fuselage was a major PSR stunt! The most obvious modification is probably the intake-less fin? The transplanted, different rear fuselage is hard to recognize and only true Mirage/Kfir experts might tell the changes – or the model is directly mistaken for a Mirage V fighter bomber? And even though the model carries a grey-in-grey scheme which I originally wanted to avoid, I think that the bluish touch and the integral, wavy pattern still look interesting?

However, I also like the story behind this whif that has real life roots – the real Kfir C.9 just failed to materialize because of lack of funding, and its introduction would certainly have had severe consequences for the unstable Argentinian-British relationships, since this capable aircraft would certainly pose a serious threat to the shaky peace in the Southern Atlantic and have stirred up the more or less dormant Falklands/Malvinas conflict again.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

After the Falklands War, Argentina was not only left with a much reduced aerial strike force – budget restraints, inner and external political pressure as well as delivery boycotts plagued the country for years in its efforts to rejuvenate the air force. Recent years were troublesome, too. In early 2005 the top seventeen brigadiers of the Air Force, including the Chief of Staff, Brigadier General Carlos Rohde, were sacked by President Néstor Kirchner following a scandal involving drug trafficking through Ezeiza International Airport. The primary concerns of the Air Force as of 2010 were the establishment of a radar network for control of the country's airspace, the replacement of its older combat aircraft (Mirage III, Mirage V) and the incorporation of new technologies. The possibility of purchasing surplus French Air Force Mirage 2000C fighters, like the option chosen by the Brazilian Air Force, had been considered.

 

As of 2010, budgetary constraints continued, leading to the disbanding of the Boeing 707 transport squadron and maintenance problems for half of the C-130 Hercules fleet. In August 2010 a contract was signed for two Mi-17E helicopters, plus an option on a further three, to support Antarctic bases. All the time, though, the FAA had been seeking to replace its ageing force with a more capable and more serviceable modern aircraft. Argentina’s Super Étendard fighters, which had been used to launch Exocet missiles in the 1980s and still served, come from France. Its Mirage III/ V/ “Nesher” fighters were originally bought second-hand from Israel and Peru, but they had deteriorated badly. Its A-4P Skyhawk models were originally sold to Argentina by the USA but phased out in 1999, the more modern A-4AR “Fightinghawks” were rebuilt and modernized ex USMC A-4Ms. What was left of those deliveries made up the bulk of the Argentinian jet fleet.

 

The acquisition of Spanish Mirage F1Ms, IAI Kfir Block 60s from Israel and Saab Gripen E/Fs from Sweden was considered, but all of those deals stalled, for various reasons. The Mirage F1 deal was scrapped by the Spanish government after pressure of the UK to not assist in FAA modernization over tensions between the countries over the Falkland Islands. The UK also managed to successfully veto the sale of Gripen E/Fs, as 30% of the Gripen's parts were manufactured there. British diplomacy furthermore worked to delay Argentina’s proposed Super Étendard modernization. To make matters worse, despite steadily worsening relations with Britain under the Obama administration, the USA would neither sell Argentina any jet fighters, nor supply spare parts or engines.

 

This only left Argentina with the original source for its Nesher/Dagger/Finger fighters as a reliable and (moreover) affordable option: Israel. The (realistic) object of desire was the successor of the Nesher, the Kfir, which entered service with the IAF in 1975. The Kfir was, like the Nesher, a Mirage III/V derivative, but a major improvement. Substantial structural changes had been made and IAI replaced the original Atar 9C of French origin with a more powerful J79 turbojet, which had been used at the time by IDF F-4 Phantom IIs of American origin, too. The Kfir received during its career progressive modifications to its airframe (in the form of canards which improved the fighter’s handling considerably), radar, electronics, and weapons, and these upgrades continued even after the Kfirs were retired from Israeli service in the late 1990s, on behalf of export customers like Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka.

 

The Kfir’s retirement in Israeli service led to a great number of surplus airframes with considerable flying hours left, so that the Kfir C.10/Block 60, a dedicated export variant with many updates, was developed on their basis and offered to foreign customers. These machines carried modern multi-mode radars and electronics on par with contemporary F-16 Block 40/50s, giving them the ability to use beyond visual range aerial weapons, advanced short range AAMs, and a variety of precision strike weapons. However, it would take a brave Kfir pilot to face a Eurofighter Typhoon in single combat… even so, the late an updated Kfirs were capable and redoubtable fighters.

Their combat radius was a bit short, though, due to the thirsty and somewhat outdated J79 engine, but their aerial refueling capability compensated for this flaw and made them well-suited to intimidation and presence patrols. The Kfir’s relatively small price tag made it, despite the airframe’s overall age, very attractive for small nations with limited defense budgets – and consequently it attained Argentinian interest.

 

Argentinian negotiations went so far that Israel not only agreed to sell 18 revamped Kfir fighters from ex-IDF overstock, IAI also offered to adapt the airframes to a different engine, the French Atar 9K-50 afterburning turbojet, which were not part of the deal, though. This appeared like a backward roll, since the Kfir was originally constructed to replace the French Atar 9C with the American J79 in Israel’s Mirage III/V copy – but this move was the only way to provide Argentina with a suitable engine that was freely available on the Western world market without British or American bans and interventions.

 

The result of this deal became the so-called Kfir C.9, even though this was just an internal designation at IAI and never officially adopted in order to avoid political problems. In the course of 2013 and 2014, the engine-less Kfir airframes were delivered as knocked-down kits via ship to Argentina. At Argentina’s nationalized aircraft manufacturer Fábrica Argentina de Aviones SA (FAdeA) in Córdoba they were mated with the new engines, imported separately from France, and equipped with imported and domestic avionics. In Argentinian service and to the public, the aircraft became known as FAdeA “IA-96A” and was, keeping up the FAA’s tradition to christen its fleet of various Mirage III derivatives after domestic animals, called “Quique” (lesser grison).

 

The IA-96A/Kfir C.9 was specifically tailored to the Argentinian needs and restrictions. Despite wishes to buy Kfirs according to the more versatile and capable C.10 export standard with a modern Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar, Argentina’s highly limited defense budget and other equipment constraints imposed by foreign suppliers and governments only allowed the procurement of what basically was a re-engined Kfir C.7 with some minor updates.

In contrast to the Kfir C.10, the older C.7 was only outfitted with the Elta EL/M-2021B radar. This was a multi-mode radar, too, which still offered air-to-air and air-to-surface capability, but it was less powerful than the C.10 standard and offered only a relatively short range of max. 46 mi/74 km.

Like the Israeli C.7, the C.9 had inflight refueling capability through a fixed but removable probe, and it featured a HOTAS-configured cockpit. Individual updates were a new, frameless wrap-around windshield for a better field of view, two 127×177mm MFDs in the cockpit, full HMD capability, a simple TAV38 laser rangefinder in a small fairing under nose, and improved avionics to deploy state-of-the-art guided weapons of Israeli and French origin (see below).

 

Outwardly, the C.9’s biggest difference to the original C.7 configuration – even though it was not very obvious – was the modified rear fuselage, which had to be changed in order to cover the longer and more slender Atar 9K-50 engine and its afterburner. In fact, the original IAI Nesher blueprints and toolings had been dusted off and used to produce these new parts.

Since the lighter Atar 9K-50 would not need the J79’s extra cooling and had a lower air mass flow, the Kfir’s characteristic auxiliary air intake at the fin’s root as well as several prominent air scoops along the fuselage disappeared, giving the aircraft a more streamlined look. As a positive side effect, this measure, together with the slimmer fuselage, improved aerodynamics, compensating for the slight reduction of overall thrust through the engine swap, and the longer fuselage made the aircraft directionally more stable, so that no fin fillet was necessary anymore. With the resulting short fin, the IA-96’s profile resembled that of the South African Atlas Cheetah E a lot, even though the latter were modernized Mirage IIIs and not converted IAI Kfirs. Compared with the Kfir C.7, top speed and service ceiling were slightly reduced, but the Atar 9K-50 consumed considerably less fuel, so that the unrefueled range of the short-legged Kfir with its thirsty J79 was markedly improved. The new engine was furthermore more responsive, so that overall performance and agility of the IA-96A remained on par with the Kfir or became even slightly better.

 

Beyond the aircraft order, Argentina also procured a modernized weapon arsenal from Israel for its new multi-role fighter generation. This included an undisclosed number of Derby medium range air-to-air missiles with an active-radar seeker, BVR capability and a range of 28 mi (45 km), Gabriel III anti-ship missiles with fire-and-forget capabilities and a range of more than 40 mi (60 km), as well as Griffin LGB guidance sets that could be added to various standard iron and cluster bombs. Furthermore, ten second-hand Thomson-CSF ATLIS II laser/electro-optical targeting pods were procured from France. Even though these pods lacked FLIR capabilities and were limited to being primarily a daylight/clear-weather system, they gave the Quique, in combination with the Griffin LGBs, full precision strike capability, esp. against ship targets – a clear political statement into the British direction.

 

The Quique fleet was supposed to replace all the older FAA types. With the roll-out of the first IA-96A in early 2015, all vintage FAA Mirages were officially decommissioned in November of the same year. Furthermore, all FAA’s A-4 Skyhawks were grounded as of January 2016, too (also for the lack of spares), even though a handful A-4ARs remained airworthy as a reserve and the rest in storage. Quique deliveries ended in September 2017 with the eighteenth machine, and all of them were allocated to FAA’s Grupo 5 de Caza at Villa Reynolds, 200 km (125 ml) in the South of Córdoba, where they had been assembled. However, since becoming operational, the aircraft were frequently deployed to other Argentinian air bases, including El Plumerillo Military Air Base in the Mendoza Province at the Chilean border and Rio Gallegos in Patagonia, in reach of the Malvinas/Falklands Islands.

 

If future budgets allow it, ten more IA-96A/Kfir C.9 might be ordered soon in order to replace the Argentinian Navy’s vintage Super Étendard fleet (which has been, since the decommissioning of ARA Veinticinco de Mayo in the late Eighties, land-based, anyway). The acquisition of four to six two-seaters, also modernized ex-IDF aircraft following the IA-96A pattern, with full attack capability and tentatively designated IA-96B, has been under consideration, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.65 m (51 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 8.22 m (27 ft 0 in)

Height: 4.55 m (14 ft 11 in)

Wing area: 34.8 m² (375 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,285 kg (16,061 lb)

Gross weight: 11,603 kg (25,580 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,200 kg (35,715 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× SNECMA Atar 9K50C-11 afterburning turbojet engine,

49.2 kN (11,100 lbf) dry thrust and 70.6 kN (15,900 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 2,350 km/h (1,460 mph, 1,270 kn) / Mach 2.2 at high altitude

1,390 km/h (860 mph; 750 kn) at sea level

Combat range: 1,300 km (810 mi, 700 nmi), clean, with internal fuel only

Ferry range: 2,600 km (1,600 mi, 1,400 nmi) w. three 1,300 l (340 US gal; 290 imp gal) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 17,000 m (56,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 233 m/s (45,900 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2× Rafael-built 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 553 cannon with 140 RPG

Nine external hardpoints for a maximum payload of 5,775 kg (12,732 lb) and a wide range of ordnance, including bombs such as the Mark 80 series, unguided air-to-ground rocket pods, Paveway and Griffin series of LGBs, guided air-to-ground missiles like the AGM-65 Maverick, and AIM-9 Sidewinders, Shafrir/Python/Derby-series AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This what-if model was inspired by a short entry about the IAI Kfir I had found at Wikipedia: a proposed C.9 variant for Argentina, as a revamped and re-engined C.7, even though the entry lacked any further details and I was not able to dig anything about the C.9 up in the WWW. However, I tried to interpret this scarce basis and deduct a model from it, because the story was/is so good. Having recently read a lot about the Argentinian Mirage III/Nesher fleet and the Malvinas/Falklands conflict helped a lot, too. With many import limitations imposed by Great Britain and the USA as well as Argentina’s highly restricted budget, I eventually settled upon the idea of a rather simple, re-engined Kfir of C.7 standard, so that outwardly not much had to be changed – a better radar would have been desirable (Block 60 standard), but I’d assume that this would not have been possible with Argentina’s highly limited funds that already prevented updates to the existing and rather vintage (if not outdated) aircraft fleet.

 

The basis for the model is a Hasegawa Kfir, which I bought without box (and it turned it to lack the dashboard). The Hasegawa Kfir is a C.2 and the model is very similar to the Italeri kit (a C.7, but it is virtually identical), but it has a much better fit, goes together more easily and calls for considerably less PSR. As another bonus, the Hasegawa kit comes with a wider range of ordnance and also has the construction benefit of a connecting ventral “floor”, which makes the fuselage more stable and therefor suitable for my modification (see below).

 

The different engine for the C.9 variant was the biggest challenge – the Kfir’s rear fuselage is wider and shorter than the Mirage III’s with the Atar engine. These are just subtle differences at 1:72 scale, but not easy to realize: I needed a completely new rear fuselage! As a convenient solution, I dug out a PM Model Nesher (which is no Nesher at all, just a poor Mirage III at best) from the donor bank and let the saw sing. This kit is horrible in many ways (really, stay away!), but it’s tail section and the jet nozzle, pimped with an afterburner interior, were acceptable as conversion fodder.

 

Blending the (crappy!) Mirage III parts into the crisp Hasegawa Kfir took some serious PSR, though, including the need to fill 3mm wide gaps along the delta wing roots and bridging disparate fuselage shapes and diameters at the implant’s intersections. The Kfir’s fin was re-transplanted and lost its characteristic auxiliary air intake for the J79 engine, so that the profile became more Mirage III/V-esque. Due to the longer afterburner section, the brake parachute fairing had to be extended, too. The longer (just 3-4mm), more slender tail section and the cleaner fin change the Kfir’s look markedly – for the better, IMHO, and the model could also depict an Atlas Cheetah E!

 

Further minor mods include an in-flight refueling receptacle, scratched from wire and white glue for the tip, the modified windshield (the OOB part was simply sanded smooth and polished back again to transparency) and the ordnance; the Gabriel ASMs were created on the basis of a photograph, and they once were AIM-54 Phoenix AAMs from a Matchbox F-14, modified with new wings, a blunted tip and a pitot made from thin wire. Their pylons were once parts of F-14 wing root pylons from an Italeri F-14, with launch rails made from styrene profiles. The Derby AAMs are heavily modified Matchbox Sidewinders with an extended, pointed tip, mounted onto the OOB pylons. The ventral drop tank comes from the Hasegawa kit.

  

Painting and markings:

This was quite a challenge, because I wanted to apply something modern and plausible, yet avoid standard paint schemes. In fact, a realistic Argentinian Kfir C.9 from the late 2010s would probably have been painted in an overall pale grey or in two pale shades of grey with little contrast (as applied to the very late Mirage IIIs and the A-4ARs), with subdued low-viz markings and no roundels at all. I found this boring, but I also did not want to apply a retro SEA scheme, as used on the Nesher/Dagger/Finger during the Falklands War.

 

After turning over many options in my mind, I settled upon a two-tone grey livery, somewhat of a compromise between air superiority and attack operations, esp. over open water. The pattern was inspired by the livery of late Turkish RF-4Es, which were supposed to be painted in FS 36118 over an FS 36270 (or 36375, sources are contradictive and pictures inconclusive) overall base with a rising waterline towards the rear and the light undersides color spilling over to the wings’ upper surfaces. This scheme is simple, but looks pretty interesting, breaks up the aircraft’s outlines effectively, and it could be easily adapted to the delta-wing Kfir.

However, I changed two details in favor of an IMHO better camouflage effect at height. Firstly, the fin’s upper section was painted in the light grey (it’s all dark grey on the Turkish Phantoms), what IMHO reduces the strong contrast against the sky and the horizon. For a similar reason I secondly raised the underside’s light grey waterline towards the nose, so that the upper dark grey area became an integral anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen and the aircraft show less contrast from a frontal point of view. On the Turkish F-4s, the dark grey slopes downwards for a wrap-around area directly behind the radome.

 

I used Humbrol 125 (FS 36118, a pretty bluish interpretation of “Gunship Gray”) and 126 (FS 36270, US Medium Grey) as basic colors. The Gunship Gray was, after a light washing with black ink, post-shaded with FS 35164 (Humbrol 144), giving the dark grey an even more bluish hue, while the Medium Grey was treated with FS 36320.

The cockpit was painted in Camouflage Grey (Humbrol 156), the landing gear with the wells as well as the air intake ducts in standard gloss white (Humbrol 22). The Derby AAMs became light grey (Humbrol 127) with a beige radome tip, while the Gabriel ASM received a multi-color livery in black, white and light grey.

 

Decals and markings are purely fictional - as mentioned above, I’d assume that a real-world FAA Kfir would these days only carry minimal national markings in the form of a simple fin flash, no roundels at all and just a tiny tactical code (if at all), and everything toned-down or black. However, I wanted the model to be identified more easily, so I added some more markings, including small but full-color FAA roundels on fuselage and wings as well as full-color fin flashes, all procured from an Airfix Pucará sheet. The “Fuerza Aérea Argentina” inscription on the nose came from a Colorado Decals Mirage III/V sheet. The tactical code was taken from an Airfix sheet for an Argentinian Mirage III – it’s actually “I-016”, just turned upside down for a (much) higher/later number. 😉

 

After shading effects, the model only received little weathering in the form of graphite around the jet nozzle and the guns under the air intakes. Then it was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

In the end a rather subtle conversion – even though the different rear fuselage was a major PSR stunt! The most obvious modification is probably the intake-less fin? The transplanted, different rear fuselage is hard to recognize and only true Mirage/Kfir experts might tell the changes – or the model is directly mistaken for a Mirage V fighter bomber? And even though the model carries a grey-in-grey scheme which I originally wanted to avoid, I think that the bluish touch and the integral, wavy pattern still look interesting?

However, I also like the story behind this whif that has real life roots – the real Kfir C.9 just failed to materialize because of lack of funding, and its introduction would certainly have had severe consequences for the unstable Argentinian-British relationships, since this capable aircraft would certainly pose a serious threat to the shaky peace in the Southern Atlantic and have stirred up the more or less dormant Falklands/Malvinas conflict again.

Colosseum

Following, a text, in english, from the Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia:

The Colosseum, or the Coliseum, originally the Flavian Amphitheatre (Latin: Amphitheatrum Flavium, Italian Anfiteatro Flavio or Colosseo), is an elliptical amphitheatre in the centre of the city of Rome, Italy, the largest ever built in the Roman Empire. It is considered one of the greatest works of Roman architecture and Roman engineering.

Occupying a site just east of the Roman Forum, its construction started between 70 and 72 AD[1] under the emperor Vespasian and was completed in 80 AD under Titus,[2] with further modifications being made during Domitian's reign (81–96).[3] The name "Amphitheatrum Flavium" derives from both Vespasian's and Titus's family name (Flavius, from the gens Flavia).

Capable of seating 50,000 spectators,[1][4][5] the Colosseum was used for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles such as mock sea battles, animal hunts, executions, re-enactments of famous battles, and dramas based on Classical mythology. The building ceased to be used for entertainment in the early medieval era. It was later reused for such purposes as housing, workshops, quarters for a religious order, a fortress, a quarry, and a Christian shrine.

Although in the 21st century it stays partially ruined because of damage caused by devastating earthquakes and stone-robbers, the Colosseum is an iconic symbol of Imperial Rome. It is one of Rome's most popular tourist attractions and still has close connections with the Roman Catholic Church, as each Good Friday the Pope leads a torchlit "Way of the Cross" procession that starts in the area around the Colosseum.[6]

The Colosseum is also depicted on the Italian version of the five-cent euro coin.

The Colosseum's original Latin name was Amphitheatrum Flavium, often anglicized as Flavian Amphitheater. The building was constructed by emperors of the Flavian dynasty, hence its original name, after the reign of Emperor Nero.[7] This name is still used in modern English, but generally the structure is better known as the Colosseum. In antiquity, Romans may have referred to the Colosseum by the unofficial name Amphitheatrum Caesareum; this name could have been strictly poetic.[8][9] This name was not exclusive to the Colosseum; Vespasian and Titus, builders of the Colosseum, also constructed an amphitheater of the same name in Puteoli (modern Pozzuoli).[10]

The name Colosseum has long been believed to be derived from a colossal statue of Nero nearby.[3] (the statue of Nero itself being named after one of the original ancient wonders, the Colossus of Rhodes[citation needed]. This statue was later remodeled by Nero's successors into the likeness of Helios (Sol) or Apollo, the sun god, by adding the appropriate solar crown. Nero's head was also replaced several times with the heads of succeeding emperors. Despite its pagan links, the statue remained standing well into the medieval era and was credited with magical powers. It came to be seen as an iconic symbol of the permanence of Rome.

In the 8th century, a famous epigram attributed to the Venerable Bede celebrated the symbolic significance of the statue in a prophecy that is variously quoted: Quamdiu stat Colisæus, stat et Roma; quando cadet colisæus, cadet et Roma; quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundus ("as long as the Colossus stands, so shall Rome; when the Colossus falls, Rome shall fall; when Rome falls, so falls the world").[11] This is often mistranslated to refer to the Colosseum rather than the Colossus (as in, for instance, Byron's poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage). However, at the time that the Pseudo-Bede wrote, the masculine noun coliseus was applied to the statue rather than to what was still known as the Flavian amphitheatre.

The Colossus did eventually fall, possibly being pulled down to reuse its bronze. By the year 1000 the name "Colosseum" had been coined to refer to the amphitheatre. The statue itself was largely forgotten and only its base survives, situated between the Colosseum and the nearby Temple of Venus and Roma.[12]

The name further evolved to Coliseum during the Middle Ages. In Italy, the amphitheatre is still known as il Colosseo, and other Romance languages have come to use similar forms such as le Colisée (French), el Coliseo (Spanish) and o Coliseu (Portuguese).

Construction of the Colosseum began under the rule of the Emperor Vespasian[3] in around 70–72AD. The site chosen was a flat area on the floor of a low valley between the Caelian, Esquiline and Palatine Hills, through which a canalised stream ran. By the 2nd century BC the area was densely inhabited. It was devastated by the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, following which Nero seized much of the area to add to his personal domain. He built the grandiose Domus Aurea on the site, in front of which he created an artificial lake surrounded by pavilions, gardens and porticoes. The existing Aqua Claudia aqueduct was extended to supply water to the area and the gigantic bronze Colossus of Nero was set up nearby at the entrance to the Domus Aurea.[12]

Although the Colossus was preserved, much of the Domus Aurea was torn down. The lake was filled in and the land reused as the location for the new Flavian Amphitheatre. Gladiatorial schools and other support buildings were constructed nearby within the former grounds of the Domus Aurea. According to a reconstructed inscription found on the site, "the emperor Vespasian ordered this new amphitheatre to be erected from his general's share of the booty." This is thought to refer to the vast quantity of treasure seized by the Romans following their victory in the Great Jewish Revolt in 70AD. The Colosseum can be thus interpreted as a great triumphal monument built in the Roman tradition of celebrating great victories[12], placating the Roman people instead of returning soldiers. Vespasian's decision to build the Colosseum on the site of Nero's lake can also be seen as a populist gesture of returning to the people an area of the city which Nero had appropriated for his own use. In contrast to many other amphitheatres, which were located on the outskirts of a city, the Colosseum was constructed in the city centre; in effect, placing it both literally and symbolically at the heart of Rome.

The Colosseum had been completed up to the third story by the time of Vespasian's death in 79. The top level was finished and the building inaugurated by his son, Titus, in 80.[3] Dio Cassius recounts that over 9,000 wild animals were killed during the inaugural games of the amphitheatre. The building was remodelled further under Vespasian's younger son, the newly designated Emperor Domitian, who constructed the hypogeum, a series of underground tunnels used to house animals and slaves. He also added a gallery to the top of the Colosseum to increase its seating capacity.

In 217, the Colosseum was badly damaged by a major fire (caused by lightning, according to Dio Cassius[13]) which destroyed the wooden upper levels of the amphitheatre's interior. It was not fully repaired until about 240 and underwent further repairs in 250 or 252 and again in 320. An inscription records the restoration of various parts of the Colosseum under Theodosius II and Valentinian III (reigned 425–455), possibly to repair damage caused by a major earthquake in 443; more work followed in 484[14] and 508. The arena continued to be used for contests well into the 6th century, with gladiatorial fights last mentioned around 435. Animal hunts continued until at least 523, when Anicius Maximus celebrated his consulship with some venationes, criticised by King Theodoric the Great for their high cost.

The Colosseum underwent several radical changes of use during the medieval period. By the late 6th century a small church had been built into the structure of the amphitheatre, though this apparently did not confer any particular religious significance on the building as a whole. The arena was converted into a cemetery. The numerous vaulted spaces in the arcades under the seating were converted into housing and workshops, and are recorded as still being rented out as late as the 12th century. Around 1200 the Frangipani family took over the Colosseum and fortified it, apparently using it as a castle.

Severe damage was inflicted on the Colosseum by the great earthquake in 1349, causing the outer south side, lying on a less stable alluvional terrain, to collapse. Much of the tumbled stone was reused to build palaces, churches, hospitals and other buildings elsewhere in Rome. A religious order moved into the northern third of the Colosseum in the mid-14th century and continued to inhabit it until as late as the early 19th century. The interior of the amphitheatre was extensively stripped of stone, which was reused elsewhere, or (in the case of the marble façade) was burned to make quicklime.[12] The bronze clamps which held the stonework together were pried or hacked out of the walls, leaving numerous pockmarks which still scar the building today.

During the 16th and 17th century, Church officials sought a productive role for the vast derelict hulk of the Colosseum. Pope Sixtus V (1585–1590) planned to turn the building into a wool factory to provide employment for Rome's prostitutes, though this proposal fell through with his premature death.[15] In 1671 Cardinal Altieri authorized its use for bullfights; a public outcry caused the idea to be hastily abandoned.

In 1749, Pope Benedict XIV endorsed as official Church policy the view that the Colosseum was a sacred site where early Christians had been martyred. He forbade the use of the Colosseum as a quarry and consecrated the building to the Passion of Christ and installed Stations of the Cross, declaring it sanctified by the blood of the Christian martyrs who perished there (see Christians and the Colosseum). However there is no historical evidence to support Benedict's claim, nor is there even any evidence that anyone prior to the 16th century suggested this might be the case; the Catholic Encyclopedia concludes that there are no historical grounds for the supposition. Later popes initiated various stabilization and restoration projects, removing the extensive vegetation which had overgrown the structure and threatened to damage it further. The façade was reinforced with triangular brick wedges in 1807 and 1827, and the interior was repaired in 1831, 1846 and in the 1930s. The arena substructure was partly excavated in 1810–1814 and 1874 and was fully exposed under Benito Mussolini in the 1930s.

The Colosseum is today one of Rome's most popular tourist attractions, receiving millions of visitors annually. The effects of pollution and general deterioration over time prompted a major restoration programme carried out between 1993 and 2000, at a cost of 40 billion Italian lire ($19.3m / €20.6m at 2000 prices). In recent years it has become a symbol of the international campaign against capital punishment, which was abolished in Italy in 1948. Several anti–death penalty demonstrations took place in front of the Colosseum in 2000. Since that time, as a gesture against the death penalty, the local authorities of Rome change the color of the Colosseum's night time illumination from white to gold whenever a person condemned to the death penalty anywhere in the world gets their sentence commuted or is released,[16] or if a jurisdiction abolishes the death penalty. Most recently, the Colosseum was illuminated in gold when capital punishment was abolished in the American state of New Mexico in April 2009.

Because of the ruined state of the interior, it is impractical to use the Colosseum to host large events; only a few hundred spectators can be accommodated in temporary seating. However, much larger concerts have been held just outside, using the Colosseum as a backdrop. Performers who have played at the Colosseum in recent years have included Ray Charles (May 2002),[18] Paul McCartney (May 2003),[19] Elton John (September 2005),[20] and Billy Joel (July 2006).

Exterior

Unlike earlier Greek theatres that were built into hillsides, the Colosseum is an entirely free-standing structure. It derives its basic exterior and interior architecture from that of two Roman theatres back to back. It is elliptical in plan and is 189 meters (615 ft / 640 Roman feet) long, and 156 meters (510 ft / 528 Roman feet) wide, with a base area of 6 acres (24,000 m2). The height of the outer wall is 48 meters (157 ft / 165 Roman feet). The perimeter originally measured 545 meters (1,788 ft / 1,835 Roman feet). The central arena is an oval 87 m (287 ft) long and 55 m (180 ft) wide, surrounded by a wall 5 m (15 ft) high, above which rose tiers of seating.

The outer wall is estimated to have required over 100,000 cubic meters (131,000 cu yd) of travertine stone which were set without mortar held together by 300 tons of iron clamps.[12] However, it has suffered extensive damage over the centuries, with large segments having collapsed following earthquakes. The north side of the perimeter wall is still standing; the distinctive triangular brick wedges at each end are modern additions, having been constructed in the early 19th century to shore up the wall. The remainder of the present-day exterior of the Colosseum is in fact the original interior wall.

The surviving part of the outer wall's monumental façade comprises three stories of superimposed arcades surmounted by a podium on which stands a tall attic, both of which are pierced by windows interspersed at regular intervals. The arcades are framed by half-columns of the Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian orders, while the attic is decorated with Corinthian pilasters.[21] Each of the arches in the second- and third-floor arcades framed statues, probably honoring divinities and other figures from Classical mythology.

Two hundred and forty mast corbels were positioned around the top of the attic. They originally supported a retractable awning, known as the velarium, that kept the sun and rain off spectators. This consisted of a canvas-covered, net-like structure made of ropes, with a hole in the center.[3] It covered two-thirds of the arena, and sloped down towards the center to catch the wind and provide a breeze for the audience. Sailors, specially enlisted from the Roman naval headquarters at Misenum and housed in the nearby Castra Misenatium, were used to work the velarium.[22]

The Colosseum's huge crowd capacity made it essential that the venue could be filled or evacuated quickly. Its architects adopted solutions very similar to those used in modern stadiums to deal with the same problem. The amphitheatre was ringed by eighty entrances at ground level, 76 of which were used by ordinary spectators.[3] Each entrance and exit was numbered, as was each staircase. The northern main entrance was reserved for the Roman Emperor and his aides, whilst the other three axial entrances were most likely used by the elite. All four axial entrances were richly decorated with painted stucco reliefs, of which fragments survive. Many of the original outer entrances have disappeared with the collapse of the perimeter wall, but entrances XXIII (23) to LIV (54) still survive.[12]

Spectators were given tickets in the form of numbered pottery shards, which directed them to the appropriate section and row. They accessed their seats via vomitoria (singular vomitorium), passageways that opened into a tier of seats from below or behind. These quickly dispersed people into their seats and, upon conclusion of the event or in an emergency evacuation, could permit their exit within only a few minutes. The name vomitoria derived from the Latin word for a rapid discharge, from which English derives the word vomit.

Interior

According to the Codex-Calendar of 354, the Colosseum could accommodate 87,000 people, although modern estimates put the figure at around 50,000. They were seated in a tiered arrangement that reflected the rigidly stratified nature of Roman society. Special boxes were provided at the north and south ends respectively for the Emperor and the Vestal Virgins, providing the best views of the arena. Flanking them at the same level was a broad platform or podium for the senatorial class, who were allowed to bring their own chairs. The names of some 5th century senators can still be seen carved into the stonework, presumably reserving areas for their use.

The tier above the senators, known as the maenianum primum, was occupied by the non-senatorial noble class or knights (equites). The next level up, the maenianum secundum, was originally reserved for ordinary Roman citizens (plebians) and was divided into two sections. The lower part (the immum) was for wealthy citizens, while the upper part (the summum) was for poor citizens. Specific sectors were provided for other social groups: for instance, boys with their tutors, soldiers on leave, foreign dignitaries, scribes, heralds, priests and so on. Stone (and later marble) seating was provided for the citizens and nobles, who presumably would have brought their own cushions with them. Inscriptions identified the areas reserved for specific groups.

Another level, the maenianum secundum in legneis, was added at the very top of the building during the reign of Domitian. This comprised a gallery for the common poor, slaves and women. It would have been either standing room only, or would have had very steep wooden benches. Some groups were banned altogether from the Colosseum, notably gravediggers, actors and former gladiators.

Each tier was divided into sections (maeniana) by curved passages and low walls (praecinctiones or baltei), and were subdivided into cunei, or wedges, by the steps and aisles from the vomitoria. Each row (gradus) of seats was numbered, permitting each individual seat to be exactly designated by its gradus, cuneus, and number.

The arena itself was 83 meters by 48 meters (272 ft by 157 ft / 280 by 163 Roman feet).[12] It comprised a wooden floor covered by sand (the Latin word for sand is harena or arena), covering an elaborate underground structure called the hypogeum (literally meaning "underground"). Little now remains of the original arena floor, but the hypogeum is still clearly visible. It consisted of a two-level subterranean network of tunnels and cages beneath the arena where gladiators and animals were held before contests began. Eighty vertical shafts provided instant access to the arena for caged animals and scenery pieces concealed underneath; larger hinged platforms, called hegmata, provided access for elephants and the like. It was restructured on numerous occasions; at least twelve different phases of construction can be seen.[12]

The hypogeum was connected by underground tunnels to a number of points outside the Colosseum. Animals and performers were brought through the tunnel from nearby stables, with the gladiators' barracks at the Ludus Magnus to the east also being connected by tunnels. Separate tunnels were provided for the Emperor and the Vestal Virgins to permit them to enter and exit the Colosseum without needing to pass through the crowds.[12]

Substantial quantities of machinery also existed in the hypogeum. Elevators and pulleys raised and lowered scenery and props, as well as lifting caged animals to the surface for release. There is evidence for the existence of major hydraulic mechanisms[12] and according to ancient accounts, it was possible to flood the arena rapidly, presumably via a connection to a nearby aqueduct.

The Colosseum and its activities supported a substantial industry in the area. In addition to the amphitheatre itself, many other buildings nearby were linked to the games. Immediately to the east is the remains of the Ludus Magnus, a training school for gladiators. This was connected to the Colosseum by an underground passage, to allow easy access for the gladiators. The Ludus Magnus had its own miniature training arena, which was itself a popular attraction for Roman spectators. Other training schools were in the same area, including the Ludus Matutinus (Morning School), where fighters of animals were trained, plus the Dacian and Gallic Schools.

Also nearby were the Armamentarium, comprising an armory to store weapons; the Summum Choragium, where machinery was stored; the Sanitarium, which had facilities to treat wounded gladiators; and the Spoliarium, where bodies of dead gladiators were stripped of their armor and disposed of.

Around the perimeter of the Colosseum, at a distance of 18 m (59 ft) from the perimeter, was a series of tall stone posts, with five remaining on the eastern side. Various explanations have been advanced for their presence; they may have been a religious boundary, or an outer boundary for ticket checks, or an anchor for the velarium or awning.

Right next to the Colosseum is also the Arch of Constantine.

he Colosseum was used to host gladiatorial shows as well as a variety of other events. The shows, called munera, were always given by private individuals rather than the state. They had a strong religious element but were also demonstrations of power and family prestige, and were immensely popular with the population. Another popular type of show was the animal hunt, or venatio. This utilized a great variety of wild beasts, mainly imported from Africa and the Middle East, and included creatures such as rhinoceros, hippopotamuses, elephants, giraffes, aurochs, wisents, barbary lions, panthers, leopards, bears, caspian tigers, crocodiles and ostriches. Battles and hunts were often staged amid elaborate sets with movable trees and buildings. Such events were occasionally on a huge scale; Trajan is said to have celebrated his victories in Dacia in 107 with contests involving 11,000 animals and 10,000 gladiators over the course of 123 days.

During the early days of the Colosseum, ancient writers recorded that the building was used for naumachiae (more properly known as navalia proelia) or simulated sea battles. Accounts of the inaugural games held by Titus in AD 80 describe it being filled with water for a display of specially trained swimming horses and bulls. There is also an account of a re-enactment of a famous sea battle between the Corcyrean (Corfiot) Greeks and the Corinthians. This has been the subject of some debate among historians; although providing the water would not have been a problem, it is unclear how the arena could have been waterproofed, nor would there have been enough space in the arena for the warships to move around. It has been suggested that the reports either have the location wrong, or that the Colosseum originally featured a wide floodable channel down its central axis (which would later have been replaced by the hypogeum).[12]

Sylvae or recreations of natural scenes were also held in the arena. Painters, technicians and architects would construct a simulation of a forest with real trees and bushes planted in the arena's floor. Animals would be introduced to populate the scene for the delight of the crowd. Such scenes might be used simply to display a natural environment for the urban population, or could otherwise be used as the backdrop for hunts or dramas depicting episodes from mythology. They were also occasionally used for executions in which the hero of the story — played by a condemned person — was killed in one of various gruesome but mythologically authentic ways, such as being mauled by beasts or burned to death.

The Colosseum today is now a major tourist attraction in Rome with thousands of tourists each year paying to view the interior arena, though entrance for EU citizens is partially subsidised, and under-18 and over-65 EU citizens' entrances are free.[24] There is now a museum dedicated to Eros located in the upper floor of the outer wall of the building. Part of the arena floor has been re-floored. Beneath the Colosseum, a network of subterranean passageways once used to transport wild animals and gladiators to the arena opened to the public in summer 2010.[25]

The Colosseum is also the site of Roman Catholic ceremonies in the 20th and 21st centuries. For instance, Pope Benedict XVI leads the Stations of the Cross called the Scriptural Way of the Cross (which calls for more meditation) at the Colosseum[26][27] on Good Fridays.

In the Middle Ages, the Colosseum was clearly not regarded as a sacred site. Its use as a fortress and then a quarry demonstrates how little spiritual importance was attached to it, at a time when sites associated with martyrs were highly venerated. It was not included in the itineraries compiled for the use of pilgrims nor in works such as the 12th century Mirabilia Urbis Romae ("Marvels of the City of Rome"), which claims the Circus Flaminius — but not the Colosseum — as the site of martyrdoms. Part of the structure was inhabited by a Christian order, but apparently not for any particular religious reason.

It appears to have been only in the 16th and 17th centuries that the Colosseum came to be regarded as a Christian site. Pope Pius V (1566–1572) is said to have recommended that pilgrims gather sand from the arena of the Colosseum to serve as a relic, on the grounds that it was impregnated with the blood of martyrs. This seems to have been a minority view until it was popularised nearly a century later by Fioravante Martinelli, who listed the Colosseum at the head of a list of places sacred to the martyrs in his 1653 book Roma ex ethnica sacra.

Martinelli's book evidently had an effect on public opinion; in response to Cardinal Altieri's proposal some years later to turn the Colosseum into a bullring, Carlo Tomassi published a pamphlet in protest against what he regarded as an act of desecration. The ensuing controversy persuaded Pope Clement X to close the Colosseum's external arcades and declare it a sanctuary, though quarrying continued for some time.

At the instance of St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Pope Benedict XIV (1740–1758) forbade the quarrying of the Colosseum and erected Stations of the Cross around the arena, which remained until February 1874. St. Benedict Joseph Labre spent the later years of his life within the walls of the Colosseum, living on alms, prior to his death in 1783. Several 19th century popes funded repair and restoration work on the Colosseum, and it still retains a Christian connection today. Crosses stand in several points around the arena and every Good Friday the Pope leads a Via Crucis procession to the amphitheatre.

 

Coliseu (Colosseo)

A seguir, um texto, em português, da Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre:

 

O Coliseu, também conhecido como Anfiteatro Flaviano, deve seu nome à expressão latina Colosseum (ou Coliseus, no latim tardio), devido à estátua colossal de Nero, que ficava perto a edificação. Localizado no centro de Roma, é uma excepção de entre os anfiteatros pelo seu volume e relevo arquitectónico. Originalmente capaz de albergar perto de 50 000 pessoas, e com 48 metros de altura, era usado para variados espetáculos. Foi construído a leste do fórum romano e demorou entre 8 a 10 anos a ser construído.

O Coliseu foi utilizado durante aproximadamente 500 anos, tendo sido o último registro efetuado no século VI da nossa era, bastante depois da queda de Roma em 476. O edifício deixou de ser usado para entretenimento no começo da era medieval, mas foi mais tarde usado como habitação, oficina, forte, pedreira, sede de ordens religiosas e templo cristão.

Embora esteja agora em ruínas devido a terremotos e pilhagens, o Coliseu sempre foi visto como símbolo do Império Romano, sendo um dos melhores exemplos da sua arquitectura. Actualmente é uma das maiores atrações turísticas em Roma e em 7 de julho de 2007 foi eleita umas das "Sete maravilhas do mundo moderno". Além disso, o Coliseu ainda tem ligações à igreja, com o Papa a liderar a procissão da Via Sacra até ao Coliseu todas as Sextas-feiras Santas.

O coliseu era um local onde seriam exibidos toda uma série de espectáculos, inseridos nos vários tipos de jogos realizados na urbe. Os combates entre gladiadores, chamados muneras, eram sempre pagos por pessoas individuais em busca de prestígio e poder em vez do estado. A arena (87,5 m por 55 m) possuía um piso de madeira, normalmente coberto de areia para absorver o sangue dos combates (certa vez foi colocada água na representação de uma batalha naval), sob o qual existia um nível subterrâneo com celas e jaulas que tinham acessos diretos para a arena; Alguns detalhes dessa construção, como a cobertura removível que poupava os espectadores do sol, são bastante interessantes, e mostram o refinamento atingido pelos construtores romanos. Formado por cinco anéis concêntricos de arcos e abóbadas, o Coliseu representa bem o avanço introduzido pelos romanos à engenharia de estruturas. Esses arcos são de concreto (de cimento natural) revestidos por alvenaria. Na verdade, a alvenaria era construída simultaneamente e já servia de forma para a concretagem. Outro tipo de espetáculos era a caça de animais, ou venatio, onde eram utilizados animais selvagens importados de África. Os animais mais utilizados eram os grandes felinos como leões, leopardos e panteras, mas animais como rinocerontes, hipopótamos, elefantes, girafas, crocodilos e avestruzes eram também utilizados. As caçadas, tal como as representações de batalhas famosas, eram efetuadas em elaborados cenários onde constavam árvores e edifícios amovíveis.

Estas últimas eram por vezes representadas numa escala gigante; Trajano celebrou a sua vitória em Dácia no ano 107 com concursos envolvendo 11 000 animais e 10 000 gladiadores no decorrer de 123 dias.

Segundo o documentário produzido pelo canal televisivo fechado, History Channel, o Coliseu também era utilizado para a realização de naumaquias, ou batalhas navais. O coliseu era inundado por dutos subterrâneos alimentados pelos aquedutos que traziam água de longe. Passada esta fase, foi construída uma estrutura, que é a que podemos ver hoje nas ruínas do Coliseu, com altura de um prédio de dois andares, onde no passado se concentravam os gladiadores, feras e todo o pessoal que organizava os duelos que ocorreriam na arena. A arena era como um grande palco, feito de madeira, e se chama arena, que em italiano significa areia, porque era jogada areia sob a estrutura de madeira para esconder as imperfeições. Os animais podiam ser inseridos nos duelos a qualquer momento por um esquema de elevadores que surgiam em alguns pontos da arena; o filme "Gladiador" retrata muito bem esta questão dos elevadores. Os estudiosos, há pouco tempo, descobriram uma rede de dutos inundados por baixo da arena do Coliseu. Acredita-se que o Coliseu foi construído onde, outrora, foi o lago do Palácio Dourado de Nero; O imperador Vespasiano escolheu o local da construção para que o mal causado por Nero fosse esquecido por uma construção gloriosa.

Sylvae, ou recreações de cenas naturais eram também realizadas no Coliseu. Pintores, técnicos e arquitectos construiriam simulações de florestas com árvores e arbustos reais plantados no chão da arena. Animais seriam então introduzidos para dar vida à simulação. Esses cenários podiam servir só para agrado do público ou como pano de fundo para caçadas ou dramas representando episódios da mitologia romana, tão autênticos quanto possível, ao ponto de pessoas condenadas fazerem o papel de heróis onde eram mortos de maneiras horríveis mas mitologicamente autênticas, como mutilados por animais ou queimados vivos.

Embora o Coliseu tenha funcionado até ao século VI da nossa Era, foram proibidos os jogos com mortes humanas desde 404, sendo apenas massacrados animais como elefantes, panteras ou leões.

O Coliseu era sobretudo um enorme instrumento de propaganda e difusão da filosofia de toda uma civilização, e tal como era já profetizado pelo monge e historiador inglês Beda na sua obra do século VII "De temporibus liber": "Enquanto o Coliseu se mantiver de pé, Roma permanecerá; quando o Coliseu ruir, Roma ruirá e quando Roma cair, o mundo cairá".

A construção do Coliseu foi iniciada por Vespasiano, nos anos 70 da nossa era. O edifício foi inaugurado por Tito, em 80, embora apenas tivesse sido finalizado poucos anos depois. Empresa colossal, este edifício, inicialmente, poderia sustentar no seu interior cerca de 50 000 espectadores, constando de três andares. Aquando do reinado de Alexandre Severo e Gordiano III, é ampliado com um quarto andar, podendo suster agora cerca de 90 000 espectadores. A grandiosidade deste monumento testemunha verdadeiramente o poder e esplendor de Roma na época dos Flávios.

Os jogos inaugurais do Coliseu tiveram lugar ano 80, sob o mandato de Tito, para celebrar a finalização da construção. Depois do curto reinado de Tito começar com vários meses de desastres, incluindo a erupção do Monte Vesúvio, um incêndio em Roma, e um surto de peste, o mesmo imperador inaugurou o edifício com uns jogos pródigos que duraram mais de cem dias, talvez para tentar apaziguar o público romano e os deuses. Nesses jogos de cem dias terão ocorrido combates de gladiadores, venationes (lutas de animais), execuções, batalhas navais, caçadas e outros divertimentos numa escala sem precedentes.

O Coliseu, como não se encontrava inserido numa zona de encosta, enterrado, tal como normalmente sucede com a generalidade dos teatros e anfiteatros romanos, possuía um “anel” artificial de rocha à sua volta, para garantir sustentação e, ao mesmo tempo, esta substrutura serve como ornamento ao edifício e como condicionador da entrada dos espectadores. Tal como foi referido anteriormente, possuía três pisos, sendo mais tarde adicionado um outro. É construído em mármore, pedra travertina, ladrilho e tufo (pedra calcária com grandes poros). A sua planta elíptica mede dois eixos que se estendem aproximadamente de 190 m por 155 m. A fachada compõe-se de arcadas decoradas com colunas dóricas, jónicas e coríntias, de acordo com o pavimento em que se encontravam. Esta subdivisão deve-se ao facto de ser uma construção essencialmente vertical, criando assim uma diversificação do espaço.

 

Os assentos eram em mármore e a cavea, escadaria ou arquibancada, dividia-se em três partes, correspondentes às diferentes classes sociais: o podium, para as classes altas; as maeniana, sector destinado à classe média; e os portici, ou pórticos, construídos em madeira, para a plebe e as mulheres. O pulvinar, a tribuna imperial, encontrava-se situada no podium e era balizada pelos assentos reservados aos senadores e magistrados. Rampas no interior do edifício facilitavam o acesso às várias zonas de onde podiam visualizar o espectáculo, sendo protegidos por uma barreira e por uma série de arqueiros posicionados numa passagem de madeira, para o caso de algum acidente. Por cima dos muros ainda são visíveis as mísulas, que sustentavam o velarium, enorme cobertura de lona destinada a proteger do sol os espectadores e, nos subterrâneos, ficavam as jaulas dos animais, bem como todas as celas e galerias necessárias aos serviços do anfiteatro.

O monumento permaneceu como sede principal dos espetáculos da urbe romana até ao período do imperador Honorius, no século V. Danificado por um terremoto no começo do mesmo século, foi alvo de uma extensiva restauração na época de Valentinianus III. Em meados do século XIII, a família Frangipani transformou-o em fortaleza e, ao longo dos séculos XV e XVI, foi por diversas vezes saqueado, perdendo grande parte dos materiais nobres com os quais tinha sido construído.

Os relatos romanos referem-se a cristãos sendo martirizados em locais de Roma descritos pouco pormenorizadamente (no anfiteatro, na arena...), quando Roma tinha numerosos anfiteatros e arenas. Apesar de muito provavelmente o Coliseu não ter sido utilizado para martírios, o Papa Bento XIV consagrou-o no século XVII à Paixão de Cristo e declarou-o lugar sagrado. Os trabalhos de consolidação e restauração parcial do monumento, já há muito em ruínas, foram feitos sobretudo pelos pontífices Gregório XVI e Pio IX, no século XIX.

The Great Northern Railway (GNR) Class C1 is a type of 4-4-2 steam locomotive. One, ex GNR 251 (later LNER 3251 in 1924, and LNER 2800 in 1946), survives in preservation. Much like their small boiler cousins, they were capable of reaching speeds of up to 90 mph (145 km/h). They were also known as Large Atlantics.

 

The C1 Class, as it was known under both GNR & LNER classifications, was designed by Henry Ivatt as an enlarged version of what became the LNER C2 Class. The principle of the design was to produce a powerful, free-steaming engine to haul the fastest and heaviest express trains on the Great Northern. They could thus be seen as the start of the East Coast 'Big Engine' policy. None were ever named.

 

The first engine, No. 251, was introduced in 1902, with eighty more being built at Doncaster Works between 1904 and 1908. Although they suffered from a number of teething troubles, the Atlantics were generally very successful. They were originally fitted with slide valves, but later gained piston valves, which produced a notable improvement in performance. The Atlantics remained in front-line service for many years, sometimes being called upon to haul trains of over 500 long tons (508 t; 560 short tons). They were known for reaching speeds of up to 90 miles per hour.

 

On the GNR, the classification C1 was used for all of their 4-4-2 tender locomotives, but there was considerable variation within the 116 locomotives making up this group. The LNER divided them into two classes: C2 for the 22 locomotives built in 1898–1903 with boilers of 4 feet 8 inches (1.42 m) diameter; and C1 for the remaining 94, which mostly had boilers of 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) diameter – but there were several locomotives within the latter group that differed significantly from the others.

 

The "standard" variety of large-boiler C1 was represented by nos. 251, 272–291, 293–301, 1400–20 and 1422–51 built at Doncaster between 1902 and 1908. These had boilers producing saturated steam at a pressure of 175 lbf/in2 (1,210 kPa) and two outside cylinders, having a diameter of 18+3⁄4 in (480 mm) and a stroke of 24 in (610 mm) using simple expansion driving the rear coupled wheels and fed through slide valves.

 

No. 292, built at Doncaster in 1904 (but not entering service until 1905), was a four-cylinder compound. The high-pressure cylinders, having a diameter of 13 in (330 mm) and a stroke of 20 in (510 mm), were outside the frames, driving the rear coupled wheels; and the low-pressure cylinders, 16 by 26 in (410 by 660 mm) were inside, driving the front coupled axle. The valves were arranged so that the locomotive could work either as a compound or as a four-cylinder simple. The boiler pressure was 200 lbf/in2 (1,400 kPa), but whilst the boiler was under repair, the locomotive used a 175 lbf/in2 (1,210 kPa) boiler from 1910 to 1912. This locomotive was withdrawn in 1927 and scrapped in 1928.

 

No. 1300, another four-cylinder compound, was an experimental locomotive which differed greatly from all of the others. It was built by Vulcan Foundry in 1905, largely to their own design although to Ivatt's specifications. The boiler had a narrow firebox, a diameter of 5 ft 3 in (1.60 m) and a pressure of 200 lbf/in2 (1,400 kPa). As with No. 292, the high-pressure cylinders were outside, driving the rear coupled wheels, whilst the low-pressure cylinders were inside, driving the front coupled axle; but their dimensions were 14 by 26 in (360 by 660 mm) and 23 by 26 in (580 by 660 mm) respectively. The engine worked as a two-cylinder simple on starting, changing over to compound expansion automatically. A superheater was fitted in 1914, and the engine was rebuilt as a two-cylinder simple in 1917; the new cylinders were outside, 20 by 26 in (510 by 660 mm) of the type used on class H3, driving the leading coupled wheels. It was withdrawn in 1924.

 

No. 1421, built at Doncaster in 1907 was again a four-cylinder compound, but differed from No. 292 in a number of ways; in particular, the inside cylinder diameter was increased to 18 in (460 mm). It was superheated in 1914 and rebuilt in 1920 as a two-cylinder simple with piston valves. It was then generally similar to the standard engines after they had been superheated, and it ran until 1947.

 

The last ten, Nos. 1452–61 built at Doncaster in 1910, had boilers producing superheated steam at 150 lbf/in2 (1,000 kPa), and the cylinders were fed through piston valves.

 

No. 279 was rebuilt in 1915 with four cylinders 15 by 26 in (380 by 660 mm) utilising simple expansion and driving the rear coupled axle. It was rebuilt back to a two-cylinder simple in 1938, but using 20 by 26 in (510 by 660 mm) cylinders of the type used on class K2 having the piston valves above the cylinders; in this form it ran until 1948.

 

No. 1419 (renumbered 4419 in May 1924) was equipped with a booster engine on the trailing axle in July 1923; to accommodate this, the frames were lengthened at the rear, which also allowed a larger cab to be fitted. At the same time, the locomotive was given a superheater and piston valves, in line with others of the class. The booster, being for extra power at very low speeds, were of little use above speeds of 25mph, was removed temporarily between July 1924 and February 1925, and it was permanently removed in November 1935.

 

They were eventually superseded on the heaviest trains by the Gresley A1 Pacifics in the early 1920s. They continued to haul lighter expresses up until 1950, although this did include the Harrogate Pullman for a period during the 1920s and 1930s. They were often called upon to take over trains from failed Pacifics and put up some remarkable performances with loads far in excess of those they were designed to haul. One once took over the Flying Scotsman from a failed A3 at Peterborough and not only made up time but arrived early.

The THAI (Tetra-Ion-Engine Hyperspace-capable Attack Interceptor) Fighter is an uncompromising design for a space superiority fighter. It is expensive to manufacture and maintain; and reserved for only the Empire's top pilots.

 

Heavy Weather

Toa Mazeka is fully capable of conjuring normal, heavy and even bizarre weather patterns with his Storm Ruler lance.

 

Gather friends, listen to a tale that has never been told, the Red Star, a mystery old as time, always seen flying high in the sky, unknown & full of wonder for far too long, beings known as the kestora, primary residents on board, alien to us as we are are to them. Who knew the stars purpose and that a race of beings were up far in the heavens, as you know, Makuta has taken over the Great Spirit, as a precaution to the ruler of shadow's actions and new stolen power, the Kestora have been busy planning & building Titans that would serve as gods and stop Makuta if he ever attempted to seize the Red Star, resurrect his servants he used and traveled to the rest of the matoran universe and alternate dimensions

one of four trusted and selected warriors were.. Mazeka

  

Before his days as a toa and the makuta's invasion in Karda Nui, mazeka was a brilliant matoran, keeping his spirits and hopes high, mazeka worked hard to be the greatest inventor, creating the proto jets and the machines the toa would pilot, the brave matoran would lead his fellow matoran to new heights, however the makuta attacked while he was away on a scouting flight in a uncharted area that would be a nest, mazeka went missing but avoided having the light drained from him, lost and fallen mid flight from a unknown makuta, meeting his end in a raging storm that raged up into the sky, carried away by powerful winds and striked with a flash of lightning, assumed and dead, mazeka was beamed up to the red star, there he would be reborn and avenge his fallen matoran

 

Toa Mazeka

Alias: Sky God

Kanohi: Zeus

Allows the user to instantly clear the skies to shine light, reform thick clouds and conjure a storm of strong wind, freezing rain, acid rain and violent lighting strikes.

Element: Air

Powers: Master of weather

Weapon: Storm Ruler

 

Abilities:

Full control over the Air and Weather

Normal Weather like rain storms, snow storms, wind storms, lightning and thunder storms.

or Heavy Weather by making it rain dangerous rahi, acid/fiery rain. Hail hard and thick as rocks. or weird as mutating Matoran, Makuta and Toa into Ussal's

+++ 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 Folland Gnat was a British compact swept-wing subsonic fighter aircraft that had been developed and produced by Folland Aircraft. Envisioned as an affordable light fighter in contrast to the rising cost and size of typical combat aircraft. It was procured as a trainer aircraft for the Royal Air Force (RAF) as well as by export customers, who used the Gnat in both combat and training capacities.

 

Designed by W. E. W. Petter, the Gnat had its origins in the preceding private venture Folland Midge. The issuing of Operational Requirement OR.303 by the British Air Ministry served to motivate the type's development; the Gnat was later submitted to meet this requirement. Its design allowed for its construction and maintenance tasks to be carried out without specialised tools, making it suitable for use in countries that had not yet become highly industrialized.

 

In order that the project would not be delayed before reaching the prototype stage, Petter's unarmed proof-of-concept demonstrator for the Gnat was powered by the less powerful Armstrong Siddeley Viper 101 turbojet engine, capable of generating 1,640 lbf (7.3 kN / 744 kgp) of thrust.While using a different powerplant from later-built prototypes and production aircraft, the demonstrator still used a nearly-identical airframe along with similar onboard systems so that these could be proved in advance of the Gnat itself being built. On 11 August 1954, the Midge performed its maiden flight, piloted by Folland's chief test pilot Edward Tennant. Despite the low-powered engine, the compact jet was able to break Mach 1 while in a dive and proved to be very agile during its flying trials. On 20 September 1955, the Midge was destroyed in a crash, which had possibly been due to human error.

 

The Midge failed to interest the RAF as a combat aircraft at that time, but officers did issue encouragement of the development of a similar aircraft for training purposes. The larger Gnat, which was being developed in parallel with the Midge, was an improved version of the original fighter design; it was differentiated by larger air intakes to suit the Orpheus engine, a slightly larger wing, and provision for the installation of a 30 mm ADEN cannon in each intake lip. The first prototype Gnat was built as a private venture by Folland. Subsequently, six further aircraft were ordered by the British Ministry of Supply for evaluation purposes. On 18 July 1955, the Folland prototype, serial number G-39-2, first flew from RAF Boscombe Down, Wiltshire.

 

Although the evaluation by the British brought no orders for the lightweight fighter, orders were placed by Finland, Yugoslavia and the former British colony Rhodesia. India placed a large order for the type, which also included a licence for production by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), and this led to further, more capable variants of the Gnat designed and produced in India.

 

The Royal Rhodesian Air Force received the first of its 12 Gnats (9 F.1 day fighters with a simple gun-ranging radar and 3 FR.1 photo-reconnaissance planes, all were outfitted with four underwing pylons) on 30 July 1959, as a part of several procurements to modernize the country's air force during the late Fifties, from 1954 onwards, 16 Canberra B2 and T4 bombers were purchased beyond the Gnats, as well as Provost T52 trainers, Douglas Dakota and Canadair DC-4M Argonaut transports. The Gnats were delivered in standard RAF day fighter colors and allocated to day fighter duties as well as to tactical reconnaissance.

However, the Gnat was soon found to be a problematic aircraft in service and required, despuite easy handling due to the aircraft's small size and simple construcution, a lot of ground maintenance, and the engines suffered initially in the harsh African climate. In 1962, Hawker Hunter fighter aircraft were obtained, and the Gnats and older Vampire FB9 and T55s were reallocated to advanced training and ground attack roles. The Gnats received at that time, like the rest of the Rhodesian aircraft fleet, a different camouflage in dark green and dark earth on the upper surfaces, more suitable for the type's theatre of operations. In 1970, when Rhodesia declared itself a republic, the "Royal" was dropped and the machines received new, subdued national markings: the former RAF type D roundel with a single superimposed assegai spear in six standard positions became a green ring with a lion and tusk on a white center, only carried on the fuselage flanks.

 

By that time the Rhodesian Air Force was already heavily involved in the so-called Bush War, also called the Second Chimurenga and the Zimbabwe War of Liberation. The conflict pitted three forces against one another: the Rhodesian white minority-led government of Ian Smith (later the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian government of Bishop Abel Muzorewa); the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union; and the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army of Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union.

 

Once the initial problems were ironed out, the plane proved to be extremely manouevreable, popular among its pilots and had good performance in the air, but it remained very maintenance-intensive and frail, resulting in a low operational ready rate. The availability of spare parts was always an issue, and its maintenance a challenge to the conscript mechanics. When the Rhodesian Bush War intensified after 1972, the age of the aircraft, the shortage of spares and a deteriorating air safety record became a growing concern for the Air Staff. Until then, three Gnats had already been lost, two of them through avoidable maintenance and fatigue issues, and one Gnat had been fallen victim to small caliber ground fire while operating at low altitude.

 

Nevertheless, the small Rhodesian Gnat fleet remained active (it simply had to, because there was no alternative or replacement available) and took part in many operations, primarily providing close air support for friendly ground troops. In this role, the Gnat - despite its limited payload - excelled due to its high agility, the powerful 30 mm cannon, an excellent field of view for the pilot and its sheer small size which made identification and aiming at it difficult. By then, operational Rhodesian Gnats had their original silver undersides overpainted with dark earth, for an integral camouflage best suited for low-level operations.

However, even though quite effective and successful, two more Gnats were lost in fatal crashes in 1974 and they were removed from active service in 1975 and temporarily replaced by thirteen Vampire FB.52s on loan from South Africa. The surviving machines were intially mothballed at Thornhill Air Force Base, but their state detriorated quickly, so that all machines were scrapped in early 1979, when the short-lived Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government of Bishop Muzorewa was installed and Rhodesia subsequently became independent as Zimbabwe.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 29 ft 9 in (9.07 m)

Wingspan: 22 ft 2 in (6.76 m)

Height: 8 ft 10 in (2.69 m)

Wing area: 136.6 sq ft (12.69 m²)

Airfoil: RAE 102 modified

Empty weight: 4,800 lb (2,177 kg)

Gross weight: 6,575 lb (2,982 kg) interceptor

8,765 lb (3,976 kg) tactical, with external tanks and armament

Max takeoff weight: 9,040 lb (4,100 kg)

Fuel capacity: 175 imp gal (210 US gal; 800 l) in seven fuselage tanks + 25 imp gal (30 US gal; 110 l)

in two optional rear fuselage tanks + two optional 66 imp gal (79 US gal; 300 l) jettisonable

under-wing slipper tanks

Maximum fuel: 332 imp gal (399 US gal; 1,510 l)

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Siddeley BOr.2 Orpheus 701-01 turbojet engine with 4,705 lbf (20.93 kN) thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 604 kn (695 mph, 1,119 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,096 m), Mach 0.98

Range: 434.5 nmi (500.0 mi, 804.7 km)

Endurance: 1 hour 10 minutes (normal)

2 hours 15 minutes (max fuel)

Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)

Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s)

Time to altitude: 45,000 ft (13,716 m) 5 minutes

Take-off distance to 50 ft (15 m): 2,190 ft (668 m) (interceptor)

3,780 ft (1,152 m) (tactical with full external load)

Landing distance from 50 ft (15 m): 2,200 ft (671 m)

 

Armament:

2x 30mm ADEN cannon with 115 rpg

Four underwing hardpoints for drop tanks, iron bombs and unguided missiles,

for a total ordnance load of 1.500 lb (681 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

The idea for this build was spawned about two years ago when I coverted a P-51D into a COIN aircraft with a nose wheel and two turboprop engines, which ended up in late Rhodesian markings. I wondered, since Rhodesia originally procured a lot of material from Great Britain (including Vampires, Hunters and even Canberras), if there was a space for the nimble Gnat single-seater? The idea lingered and I had in the meantime stashed away one Special Hobby's recent Gnat F.1 kits, and I felt that the time had come to tackle this literally little project during the 2020 Xmas holidays.

 

The Special Hobby kit is really nice - a very positive surprise. Fit is very good, almost as good as Airfix' latest new offerings, but with less pronounced engraving "trenches". Details are excellent, and the kit comes with a lot of optional parts to build various Gnat versions, plus a wide range of ordnance. It went together easily, and I placed a lot of lead beads into the nose and the areaa behind the cockpit to keep its nose down. The only problem I had was the fit of the cockpit tub and the resulting issues with the fuselage halves, which only closed through the use of force and lots of glue.

 

Being a standard Gnat F.1, the kit was built OOB, I just added a blade antenna under the nose and used the optional part for a slightly bulged spine in front of the fin (from an early Finnish aircraft). The ordnance came from the scrap box, though, and consists of a pair of Matchbox SNEB rocket launchers and a pair of 500 lb (225 kg) bombs, left over from a Special Hobby SM2B Super Mystère. It's probably close to the maximum ordnance the Gnat could carry. The OOB rocket launchers were not used because I think they belong to an Indian aircraft and look as if they were of Soviet origin.

  

Painting and markings:

Basically very simple. In the Sixties, Rhodesian aircraft changed from the RAF day fighter scheme in Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey with "High Speed Silver" (aluminum lacquer) undersides to an upper camouflage in Dark Green/Dark Earth. This does not sound sexy, but these early WWII colors work perfectly in the South African theatre of operations, as already confirmed by the converted Mustang which carried a similar livery. However, in order to give the Gnat a slightly different look I retained the metallic underside (the Mustang had a late-style Dark Earth belly).

 

The camouflage pattern is based on the original RAF scheme for the Gnat, with RAF Dark Green (Humbrol 163) and a lightened earth tone (Humbrol 29 and 187, in a 2:1 ratio), because I found the pure Humbrol 29 to lack contrast. The undersides became Matt Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol and the camouflage was wrapped around the leading edges. As a little visual bug I gave the aircraft a replacement rudder on the fin, which is painted in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164), maybe a spare part from an older, already retired aircraft?

The cockpit was painted in a very dark grey (Anthracite, Revell 09, with some dry-brushing with Revell 77) and the landing gear as well as the respective wells became Humbrol 56, for a different, more greyish metallic shade.

 

As usual, the model received a light black ink wash and some dry-brushed post-panel-shading to simulate wear, tear and constant use. The normally black di-electric fairings on nose and spine were treated with an earth brown tone, because these parts would quickly fade under the influence of sunlight.

 

The marking are - typical for Rhodesian aircraft in the Seventies - minimal. The small roundels on the fuselage actually belong to a RhAF Vampire trainer (Xtradecal), but due to their small size they work perfectly on the tiny Gnat. The same goes for the fin flashes. The serial number also comes from this machine, and beyond these few markings no other codes were carried. Stencils were taken from the Gnat's OOB sheet and also from the Xtradecal Vampire trainer sheet.

 

Some soots stains were added around the gun ports and the exhaust, and finally the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A quick and simple build, the Special Hobby Gnat turned out to be a very positive surprise and might lead to more whiffy builds, the small aircraft has a lot of potential. And I think that the result looks very good and convincing, despite the livery's simplicity. But the Green/Brown scheme suits the Gnat very well, and it is amazing how well it belnds into the landscape on some of the beauty pics.

With the reveal of Darth Revans FX lightsaber and him being confirmed Disney canon with the release of the Rise of Skywalker visual Dictionary I figured I would upload his love/wife/girlfriend and his descendant. 2 Amazing Jedi from Legends and the Old Republic both proficient in a Battle Meditation which is not something all Jedi are capable of

Some background:

Simple, efficient and reliable, the Regult (リガード, Rigādo) was the standard mass production mecha of the Zentraedi forces. Produced by Esbeliben at the 4.432.369th Zentraedi Fully Automated Weaponry Development and Production Factory Satellite in staggering numbers to fill the need for an all-purpose mecha, this battle pod accommodated a single Zentraedi soldier in a compact cockpit and was capable of operating in space or on a planet's surface. The Regult saw much use during Space War I in repeated engagements against the forces of the SDF-1 Macross and the U.N. Spacy, but its lack of versatility against superior mecha often resulted in average effectiveness and heavy losses. The vehicle was regarded as expendable and was therefore cheap, simple, but also very effective when fielded in large numbers. Possessing minimal defensive features, the Regult was a simple weapon that performed best in large numbers and when supported by other mecha such as Gnerl Fighter Pods. Total production is said to have exceeded 300 million in total.

 

The cockpit could be accesses through a hatch on the back of the Regult’s body, which was, however, extremely cramped, with poor habitability and means of survival. The giant Zentraedi that operated it often found themselves crouching, with some complaining that "It would have been easier had they just walked on their own feet". Many parts of the craft relied on being operated on manually, which increased the fatigue of the pilot. On the other hand, the overall structure was extremely simple, with relatively few failures, making operational rate high.

 

In space, the Regult made use of two booster engines and numerous vernier thrusters to propel itself at very high speeds, capable of engaging and maintaining pace with the U.N. Spacy's VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter. Within an atmosphere, the Regult was largely limited to ground combat but retained high speed and maneuverability. On land, the Regult was surprisingly fast and agile, too, capable of closing with the VF-1 variable fighter in GERWALK flight (though likely unable to maintain pace at full GERWALK velocity). The Regult was not confined to land operations, though, it was also capable of operating underwater for extended periods of time. Thanks to its boosters, the Regult was capable of high leaping that allowed the pod to cover long distances, surprise enemies and even engage low-flying aircraft.

 

Armed with a variety of direct-fire energy weapons and anti-personnel/anti-aircraft guns, the Regult offered considerable firepower and was capable of engaging both air and ground units. It was also able to deliver powerful kicks. The armor of the body shell wasn't very strong, though, and could easily be penetrated by a Valkyrie's 55 mm Gatling gun pod. Even bare fist attacks of a VF-1 could crack the Regult’s cockpit or immobilize it. The U.N. Spacy’s MBR-07 Destroid Spartan was, after initial battel experience with the Regult, specifically designed to engage the Zentraedi forces’ primary infantry weapon in close-combat.

 

The Regult was, despite general shortcomings, a highly successful design and it became the basis for a wide range of specialized versions, including advanced battle pods for commanders, heavy infantry weapon carriers and reconnaissance/command vehicles. The latter included the Regult Tactical Scout (リガード偵察型). manufactured by electronics specialist Ectromelia. The Tactical Scout variant was a deadly addition to the Zentraedi Regult mecha troops. Removing all weaponry, the Tactical Scout was equipped with many additional sensor clusters and long-range detection equipment. Always found operating among other Regult mecha or supporting Glaug command pods, the Scout was capable of early warning enemy detection as well as ECM/ECCM roles (Electronic Countermeasures/Electronic Counter-Countermeasures). In Space War I, the Tactical Scout was utilized to devastating effect, often providing radar jamming, communication relay and superior tactical positioning for the many Zentraedi mecha forces.

 

At the end of Space War I in January 2012, production of the Regult for potential Earth defensive combat continued when the seizure operation of the Factory Satellite was executed. After the war, Regults were used by both U.N. Spacy and Zentraedi insurgents. Many surviving units were incorporated into the New U.N. Forces and given new model numbers. The normal Regult became the “Zentraedi Battle Pod” ZBP-104 (often just called “Type 104”) and was, for example, used by Al-Shahal's New U.N. Army's Zentraedi garrison. The related ZBP-106 was a modernized version for Zentraedi commanders, with built-in boosters, additional Queadluun-Rhea arms and extra armaments. These primarily replaced the Glaug battle pod, of which only a handful had survived. By 2067, Regult pods of all variants were still in operation among mixed human/Zentraedi units.

  

General characteristics:

Accommodation: pilot only, in standard cockpit in main body

Overall Height: 18.2 meters

Overall Length: 7.6 meters

Overall Width: 12.6 meters

Max Weight: 39.8 metric tons

 

Powerplant & propulsion:

1x 1.3 GGV class Ectromelia thermonuclear reaction furnace,

driving 2x main booster Thrusters and 12x vernier thrusters

 

Performance:

unknown

 

Armament:

None

 

Special Equipment and Features:

Standard all-frequency radar antenna

Standard laser long-range sensor

Ectromelia infrared, visible light and ultraviolet frequency sensor cluster

ECM/ECCM suite

  

The kit and its assembly:

I had this kit stashed away for a couple of years, together with a bunch of other 1:100 Zentraedi pods of all kinds and the plan to build a full platoon one day – but this has naturally not happened so far and the kits were and are still waiting. The “Reconnaissance & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2021 was a good occasion and motivation to tackle the Tactical Scout model from the pile, though, as it perfectly fits the GB’s theme and also adds an exotic science fiction/anime twist to the submissions.

 

The kit is an original ARII boxing from 1983, AFAIK the only edition of this model. One might expect this kit to be a variation of the 1982 standard Regult (sometimes spelled “Reguld”) kit with extra parts, but that’s not the case – it is a new mold with different parts and technical solutions, and it offers optional parts for the standard Regult pod as well as the two missile carrier versions that were published at the same time, too. The Tactical Scout uses the same basis, but it comes with parts exclusive for this variant (hull and a sprue with the many antennae and sensors).

 

I remembered from a former ARII Regult build in the late Eighties that the legs were a wobbly affair. Careful sprue inspection revealed, however, that this second generation comes with some sensible detail changes, e. g. the feet, which originally consisted of separate toe and heel sections (and these were hollow from behind/below!). To my biggest surprise the knees – a notorious weak spot of the 1st generation Regult kit – were not only held by small and flimsy vinyl caps anymore: These were replaced with much bigger vinyl rings, fitted into sturdy single-piece enclosures made from a tough styrene which can even be tuned with small metal screws(!), which are included in the kit. Interesting!

 

But the joy is still limited: even though the mold is newer, fit is mediocre at best, PSR is necessary on every seam. However, the good news is that the kit does not fight with you. The whole thing was mostly built OOB, because at 1:100 there's little that makes sense to add to the surface, and the kit comes with anything you'd expect on a Regult Scout pod. I just added some lenses and small stuff behind the large "eye", which is (also to my surprise) a clear part. The stuff might only appear in schemes on the finished model, but that's better than leaving the area blank.

 

Otherwise, the model was built in sub-sections for easier painting and handling, to be assembled in a final step – made possible by the kit’s design which avoids the early mecha kit’s “onion layer” construction, except for the feet. This is the only area that requires some extra effort, and which is also a bit tricky to assemble.

 

However, while the knees appear to be a robust construction, the kit showed some material weakness: while handling the leg assembly, one leg suddenly came off under the knees - turned out that the locator that holds the knee joint above (which I expected to be the weak point) completely broke off of the lower leg! Weird damage. I tried to glue the leg into place, but this did not work, and so I inserted a replacement for the broken. This eventually worked.

  

Painting and markings:

Colorful, but pretty standard and with the attempt to be authentic. However, information concerning the Regults’ paint scheme is somewhat inconsistent. I decided to use a more complex interpretation of the standard blue/grey Regult scheme, with a lighter “face shield” and some other details that make the mecha look more interesting. I used the box art and some screenshots from the Macross TV series as reference; the Tactical Scout pod already appears in episode #2 for the first time, and there are some good views at it, even though the anime version is highly simplified.

 

Humbrol enamels were used, including 48 (Mediterranean Blue), 196 (RAL 7035, instead of pure white), 40 (Pale Grey) and 27 (Sea Grey). The many optics were created with clear acrylics over a silver base, and the large frontal “eye” is a piece of clear plastic with a coat of clear turquoise paint, too.

 

The model received a black ink washing to emphasize details, engraved panel lines and recesses, as well as some light post-shading through dry-brushing. Some surface details were created with decal stripes, e. g. on the upper legs, or with a black fineliner, and some color highlights were distributed all over the hull, e. g. the yellowish-beige tips of the wide antenna or the bright blue panels on the upper legs.

 

The decals were taken OOB, and thanks to a translation chart I was able to decipher some of the markings which I’d interpret as a serial number and a unit code – but who knows?

 

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish and some weathering/dust traces around the feet with simple watercolors – more would IMHO look out of place, due to the mecha’s sheer size in real life and the fact that the Regult has to be considered a disposable item. Either it’s brand new and shiny, or busted, there’s probably little in between that justifies serious weathering which better suits the tank-like Destroids.

  

A “normal” build, even though the model and the topic are exotic enough. This 2nd generation Regult kit went together easier than expected, even though it has its weak points, too. However, material ageing turned out to be the biggest challenge (after all, the kit is almost 40 years old!), but all problems could be overcome and the resulting model looks decent – and it has this certain Eighties flavor! :D

 

Jerusalem artichoke

 

Jerusalem artichokes (Helianthus tuberosus) aka Sunchoke or Girasole artichoke, grow across much of North America (naturalized in Europe) and are usually found in fields or meadows, preferring rich soil but capable of colonizing many habitats. In the fall, and even through the winter if the ground isn’t frozen solid, you can harvest large quantities of tubers. Since the plants frequently grow to over 10 feet in height, topped sometimes by a small yellow flower, they are easy to spot. Once a patch is established, it will just keep on growing. Those who have made the mistake of introducing them to their garden, then moving them around a few times, have discovered several patches.

   

Jerusalem artichoke

 

These tall plants are similar looking to their relative, the sunflower, and nothing like green globe artichokes. They produce tubers that often resemble knobby potatoes, others that resemble smooth sweet potatoes. These were a very important food to first nations peoples and was among some of the first foods to be picked up by Europeans and brought back to Europe. After generations of being forgotten about, sunchokes are now seeing newborn popularity with chefs and home cooks. There are many different cultivars, including several developed by Native people in Northern Ontario that was hardy, early and had good-sized tubers.

   

jerusalem artichoke

 

The best time to dig the tubers is in the fall after the first heavy frost, because most of the tuber growth is late summer to middle fall. Take a shovel and a big basket, start at one side of the patch and start digging. After you have pried up a clump of earth, pull on the stalk. Often some tubers will be attached to the roots. Break up the clumps of earth and deposit the tubers in your basket. When you have a narrow trench started, get your hands into the earth and feel around for more tubers, usually just a few inches below the ground surface.

   

jerusalem artichoke

 

One plant can sometimes yield several pounds of tubers. Leave the small tubers in the soil and break any other small ones from the root and pitch them in as well. Each one of those small tubers will produce a big plant with lots of tubers next fall. My favorite patch freezes solid every winter but I am able to harvest some in April. Unlike regular potatoes, Jerusalem artichoke tubers are not affected by freezing and thawing. So you can leave them in the ground and get them whenever you want. If you decide to put them in your freezer, make sure that they are not washed and still have their dirt on them. For some reason this usually prevents them from going mushy when thawed. Generally, I keep about 5 pounds in the bottom of the fridge as well. Jerusalem artichokes stored for long periods of time will become sweeter as they age as they slowly convert carbohydrate inulin into fructose. Because people do not digest inulin very well fresh tubers, particularly from warmer climates, can lead to gas. It is often advised to pick after the first frost in autumn or before they have sprouted in spring and the let them rest for a few weeks before cooking.

   

jerusalem artichoke - Helianthus tuberosus

 

When you get these tubers to your kitchen, take a few and wash well, using a brush to remove any stubborn bits of dirt, then dry them before putting in the fridge. Use your cleaned sunchokes within a few days as washed and cleaned of soil will reduce their shelf life.

 

Helianthus tuberosus and Apios

 

Similar to other tubers such as potatoes, jerusalem artichokes are best cooked, however unlike potatoes they can also be eaten raw in salads or smoothies. Sliced thin, sunchokes can have a lovely crispness that is similar to a radish. Boiling the tubers can result in something mushy so often roasting is the preferred method for cooking as it helps add depth to the flavour by caramelizing some of the natural sugars.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Supermarine Seafire was a naval version of the Supermarine Spitfire adapted for operation from aircraft carriers. It was analogous in concept to the Hawker Sea Hurricane, a navalized version of the Spitfire's stablemate, the Hawker Hurricane. The name Seafire was derived from the abbreviation of the longer name Sea Spitfire.

 

The idea of adopting a navalized, carrier-capable version of the Supermarine Spitfire had been mooted by the Admiralty as early as May 1938. Despite a pressing need to replace various types of obsolete aircraft that were still in operation with the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), some opposed the notion, such as Winston Churchill, although these disputes were often a result of an overriding priority being placed on maximizing production of land-based Spitfires instead. During 1941 and early 1942, the concept was again pushed for by the Admiralty, culminating in an initial batch of Seafire Mk Ib fighters being provided in late 1941, which were mainly used for pilots to gain experience operating the type at sea. While there were concerns over the low strength of its undercarriage, which had not been strengthened like many naval aircraft would have been, its performance was found to be acceptable.

 

From 1942 onwards, further Seafire models were quickly ordered, including the first operationally-viable Seafire F Mk III variant. This led to the type rapidly spreading throughout the FAA. In November 1942, the first combat use of the Seafire occurred during Operation Torch, the Allied landings in North Africa. In July 1943, the Seafire was used to provide air cover for the Allied invasion of Sicily; and reprised this role in September 1943 during the subsequent Allied invasion of Italy. During 1944, the type was again used in quantity to provide aerial support to Allied ground forces during the Normandy landings and Operation Dragoon in Southern France. During the latter half of 1944, the Seafire became a part of the aerial component of the British Pacific Fleet, where it quickly proved to be a capable interceptor against the feared kamikaze attacks by Japanese pilots which had become increasingly common during the final years of the Pacific War. Several Seafire variants were produced during WWII, more or less mirroring the development of its land-based ancestor.

 

The Seafire continued to be used for some time after the end of the war, and new, dedicated versions were developed and exported. The FAA opted to promptly withdraw all of its Merlin-powered Seafires and replace them with Griffon-powered counterparts. The type saw further active combat use during the Korean War, in which FAA Seafires performed hundreds of missions in the ground attack and combat air patrol roles against North Korean forces during 1950. The Seafire was withdrawn from FAA service during the 1950s and was replaced by the newer Hawker Sea Fury, the last piston engine fighter to be used by the service, along with the first generation of jet-propelled naval fighters, such as the de Havilland Vampire, Supermarine Attacker, and Hawker Sea Hawk.

 

After WWII, the Royal Canadian Navy and French Aviation Navale also obtained Seafires to operate from ex-Royal Navy aircraft carriers. France received a total of 140 Seafires of various versions from 1946 on, including 114 Seafire Mk IIIs in two tranches (35 of them were set aside for spare part) until 1948, and these were followed in 1949 by fifteen Mk. 15 fighters and twelve FR Mk. 23 armed photo reconnaissance aircraft. Additionally, twenty land-based Mk. IXs were delivered to Naval Air Station Cuers-Pierrefeu as trainers.

 

The Seafire Mk. 23 was a dedicated post-war export version. It combined several old and new features and was the final “new” Spitfire variant to be powered by a Merlin engine, namely a Rolls-Royce Merlin 66M with 1,720 hp (1,283 kW) that drove a four-blade propeller. The Mk. 23 was originally built as a fighter (as Seafire F Mk. 23), but most machines were delivered or later converted with provisions for being fitted with two F24 cameras in the rear fuselage and received the service designation FR Mk. 23 (or just FR.23). Only 32 of this interim post-war version were built by Cunliffe-Owen, and all of them were sold to foreign customers.

 

Like the Seafire 17, the 23 had a cut-down rear fuselage and teardrop canopy, which afforded a better all-round field of view than the original cockpit. The windscreen was modified, too, to a rounded section, with narrow quarter windows, rather than the flat windscreen used on land-based Spitfires. As a novel feature the Seafire 23 featured a "sting" arrestor hook instead of the previous V-shaped ventral arrangement.

The fuel capacity was 120 gal (545 l) distributed in two main forward fuselage tanks: the lower tank carried 48 gal (218 l) while the upper tank carried 36 gal (163 l), plus two fuel tanks built into the leading edges of the wings with capacities of 12.5 (57 l) and 5.5 gal (25 l) respectively. It featured a reinforced main undercarriage with longer oleos and a lower rebound ratio, a measure to tame the deck behavior of the Mk. 15 and reducing the propensity of the propeller tips "pecking" the deck during an arrested landing. The softer oleos also stopped the aircraft from occasionally bouncing over the arrestor wires and into the crash barrier.

The wings were taken over from the contemporary Spitfire 21 and therefore not foldable. However, this saved weight and complexity, and the Seafire’s compact dimensions made this flaw acceptable for its operators. The wings were furthermore reinforced, with a stronger main spar necessitated by the new undercarriage, and as a bonus they were able to carry heavier underwing loads than previous Seafire variants. This made the type not only suitable for classic dogfighting (basic armament consisted of four short-barreled 20 mm Hispano V cannon in the outer wings), but also for attack missions with bombs and unguided rockets.

 

The Seafire’s Aéronavale service was quite short, even though they saw hot battle duty. 24 Mk. IIIs were deployed on the carrier Arromanches in 1948 when it sailed for Vietnam to fight in the First Indochina War. The French Seafires operated from land bases and from Arromanches on ground attack missions against the Viet Minh before being withdrawn from combat operations in January 1949.

After returning to European waters, the Aéronavale’s Seafire frontline units were re-equipped with the more modern and capable Seafire 15s and FR 23s, but these were also quickly replaced by Grumman F6F Hellcats from American surplus stock, starting already in 1950. The fighters were retired from carrier operations and soon relegated to training and liaison duties, and eventually scrapped. However, the FR.23s were at this time the only carrier-capable photo reconnaissance aircraft in the Aéronavale’s ranks, so that these machines remained active with Flottille 1.F until 1955, but their career was rather short, too, and immediately ended when the first naval jets became available and raised the performance bar.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 31 ft 10 in (9.70 m)

Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)

Height: 12 ft 9 in (3.89 m) tail down with propeller blade vertical

Wing area: 242.1 ft² (22.5 m²)

Empty weight: 5,564 lb (2,524 kg)

Gross weight: 7,415 lb (3,363 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Merlin 66M V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine,

delivering 1,720 hp (1,283 kW) at 11,000 ft and driving a 4-bladed constant-speed propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 404 mph (650 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

Cruise speed: 272 mph (438 km/h, 236 kn)

Range: 493 mi (793 km) on internal fuel at cruising speed

965 mi (1,553 km) with 90 gal drop tank

Service ceiling: 42,500 ft (12,954 m)

Rate of climb: 4,745 ft/min (24.1 m/s) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

Time to altitude: 20,000 ft (6,096 m) in 8 minutes 6 seconds

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano V cannon; 175 rpg inboard, 150 rpg outboard

Hardpoints for up to 2× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs (outer wings), plus 1× 500 lb (230 kg) bomb

(ventral hardpoint) or drop tanks, or up to 8× "60 lb" RP-3 rockets on zero-length launchers

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build was another attempt to reduce The Stash. The basis was a Special Hobby FR Mk. 47, which I had originally bought as a donor kit: the engine housing bulges of its Griffon engine were transplanted onto a racing P-51D Mustang. Most of the kit was still there, and from this basis I decided to create a fictional post-WWII Seafire/Spitfire variant.

 

With the Griffon fairings gone a Merlin engine was settled, and the rest developed spontaneously. The propeller was improvised, with a P-51D spinner (Academy kit) and blades from the OOB 5-blade propeller, which are slightly deeper than the blades from the Spitfire Mk. IX/XVI prop. In order to attach it to the hull and keep it movable, I implanted my standard metal axis/styrene tube arrangement.

 

With the smaller Merlin engine, I used the original, smaller Spitfire stabilizers but had to use the big, late rudder, due to the taller fin of the post-ware Spit-/Seafire models. The four-spoke wheels also belong to an earlier Seafire variant. Since it was an option in the kit, I went for a fuselage with camera openings (the kit comes with two alternative fuselages as well as a vast range of optional parts for probably ANY late Spit- and Seafire variant – and also for many fictional hybrids!), resulting in a low spine and a bubble canopy, what gives the aircraft IMHO very sleek and elegant lines. In order to maintain this impression I also used the short cannon barrels from the kit. For extended range on recce missions I furthermore gave the model the exotic underwing slipper tanks instead of the optional missile launch rail stubs under the outer wing sections. Another mod is the re-installment of the small oil cooler under the left wing root from a Spitfire Mk. V instead of the symmetrical standard radiator pair – just another subtle sign that “something’s not right” here.

  

Painting and markings:

The decision to build this model as a French aircraft was inspired by a Caracal Decals set with an Aéronavale Seafire III from the Vietnam tour of duty in 1948, an aircraft with interesting roundels that still carried British FAA WWII colors (Dark Slate Grey/Dark Sea Grey, Sky). Later liveries of the type remain a little obscure, though, and information about them is contradictive. Some profiles show French Seafires in British colors, with uniform (Extra) Dark Sea Grey upper and Sky lower surfaces, combined with a high waterline – much like contemporary FAA aircraft like the Sea Fury. However, I am a bit in doubt concerning the Sky, because French naval aircraft of that era, esp. recce types like the Shorts Sunderland or PBY Catalina, were rather painted in white or very light grey, just with uniform dark grey upper surfaces, reminding of British Coastal Command WWII aircraft.

 

Since this model would be a whif, anyway, and for a pretty look, I adopted the latter design, backed by an undated profile of a contemporary Seafire Mk. XV from Flottille S.54, a training unit, probably from the Fifties - not any valid guarantee for authenticity, but it looks good, if not elegant!

Another option from that era would have been an all-blue USN style livery, which should look great on a Spitfire, too. But I wanted something more elegant and odd, underpinning the bubbletop Seafire’s clean lines.

 

I settled for Extra Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 123) and Light Grey (FS. 36495, Humbrol 147) as basic tones, with a very high waterline. The spinner was painted yellow, the only colorful marking. Being a post-war aircraft of British origin, the cockpit interior was painted in black (Revell 09, anthracite). The landing gear wells became RAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78), while the inside of the respective covers became Sky (Humbrol 90) – reflecting the RAF/FAA’s post-war practice of applying the external camouflage paint on these surfaces on Spit-/Seafires, too. On this specific aircraft the model displays, just the exterior had been painted over by the new operator. Looks weird, but it’s a nice detail.

 

The roundels came from the aforementioned 1948 Seafire Mk. III, and their odd design – esp. the large ones on the wings, and only the fuselage roundels carry the Aéronavale’s anchor icon and a yellow border – creates a slightly confusing look. Unfortunately, the roundels were not 100% opaque, this became only apparent after their application, and they did not adhere well, either.

The tactical code had to be improvised with single, black letters of various sizes – they come from a Hobby Boss F4F USN pre-WWII Wildcat, but were completely re-arrenged into the French format. The fin flash on the rudder had to be painted, with red and blue paint, in an attempt to match the decals’ tones, and separated by a white decal stripe. The anchor icon on the rudder had to be printed by myself, unfortunately the decal on the bow side partly disintegrated. Stencils were taken from the Special Hobby kit’s OOB sheet.

 

The model received a light black ink washing, post-panel shading with dry-brushing and some soot stains around the exhausts, but not too much weathering, since it would be relatively new. Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A relatively quick and simple build, and the Special Hobby kit went together with little problems – a very nice and versatile offering. The mods are subtle, but I like the slender look of this late Spitfire model, coupled with the elegant Merlin engine – combined into the fictional Mk. 23. The elegant livery just underlines the aircraft’s sleek lines. Not spectacular, but a pretty result.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Supermarine Seafire was a naval version of the Supermarine Spitfire adapted for operation from aircraft carriers. It was analogous in concept to the Hawker Sea Hurricane, a navalized version of the Spitfire's stablemate, the Hawker Hurricane. The name Seafire was derived from the abbreviation of the longer name Sea Spitfire.

 

The idea of adopting a navalized, carrier-capable version of the Supermarine Spitfire had been mooted by the Admiralty as early as May 1938. Despite a pressing need to replace various types of obsolete aircraft that were still in operation with the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), some opposed the notion, such as Winston Churchill, although these disputes were often a result of an overriding priority being placed on maximizing production of land-based Spitfires instead. During 1941 and early 1942, the concept was again pushed for by the Admiralty, culminating in an initial batch of Seafire Mk Ib fighters being provided in late 1941, which were mainly used for pilots to gain experience operating the type at sea. While there were concerns over the low strength of its undercarriage, which had not been strengthened like many naval aircraft would have been, its performance was found to be acceptable.

 

From 1942 onwards, further Seafire models were quickly ordered, including the first operationally-viable Seafire F Mk III variant. This led to the type rapidly spreading throughout the FAA. In November 1942, the first combat use of the Seafire occurred during Operation Torch, the Allied landings in North Africa. In July 1943, the Seafire was used to provide air cover for the Allied invasion of Sicily; and reprised this role in September 1943 during the subsequent Allied invasion of Italy. During 1944, the type was again used in quantity to provide aerial support to Allied ground forces during the Normandy landings and Operation Dragoon in Southern France. During the latter half of 1944, the Seafire became a part of the aerial component of the British Pacific Fleet, where it quickly proved to be a capable interceptor against the feared kamikaze attacks by Japanese pilots which had become increasingly common during the final years of the Pacific War. Several Seafire variants were produced during WWII, more or less mirroring the development of its land-based ancestor.

 

The Seafire continued to be used for some time after the end of the war, and new, dedicated versions were developed and exported. The FAA opted to promptly withdraw all of its Merlin-powered Seafires and replace them with Griffon-powered counterparts. The type saw further active combat use during the Korean War, in which FAA Seafires performed hundreds of missions in the ground attack and combat air patrol roles against North Korean forces during 1950. The Seafire was withdrawn from FAA service during the 1950s and was replaced by the newer Hawker Sea Fury, the last piston engine fighter to be used by the service, along with the first generation of jet-propelled naval fighters, such as the de Havilland Vampire, Supermarine Attacker, and Hawker Sea Hawk.

 

After WWII, the Royal Canadian Navy and French Aviation Navale also obtained Seafires to operate from ex-Royal Navy aircraft carriers. France received a total of 140 Seafires of various versions from 1946 on, including 114 Seafire Mk IIIs in two tranches (35 of them were set aside for spare part) until 1948, and these were followed in 1949 by fifteen Mk. 15 fighters and twelve FR Mk. 23 armed photo reconnaissance aircraft. Additionally, twenty land-based Mk. IXs were delivered to Naval Air Station Cuers-Pierrefeu as trainers.

 

The Seafire Mk. 23 was a dedicated post-war export version. It combined several old and new features and was the final “new” Spitfire variant to be powered by a Merlin engine, namely a Rolls-Royce Merlin 66M with 1,720 hp (1,283 kW) that drove a four-blade propeller. The Mk. 23 was originally built as a fighter (as Seafire F Mk. 23), but most machines were delivered or later converted with provisions for being fitted with two F24 cameras in the rear fuselage and received the service designation FR Mk. 23 (or just FR.23). Only 32 of this interim post-war version were built by Cunliffe-Owen, and all of them were sold to foreign customers.

 

Like the Seafire 17, the 23 had a cut-down rear fuselage and teardrop canopy, which afforded a better all-round field of view than the original cockpit. The windscreen was modified, too, to a rounded section, with narrow quarter windows, rather than the flat windscreen used on land-based Spitfires. As a novel feature the Seafire 23 featured a "sting" arrestor hook instead of the previous V-shaped ventral arrangement.

The fuel capacity was 120 gal (545 l) distributed in two main forward fuselage tanks: the lower tank carried 48 gal (218 l) while the upper tank carried 36 gal (163 l), plus two fuel tanks built into the leading edges of the wings with capacities of 12.5 (57 l) and 5.5 gal (25 l) respectively. It featured a reinforced main undercarriage with longer oleos and a lower rebound ratio, a measure to tame the deck behavior of the Mk. 15 and reducing the propensity of the propeller tips "pecking" the deck during an arrested landing. The softer oleos also stopped the aircraft from occasionally bouncing over the arrestor wires and into the crash barrier.

The wings were taken over from the contemporary Spitfire 21 and therefore not foldable. However, this saved weight and complexity, and the Seafire’s compact dimensions made this flaw acceptable for its operators. The wings were furthermore reinforced, with a stronger main spar necessitated by the new undercarriage, and as a bonus they were able to carry heavier underwing loads than previous Seafire variants. This made the type not only suitable for classic dogfighting (basic armament consisted of four short-barreled 20 mm Hispano V cannon in the outer wings), but also for attack missions with bombs and unguided rockets.

 

The Seafire’s Aéronavale service was quite short, even though they saw hot battle duty. 24 Mk. IIIs were deployed on the carrier Arromanches in 1948 when it sailed for Vietnam to fight in the First Indochina War. The French Seafires operated from land bases and from Arromanches on ground attack missions against the Viet Minh before being withdrawn from combat operations in January 1949.

After returning to European waters, the Aéronavale’s Seafire frontline units were re-equipped with the more modern and capable Seafire 15s and FR 23s, but these were also quickly replaced by Grumman F6F Hellcats from American surplus stock, starting already in 1950. The fighters were retired from carrier operations and soon relegated to training and liaison duties, and eventually scrapped. However, the FR.23s were at this time the only carrier-capable photo reconnaissance aircraft in the Aéronavale’s ranks, so that these machines remained active with Flottille 1.F until 1955, but their career was rather short, too, and immediately ended when the first naval jets became available and raised the performance bar.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 31 ft 10 in (9.70 m)

Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)

Height: 12 ft 9 in (3.89 m) tail down with propeller blade vertical

Wing area: 242.1 ft² (22.5 m²)

Empty weight: 5,564 lb (2,524 kg)

Gross weight: 7,415 lb (3,363 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Merlin 66M V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine,

delivering 1,720 hp (1,283 kW) at 11,000 ft and driving a 4-bladed constant-speed propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 404 mph (650 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

Cruise speed: 272 mph (438 km/h, 236 kn)

Range: 493 mi (793 km) on internal fuel at cruising speed

965 mi (1,553 km) with 90 gal drop tank

Service ceiling: 42,500 ft (12,954 m)

Rate of climb: 4,745 ft/min (24.1 m/s) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)

Time to altitude: 20,000 ft (6,096 m) in 8 minutes 6 seconds

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano V cannon; 175 rpg inboard, 150 rpg outboard

Hardpoints for up to 2× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs (outer wings), plus 1× 500 lb (230 kg) bomb

(ventral hardpoint) or drop tanks, or up to 8× "60 lb" RP-3 rockets on zero-length launchers

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build was another attempt to reduce The Stash. The basis was a Special Hobby FR Mk. 47, which I had originally bought as a donor kit: the engine housing bulges of its Griffon engine were transplanted onto a racing P-51D Mustang. Most of the kit was still there, and from this basis I decided to create a fictional post-WWII Seafire/Spitfire variant.

 

With the Griffon fairings gone a Merlin engine was settled, and the rest developed spontaneously. The propeller was improvised, with a P-51D spinner (Academy kit) and blades from the OOB 5-blade propeller, which are slightly deeper than the blades from the Spitfire Mk. IX/XVI prop. In order to attach it to the hull and keep it movable, I implanted my standard metal axis/styrene tube arrangement.

 

With the smaller Merlin engine, I used the original, smaller Spitfire stabilizers but had to use the big, late rudder, due to the taller fin of the post-ware Spit-/Seafire models. The four-spoke wheels also belong to an earlier Seafire variant. Since it was an option in the kit, I went for a fuselage with camera openings (the kit comes with two alternative fuselages as well as a vast range of optional parts for probably ANY late Spit- and Seafire variant – and also for many fictional hybrids!), resulting in a low spine and a bubble canopy, what gives the aircraft IMHO very sleek and elegant lines. In order to maintain this impression I also used the short cannon barrels from the kit. For extended range on recce missions I furthermore gave the model the exotic underwing slipper tanks instead of the optional missile launch rail stubs under the outer wing sections. Another mod is the re-installment of the small oil cooler under the left wing root from a Spitfire Mk. V instead of the symmetrical standard radiator pair – just another subtle sign that “something’s not right” here.

  

Painting and markings:

The decision to build this model as a French aircraft was inspired by a Caracal Decals set with an Aéronavale Seafire III from the Vietnam tour of duty in 1948, an aircraft with interesting roundels that still carried British FAA WWII colors (Dark Slate Grey/Dark Sea Grey, Sky). Later liveries of the type remain a little obscure, though, and information about them is contradictive. Some profiles show French Seafires in British colors, with uniform (Extra) Dark Sea Grey upper and Sky lower surfaces, combined with a high waterline – much like contemporary FAA aircraft like the Sea Fury. However, I am a bit in doubt concerning the Sky, because French naval aircraft of that era, esp. recce types like the Shorts Sunderland or PBY Catalina, were rather painted in white or very light grey, just with uniform dark grey upper surfaces, reminding of British Coastal Command WWII aircraft.

 

Since this model would be a whif, anyway, and for a pretty look, I adopted the latter design, backed by an undated profile of a contemporary Seafire Mk. XV from Flottille S.54, a training unit, probably from the Fifties - not any valid guarantee for authenticity, but it looks good, if not elegant!

Another option from that era would have been an all-blue USN style livery, which should look great on a Spitfire, too. But I wanted something more elegant and odd, underpinning the bubbletop Seafire’s clean lines.

 

I settled for Extra Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 123) and Light Grey (FS. 36495, Humbrol 147) as basic tones, with a very high waterline. The spinner was painted yellow, the only colorful marking. Being a post-war aircraft of British origin, the cockpit interior was painted in black (Revell 09, anthracite). The landing gear wells became RAF Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78), while the inside of the respective covers became Sky (Humbrol 90) – reflecting the RAF/FAA’s post-war practice of applying the external camouflage paint on these surfaces on Spit-/Seafires, too. On this specific aircraft the model displays, just the exterior had been painted over by the new operator. Looks weird, but it’s a nice detail.

 

The roundels came from the aforementioned 1948 Seafire Mk. III, and their odd design – esp. the large ones on the wings, and only the fuselage roundels carry the Aéronavale’s anchor icon and a yellow border – creates a slightly confusing look. Unfortunately, the roundels were not 100% opaque, this became only apparent after their application, and they did not adhere well, either.

The tactical code had to be improvised with single, black letters of various sizes – they come from a Hobby Boss F4F USN pre-WWII Wildcat, but were completely re-arrenged into the French format. The fin flash on the rudder had to be painted, with red and blue paint, in an attempt to match the decals’ tones, and separated by a white decal stripe. The anchor icon on the rudder had to be printed by myself, unfortunately the decal on the bow side partly disintegrated. Stencils were taken from the Special Hobby kit’s OOB sheet.

 

The model received a light black ink washing, post-panel shading with dry-brushing and some soot stains around the exhausts, but not too much weathering, since it would be relatively new. Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A relatively quick and simple build, and the Special Hobby kit went together with little problems – a very nice and versatile offering. The mods are subtle, but I like the slender look of this late Spitfire model, coupled with the elegant Merlin engine – combined into the fictional Mk. 23. The elegant livery just underlines the aircraft’s sleek lines. Not spectacular, but a pretty result.

 

Towards the end of 1914, early in World War I, disturbing rumours began to circulate that the newest German submarines were capable of a much higher surface speed than British boats, one report giving their speed at about 22 knots. The rumours were sufficiently strong to force serious consideration of the matter by the Admiralty, and at the same time consideration was given to the idea that submarines should have a high enough surface speed to be able to work with the fleet. The reports concerning the speed of the German submarines proved to be spurious, but the idea of a British submarine with a high surface speed gained ground. The immediate result of this concern was the development of the J Class, which were unique with their three shafts. Originally eight boats were planned but this was reduced to six and then increased to seven. As a result of these changes the boats originally intended to be J7 and J8 were renumbered in April 1915 as J3 and J4 respectively.

 

J7's submerged displacement of 1,760 tons was 60 tons less than that of her sister boats. Her conning tower was located further aft and the gun was mounted in a lower position.

 

HMS J7 commissioned in the Royal Navy on 15 September 1917 under the command of Lieutenant Commander F.H.D. Byron RN and was allocated to a flotilla based at Blyth, Northumberland.

 

On 5 November 1917 J7 departed Blyth for her first patrol. Whilst on patrol in the North Sea on 6 March 1918 an enemy submarine was sighted, but J7 was unable to attack and the enemy passed from sight.

 

The submarine was under refit during April and May 1918 at Walker Naval Yard on the River Tyne. She sailed for patrol on 25 May and evaded a U-boat attack the same day.

 

On 10 July an enemy submarine was sighted and both vessels dived. Shortly after a sighting was made of an enemy submarine on the surface, going away, J7 surfaced, challenged and opened fire. The enemy dived. An enemy submarine was sighted on 23 July, but J7 was unable to attack and the enemy disappeared.

 

On 5 October 1918 J7 dived to intercept a reported submarine, but broke off the search without contact.

 

The boat was at sea when the Armistice was signed on 11 November 1918. She returned to Blyth on 15 November. On 19 February 1919 she proceeded to Jarrow.

 

Following the conclusion of hostilities in World War I, the Admiralty in 1918 presented the six remaining boats of the J Class to the Australian Government - J6 had been sunk in error in 1918 by a British ship. All the submarines commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy at Portsmouth on 25 March 1919, as tenders to the submarine depot ship HMAS Platypus, J7 being the senior boat, under the command of Lieutenant Commander Oswald E. Hallifax DSO RN.

 

The beam tubes were removed from all six J Class submarines before they sailed for Australia. The tubes were despatched separately to Garden Island. The reasons given for the removal were that the beam tubes were not a success and that increased accommodation was required.

  

HMS Submarine J7 off the River Tyne prior to sailing for Australia in February, 1919.

On 9 April 1919 Platypus and the submarines, escorted by the light cruiser HMAS Sydney, sailed from Portsmouth for Australia, their first two ports of call being Gibraltar and Valetta.

 

On the night of 28 April, the night before the vessels arrived at Port Said, J3's starboard main engine shaft snapped. Thus handicapped she could not keep up with the others and consequently on departure for Aden on 30 April, J3 was in tow of Sydney.

 

The vessels arrived at Aden on 5 May. On the same day the light cruiser HMAS Brisbane, which had left Portsmouth on 17 April, also arrived. On 7 May all the vessels sailed for Colombo. Brisbane took over the tow of J3 while Sydney took J5 in tow as that boat had also developed engine trouble. Three days after arrival at Colombo on 15 May, Brisbane sailed with J5 in tow, taking her all the way to Sydney, where they arrived on 27 June.

 

J3 was taken in hand at Colombo for repairs. On 31 May Sydney, J1, J2, J4 and J7 sailed for Singapore, followed on 2 June by Platypus and J3. The vessels were reunited at Singapore from where all except Sydney sailed on 18 June. Sydney sailed for Australia a few days later but did not rejoin the other vessels. On 29 June Platypus and the five submarines arrived at Thursday Island, although J7 was three hours late because of trouble with her engine lubricating system. The last call before Sydney was Brisbane, Sydney being reached on 15 July.

 

Having arrived in poor condition, the submarines were taken in hand at Garden Island Dockyard for refitting. After her refit was completed J7 sailed for the submarine base at Geelong, Victoria.

 

After uneventful service, little of which was spent at sea, J7 and her five sisters paid off into Reserve at Westernport on 12 July 1922. The boats had become victims of the worsening economic conditions of the time, coupled with their high cost of maintenance.

 

On 1 November 1929 J7 was sold to Morris and Watt Pty Ltd of South Melbourne. She was towed from Flinders Naval Depot, Crib Point, where she had served as a reserve source of electric power, on 4 December 1929. She was dismantled and the hull sunk in 1930 as a breakwater at the Sandringham Yacht Club, Sandringham, Port Phillip Bay, where it remain

+++ 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 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 (NATO reporting name: "Farmer") was a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engine fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight. A comparable U.S. "Century Series" fighter was the North American F-100 Super Sabre, although the MiG-19 would primarily oppose the more modern McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Republic F-105 Thunderchief over North Vietnam. Furthermore, the North American YF-100 Super Sabre prototype appeared approximately one year after the MiG-19, making the MiG-19 the first operational supersonic jet in the world.

 

On 20 April 1951, OKB-155 was given the order to develop the MiG-17 into a new fighter called "I-340", also known as "SM-1". It was to be powered by two Mikulin AM-5 non-afterburning jet engines, a scaled-down version of the Mikulin AM-3, with 19.6 kN (4,410 lbf) of thrust. The I-340 was supposed to attain 1,160 km/h (725 mph, Mach 0.97) at 2,000 m (6,562 ft), 1,080 km/h (675 mph, Mach 1.0) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft), climb to 10,000 m (32,808 ft) in 2.9 minutes, and have a service ceiling of no less than 17,500 m (57,415 ft).

After several prototypes with many detail improvements, the ministers of the Soviet Union issued the order #286-133 to start serial production on February 17, 1954, at the factories in Gorkiy and Novosibirsk. Factory trials were completed on September 12 the same year, and government trials started on September 30.

 

Initial enthusiasm for the aircraft was dampened by several problems. The most alarming of these was the danger of a midair explosion due to overheating of the fuselage fuel tanks located between the engines. Deployment of airbrakes at high speeds caused a high-g pitch-up. Elevators lacked authority at supersonic speeds. The high landing speed of 230 km/h (145 mph), compared to 160 km/h (100 mph) for the MiG-15, combined with the lack of a two-seat trainer version, slowed pilot transition to the type. Handling problems were addressed with the second prototype, "SM-9/2", which added a third ventral airbrake and introduced all-moving tailplanes with a damper to prevent pilot-induced oscillations at subsonic speeds. It flew on 16 September 1954, and entered production as the MiG-19S.

 

Approximately 5,500 MiG-19's were produced, first in the USSR and in Czechoslovakia as the Avia S-105, but mainly in the People's Republic of China as the Shenyang J-6. The aircraft saw service with a number of other national air forces, including those of Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, and North Korea. The aircraft saw combat during the Vietnam War, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1971 Bangladesh War.

 

However, jet fighter development made huge leaps in the 1960s, and OKB MiG was constantly trying to improve the MiG-19's performance, esp. against fast and high-flying enemies, primarily bombers but also spy planes like the U-2.

 

As the MiG-19S was brought into service with the Soviet air forces in mid-1956, the OKB MiG was continuing the refinement of the SM-1/I-340 fighter. One of these evolutionary paths was the SM-12 (literally, “SM-1, second generation”) family of prototypes, the ultimate extrapolation of the basic MiG-19 design, which eventually led to the MiG-19bis interceptor that filled the gap between the MiG-19S and the following, highly successful MiG-21.

 

The SM-12 first saw life as an exercise in drag reduction by means of new air intake configurations, since the MiG-19’s original intake with rounded lips became inefficient at supersonic speed (its Western rival, the North American F-100, featured a sharp-lipped nose air intake from the start). The first of three prototypes, the SM-12/1, was essentially a MiG-19S with an extended and straight-tapered nose with sharp-lipped orifice and a pointed, two-position shock cone on the intake splitter. The simple arrangement proved to be successful and was further refined.

 

The next evolutionary step, the SM-12/3, differed from its predecessors primarily in two new R3-26 turbojets developed from the earlier power plant by V. N. Sorokin. These each offered an afterburning thrust of 3,600kg, enabling the SM-12/3 to attain speeds ranging between 1,430km/h at sea level, or Mach=1.16, and 1,930km/h at 12,000m, or Mach=1.8, and an altitude of between 17,500 and 18,000m during its test program. This outstanding performance prompted further development with a view to production as a point defense interceptor.

 

Similarly powered by R3-26 engines, and embodying major nose redesign with a larger orifice permitting introduction of a substantial two-position conical centerbody for a TsD-30 radar, a further prototype was completed as the SM-12PM. Discarding the wing root NR-30 cannon of preceding prototypes, the SM-12PM was armed with only two K-5M (RS-2U) beam-riding missiles and entered flight test in 1957. This configuration would become the basis for the MiG-19bis interceptor that eventually was ordered into limited production (see below).

 

However, the SM-12 development line did not stop at this point. At the end of 1958, yet another prototype, the SM-12PMU, joined the experimental fighter family. This had R3M-26 turbojets uprated to 3.800kg with afterburning, but these were further augmented by a U-19D accelerator, which took the form of a permanent ventral pack containing an RU-013 rocket motor and its propellant tanks. Developed by D. D. Sevruk, the RU-013 delivered 3,000kg of additional thrust, and with the aid of this rocket motor, the SM-12PMU attained an altitude of 24,000m and a speed of Mach=1.69. But this effort was to no avail: the decision had been taken meanwhile to manufacture the Ye-7 in series as the MiG-21, and further development of the SM-12 series was therefore discontinued.

 

Nevertheless, since full operational status of the new MiG-21 was expected to remain pending for some time, production of a modified SM-12PM was ordered as a gap filler. Not only would this fighter bridge the performance gap to the Mach 2-capable MiG-21, it also had the benefit of being based on proven technologies and would not require a new basic pilot training.

 

The new aircraft received the official designation MiG-19bis. Compared with the SM-12PM prototype, the MiG-19bis differed in some details and improvements. The SM-12PM’s most significant shortfall was its short range – at full power, it had only a range of 750 km! This could be mended through an additional fuel tank in an enlarged dorsal fairing behind the cockpit. With this internal extra fuel, range could be extended by a further 200 - 250km range, but drop tanks had typically to be carried, too, in order to extend the fighter’ combat radius with two AAMs to 500 km. Specifically for the MiG-19bis, new, supersonic drop tanks (PTB-490) were designed, and these were later adapted for the MiG-21, too.

 

The air intake shock cone was re-contoured and the shifting mechanism improved: Instead of a simple, conical shape, the shock cone now had a more complex curvature with two steps and the intake orifice area was widened to allow a higher airflow rate. The air intake’s efficiency was further optimized through gradual positions of the shock cone.

As a positive side effect, the revised shock cone offered space for an enlarged radar dish, what improved detection range and resolution. The TsD-30 radar for the fighter’s missile-only armament was retained, even though the K-5’s effective range of only 2–6 km (1¼ – 3¾ mi) made it only suitable against slow and large targets like bombers. All guns were deleted in order to save weight or make room for the electronic equipment. The tail section was also changed because the R3M-26 engines and their afterburners were considerably longer than the MiG-19's original RM-5 engines. The exhausts now markedly protruded from the tail section, and the original, characteristic pen nib fairing between the two engines had been modified accordingly.

 

Production started in 1960, but only a total of roundabout 180 MiG-19bis, which received the NATO code "Farmer F", were built and the Soviet Union remained the only operator of the type. The first aircraft entered Soviet Anti-Air Defense in early 1961, and the machines were concentrated in PVO interceptor units around major sites like Moscow, Sewastopol at the Black Sea and Vladivostok in the Far East.

 

With the advent of the MiG-21, though, their career did not last long. Even though many machines were updated to carry the K-13 (the IR-guided AA-2 "Atoll") as well as the improved K-55 AAMs, with no change of the type’s designation, most MiG-19bis were already phased out towards the late 1960s and quickly replaced by 2nd generation MiG-21s as well as heavier and more capable Suchoj interceptors like the Su-9, -11 and -15. By 1972, all MiG-19bis had been retired.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 13.54 m (44 ft 4 in), fuselage only with shock cone in forward position

15.48 m (50 8 ½ in) including pitot

Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)

Height: 3.8885 m (12 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 25 m² (269 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,210 kg (11,475 lb)

Loaded weight: 7,890 kg (17,380 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,050 kg (19,935 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,450 l (556 imp gal; 647 US gal) internal;

plus 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) with 2 drop tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× Sorokin R3M-26 turbojets, rated at 37.2 kN (8,370 lbf) thrust each with afterburning

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,380km/h at sea level (Mach=1.16)

1,850km/h at 12,000m (Mach=1.8)

Range: 1,250 km (775 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 490 l drop tanks

Combat range: 500 km (312 mi; 270 nmi)

Ferry range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi; 690 nmi)

Service ceiling: 19,750 m (64,690 ft)

Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 353.3 kg/m² (72.4 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.86

 

Armament:

No internal guns.

4× underwing pylons; typically, a pair of PTB-490 drop tanks were carried on the outer pylon pair,

plus a pair of air-to air missiles on the inner pair: initially two radar-guided Kaliningrad K-5M (RS-2US)

AAMs, later two radar-guided K-55 or IR-guided Vympel K-13 (AA-2 'Atoll') AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another submission for the 2018 Cold War Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and again the opportunity to build a whiffy model from the project list. But it’s as fictional as one might think, since the SM-12 line of experimental “hybrid” fighters between the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 was real. But none of these aircraft ever made it into serial production, and in real life the MiG-21 showed so much potential that the attempts to improve the MiG-19 were stopped and no operational fighter entered production or service.

 

However, the SM-12, with its elongated nose and the central shock cone, makes a nice model subject, and I imagined what a service aircraft might have looked like? It would IMHO have been close, if not identical, to the SM-12PM, since this was the most refined pure jet fighter in the development family.

 

The basis for the build was a (dead cheap) Mastercraft MiG-19, which is a re-edition of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) kit – as a tribute to modern tastes, it comes with (crudely) engraved panel, but it has a horrible fit all over. For instance, there was a 1mm gap between the fuselage and the right wing, the wing halves’ outlines did not match at all and it is questionable if the canopy actually belongs to the kit at all? PSR everywhere. I also had a Plastyk version of this kit on the table some time ago, but it was of a much better quality! O.K., the Mastercraft kit comes cheap, but it’s, to be honest, not a real bargain.

 

Even though the result would not be crisp I did some mods and changes. Internally, a cockpit tub was implanted (OOB there’s just a wacky seat hanging in mid air) plus some serious lead weight in the nose section for a proper stance.

On the outside, the new air intake is the most obvious change. I found a Su-17 intake (from a Mastercraft kit, too) and used a piece from a Matchbox B-17G’s dorsal turret to elongate the nose – it had an almost perfect diameter and a mildly conical shape. Some massive PSR work was necessary to blend the parts together, though.

The tail received new jet nozzles, scratched from steel needle protection covers, and the tail fairing was adjusted according to the real SM-12’s shape.

 

Ordnance was adapted, too: the drop tanks come from a Mastercraft MiG-21, and these supersonic PTB-490 tanks were indeed carried by the real SM-12 prototypes because the uprated engines were very thirsty and the original, teardrop-shaped MiG-19 tanks simply too draggy for the much faster SM-12. As a side note, the real SM-12’s short range was one of the serious factors that prevented the promising type’s production in real life. In order to overcome the poor range weakness I added an enlarged spine (half of a drop tank), inspired by the MiG-21 SMT, that would house an additional internal fuel tank.

 

The R2-SU/K-5 AAMs come from a vintage Mastercraft Soviet aircraft weapon set, which carries a pair of these 1st generation AAMs. While the molds seem to be a bit soft, the missiles look pretty convincing. Their pylons were taken from the kit (OOB they carry unguided AAM pods and are placed behind the main landing gear wells), just reversed and placed on the wings’ leading edges – similar to the real SM-12’s arrangement.

  

Painting and markings:

No surprises. In the Sixties, any PVO aircraft was left in bare metal, so there was hardly an alternative to a NMF finish.

 

Painting started with an all-over coat with acrylic Revell 99 (Aluminum), just the spine tank became light grey (Revell 371) for some contrast, and I painted some di-electric covers in a deep green (Revell 48).

The cockpit interior was painted with a bright mix of Revell 55 and some 48, while the landing gear wells and the back section of the cockpit were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57).

The landing gear was painted in Steel (unpolished Modelmaster metallizer) and received classic, bright green wheel discs (Humbrol 2). As a small, unusual highlight the pitot boom under the chin received red and white stripes – seen on occasional MiG-19S fighters in Soviet service, and the anti-flutter booms on the stabilizers became bright red, too.

 

After the basic painting was done the kit received a black ink wash. Once this had dried and wiped off with a soft cotton cloth, post shading with various metallizer tones was added in order to liven up the uniform aircraft (including Humbrol’s matt and polished aluminum, and the exhaust section was treated with steel). Some panel lines were emphasized with a thin pencil.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various sources, a Guards badge and a few Russian stencils were added, too. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of sheen acrylic varnish (a 2:1 mix of Italeri matt and semi-gloss varnish).

 

The K-5 missiles, last but not least, were painted in aluminum, too, but their end caps (both front and tail section) became off-white.

  

The Mastercraft kit on which this conversion was based is crude, so I did not have high expectations concerning the outcome. But the new nose blends nicely into the MiG-19 fuselage, and the wide spine is a subtle detail that makes the aircraft look more “beefy” and less MiG-19-ish. The different drop tanks – even though they are authentic – visually add further speed. And despite many flaws, I am quite happy with the result of roundabout a week’s work.

J'ai trouvé ça très difficile! En 10-15 minutes je n'ai été capable que de dessiner que des "morceaux"...et Shiloh n'était pas disposé å rester tranquille plus longtemps! Ensuite, j'ai un peu perdu la notion du temps!

------

I found this very difficult! In 10-15 minutes I was only able to do "parts"... and Shiloh was not willing to stand still any longer.. Then I lost track of time...

 

In June 1938, the Meermacht of the new combined Vinno-Maian government issued as a challenge a request for a brand new carrier-capable monoplane fighter. Kuertis, Boernier, Nordemmerien, and other usual suspects quickly responded. But then out of nowhere came a shock: the ruling elites and wealthy merchants of the ancient Maian city of Uucyabnal had put together something never before seen in Maian society: the Muitzilbixli Aviation Company. A sort of guild or primitive corporation, the entity would not only help keep the city's wealthiest elites busy and loyal to the city rulers, it would also help tie the small, resurgent city to the newly formed national government and prove their loyalty and ingenuity to the whole Reich.

 

The engineers assigned to the controversial and pioneering project nearly completely discarded traditional Maian conventions of designing structures or vehicles, and opted to look overseas for inspiration. Blasphemous as this was, they found it in the aircraft of both Fujou and Papillon, which they admired greatly for their beauty, elegance, and superb functionality. Despite outward appearances, however, the aircraft has many characteristics that still make it uniquely Maian.

 

By early 1939 the first prototypes were ready and would be flown immediately for the approval of the chiefs of the city. Blessed by the priests of the patron deity Kukulcan, the first prototype lifted into the sky with such great speed and vigor that the aircraft nearly fell apart and the pilot suffered an anyeurism. This was taken as a good omen, and the next few aircraft were painted blue in anticipation of a glorious sacrifice to the great feathered serpent. The great god received his offering when the pilot of the next test flight pulled nearly 15Gs in a high speed test of the aircraft's turn radius, sheering off both of the wings, breaking the fuselage in two, and--rather appropriately--sending the remnants of the airframe plummeting into a cenote. With the divine powers sufficiently satisfied, the city council deemed the aircraft a success--but the Reichsluftbuero wanted answers.

 

An inquiry revealed that not only was the aircraft essentially completely unarmored, everything possible had been done to conserve weight. The airframe was nothing more than thin sheets of aluminum and balsa wood held together with copper rivets and honey-glue. The fact that the aircraft could fly at all thoroughly impressed the federal agents.

 

When Muitzilbixli presented their case to the Meermacht, at first they were rather concerned, especially since Muitzilbixli finished their entry before anyone else. However, after some high ranking SS officers paid a lengthy visit to the office of the Chiefs of Staff, they eventually came to a decision. The Type 00, the first ever of a new generation of Maian aircraft, after months of evaluation and trial, was selected for Meermacht service and mass-production in December of 1939. The aircraft has become affectionately known as "Mimi," the Maian language's way of expressing the aircraft's designation, "zero-zero."

 

While some wary Vinnish pilots approach the new aircraft with a certain deal of anxiety and skepticism, all who have flown her, especially Maian aviators, know and love Mimi as the greatest, most wonderful, most beautiful aircraft to ever traverse the sacred blue skies.

  

PERKS & QUIRKS:

Speed: 560km/h (+1)

Range: 1000km (-1)

Agility: Wow! (+2)

Guns: 4 (+1)

Caliber: .50 (+0)

Tinfoil Monocoque Fuselage: -1

Unarmored: -1

 

Thanks to Awe-senpai for the venerable Sea Maelstrom that this was derived from.

Bats are flying mammals in the order Chiroptera (pronounced /kaɪˈrɒptərə/). The forelimbs of bats are webbed and developed as wings, making them the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. By contrast, other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums and colugos, glide rather than fly, and can only glide for short distances. Bats do not flap their entire forelimbs, as birds do, but instead flap their spread out digits,[2] which are very long and covered with a thin membrane or patagium. Chiroptera comes from two Greek words, cheir (χείρ) "hand" and pteron (πτερόν) "wing."

 

There are about 1,100 bat species worldwide, which represent about twenty percent of all classified mammal species.[3] About seventy percent of bats are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species feed from animals other than insects. Bats are present throughout most of the world and perform vital ecological roles such as pollinating flowers and dispersing fruit seeds. Many tropical plant species depend entirely on bats for the distribution of their seeds.

 

Bats range in size from Kitti's Hog-nosed Bat measuring 29–33 mm (1.14–1.30 in) in length and 2 g (0.07 oz) in mass,[4] to the Giant Golden-crowned Flying-fox, which has a wing span of 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) and weighs approximately 1.2 kg (3 lb).

Bats are mammals. Sometimes they are mistakenly called "flying rodents" or "flying rats", and they can also be mistaken for insects and birds. There are two suborders of bats:

 

Megachiroptera (megabats)

Microchiroptera (microbats/echolocating bats)

Not all megabats are larger than microbats. The major distinctions between the two suborders are:

 

Microbats use echolocation: megabats do not with the exception of Rousettus and relatives.

Microbats lack the claw at the second toe of the forelimb.

The ears of microbats do not close to form a ring: the edges are separated from each other at the base of the ear.

Microbats lack underfur: they are either naked or have guard hairs.

Megabats eat fruit, nectar or pollen while most microbats eat insects; others may feed on the blood of animals, small mammals, fish, frogs, fruit, pollen or nectar. Megabats have a well-developed visual cortex and show good visual acuity, while microbats rely on echolocation for navigation and finding prey.

 

The phylogenetic relationships of the different groups of bats have been the subject of much debate. The traditional subdivision between Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera reflects the view that these groups of bats have evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor that was already capable of flight. This hypothesis recognized differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has only evolved once in mammals. Most molecular biological evidence supports the view that bats form a single or monophyletic group.[5]

 

Researchers have proposed alternate views of chiropteran phylogeny and classification, but more research is needed.

 

Genetic evidence indicates that megabats originated during the early Eocene and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats.

 

Consequently, two new suborders based on molecular data have been proposed. The new suborder Yinpterochiroptera includes the Pteropodidae or megabat family as well as the Rhinolophidae, Megadermatidae, and Rhinopomatidae families. The new suborder Yangochiroptera includes all the remaining families of bats (all of which use laryngeal echolocation). These two new suborders are strongly supported by statistical tests. Teeling (2005) found 100% bootstrap support in all maximum likelihood analyses for the division of Chiroptera into these two modified suborders. This conclusion is further supported by a fifteen-base pair deletion in BRCA1 and a seven-base pair deletion in PLCB4 present in all Yangochiroptera and absent in all Yinpterochiroptera.[6] The Chiropteran phylogeny based on molecular evidence is controversial because microbat paraphyly implies that one of two seemingly unlikely hypotheses occurred. The first suggests that laryngeal echolocation evolved twice in Chiroptera, once in Yangochiroptera and once in the rhinolophoids.[7][8] The second proposes that laryngeal echolocation had a single origin in Chiroptera, was subsequently lost in the family Pteropodidae (all megabats), and later evolved as a system of tongue-clicking in the genus Rousettus.[9]

Analyses of the sequence of the "vocalization" gene, FoxP2 was inconclusive of whether laryngeal echolocation was secondarily lost in the pteropodids or independently gained in the echolocating lineages[10]. However, analyses of the "hearing" gene, Prestin seemed to favor the independent gain in echolocating species rather than a secondary loss in the pteropodids.[11]

 

In addition to Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, the names Pteropodiformes and Vespertilioniformes have also been proposed for these suborders.[12][13] Under this new proposed nomenclature, the suborder Pteropodiformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Pteropus than the genus Vespertilio, while the suborder Vespertilioniformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Vespertilio than to the genus Pteropus.

 

In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence was offered that stated that the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera. The so-called flying primates theory proposed that when adaptations to flight are removed, the Megachiroptera are allied to primates by anatomical features that are not shared with Microchiroptera. One example is that the brains of megabats show a number of advanced characteristics that link them to primates. Although recent genetic studies support the monophyly of bats,[14] debate continues as to the meaning of available genetic and morphological evidence.[15]

 

Little fossil evidence is available to help map the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize very well. However a Late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early Microchiropteran bat. The oldest known definitely identified bat fossils, such as Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene period, 52.5 million years ago[5]. These fossil bats were already very similar to modern microbats. Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran.

 

Bats were formerly grouped in the superorder Archonta along with the treeshrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and the primates, because of the apparent similarities between Megachiroptera and such mammals. Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans.[1]

The finger bones of bats are much more flexible than those of other mammals. One reason is that the cartilage in their fingers lacks calcium and other minerals nearer the tips, increasing their ability to bend without splintering. The cross-section of the finger bone is also flattened compared to the circular cross section that human finger bones have, and is very flexible. The skin on their wing membranes has more elasticity and so can stretch much more than other mammals.

 

The wings of bats are much thinner than those of birds, so bats can manoeuvre more quickly and more accurately than birds. It is also delicate, ripping easily.[22] However the tissue of the bat's membrane is able to regrow, such that small tears can heal quickly.[22][23] The surface of their wings is equipped with touch-sensitive receptors on small bumps called Merkel cells, found in most mammals including humans, similarly found on our finger tips. These sensitive areas are different in bats as each bump has a tiny hair in the center,[24] making it even more sensitive and allowing the bat to detect and collect information about the air flowing over its wings, thereby providing feedback to the bat to change its shape of its wing to fly more efficiently.[24] Some bats like the little brown bat can use this dexterious ability where it is able to drink in mid air.[25] Other bats such as the flying fox or fruit bat gently skim the water's surface, then land nearby to lick water from their chest fur.[26] An additional kind of receptor cell is found in the wing membrane of species that use their wings to catch prey. This receptor cell is sensitive to the stretching of the membrane.[24] The cells are concentrated in areas of the membrane where insects hit the wings when the bats capture them.

 

Other

The teeth of microbats resemble insectivorans. They are very sharp to bite through the hardened armor of insects or the skin of fruit.

 

Mammals have one-way valves in veins to prevent the blood from flowing backwards, but bats also have one-way valves in arteries.

 

One species of bat has the longest tongue of any mammal relative to its body size. This is beneficial to them in terms of pollination and feeding. Their long narrow tongues can reach deep into the long cup shape of some flowers. When their tongue retracts, it coils up inside their rib cage.[27]

 

The vehicle – Rover Vitesse SD1 registration C356 YST – was commissioned by the force in 1985 and used to check for speeders on the then new Stonehaven bypass.

 

Thanks to its 190bhp 3.5litre V8 it proved to be more than capable of catching the many high performance vehicles which the relatively new oil industry had brought to the region – typically the Audi 100s and Quattros which were popular around Aberdeen at the time.

 

Presented by actor Philip Glenister (Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes), For the Love of Cars follows a crew of mechanics as they recover and restore classic vehicles which are in need of some TLC. The former high-speed pursuit vehicle has been stripped down to allow for new metal to be welded in where required, before receiving a full respray.

 

Complete with original Grampian Police livery, the vehicle has a number of original features including stop signs, sirens and blue lights which are all in good working order.

  

The police version of the SD1 were standard production models, rumoured to be the ones with faulty panels. These models gained factory modifications. Modifications included: stiffer suspension, improved brakes, more electrical wiring to power radios, sirens, lights and other necessary equipment the police used. The police specification cars were designated with an ‘X’ in the chassis number i.e. RRXWVF44A01745.

 

The first police force in Britain to get the SD1 was the West Yorkshire police force, and then gradually more police forces throughout Britain started using them. It is believed that the Police only used specially tuned V8 models, they weren’t, and lesser engined SD1’s were also used. The closest they got to a specially tuned model was the Vitesse.

The Royal protection squad also used the SD1. They needed a powerful car with some weight, for ramming cars out of the way should the need arise.

At the end of SD1 production, Rover still had a hefty stock of unsold cars and was keen to dispose of them quickly. Great numbers were offered to police forces at knock down prices, not Police specification, but standard models for as little as £3000 a car.

 

During this time, Police forces were receiving a lot of complaints as the public wanted to know why the Police were using big expensive luxury cars, wasting tax payer’s money. The public were not aware that the cars were in fact extremely cheap surplus stock.

Because of the complaints, the cars had all there model badges removed, so they could not be identified as particular models.

The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II is a single-engine ground-attack aircraft that constitutes the second generation of the Harrier family, capable of vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL). The aircraft is primarily employed on light attack or multi-role missions, ranging from close air support of ground troops to armed reconnaissance. The AV-8B is used by the United States Marine Corps (USMC), the Spanish Navy, and the Italian Navy. A variant of the AV-8B, the British Aerospace Harrier II, was developed for the British military, while another, the TAV-8B, is a dedicated two-seat trainer.

 

The project that eventually led to the AV-8B's creation started in the early 1970s as a cooperative effort between the United States and United Kingdom, aimed at addressing the operational inadequacies of the first-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier. Early efforts centered on a larger, more powerful Pegasus engine to dramatically improve the capabilities of the Harrier. Because of budgetary constraints, the UK abandoned the project in 1975. Following the UK's withdrawal, McDonnell Douglas extensively redesigned the earlier AV-8A Harrier to create the AV-8B. While retaining the general layout of its predecessor, the aircraft incorporates a new, larger composite wing with an additional hardpoint on each side, an elevated cockpit, a redesigned fuselage and other structural and aerodynamic refinements. The aircraft is powered by an upgraded version of the Pegasus. The AV-8B made its maiden flight in November 1981 and entered service with the USMC in January 1985. Later upgrades added a night-attack capability and radar, resulting in the AV-8B(NA) and AV-8B Harrier II Plus versions, respectively. An enlarged version named Harrier III was also studied but not pursued. The UK, through British Aerospace, re-joined the improved Harrier project as a partner in 1981, giving it a significant work-share in the project. Following corporate mergers in the 1990s, Boeing and BAE Systems have jointly supported the program. Approximately 340 aircraft were produced in a 22-year production program that ended in 2003.

 

Typically operated from small aircraft carriers, large amphibious assault ships and simple forward operating bases, AV-8Bs have participated in numerous military and humanitarian operations, proving themselves versatile assets. U.S. Army General Norman Schwarzkopf named the USMC Harrier II as one of several important weapons in the Gulf War. It also served in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the Iraq War and subsequent War in Iraq, along with Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya in 2011. Italian and Spanish Harrier IIs have taken part in overseas conflicts in conjunction with NATO coalitions. During its service history, the AV-8B has had a high accident rate, related to the percentage of time spent in critical take-off and landing phases. USMC and Italian Navy AV-8Bs are being replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, with the former expected to operate its Harriers until 2025.

  

An EAV-8B Harrier II performing at RIAT in 2019

Spain, already using the AV-8S Matador, became the first international operator of the AV-8B by signing an order for 12 aircraft in March 1983. Designated VA-2 Matador II by the Spanish Navy (Armada Española), this variant is known as EAV-8B by McDonnell Douglas. Pilot conversion took place in the U.S. On 6 October 1987, the first three Matador IIs were delivered to Naval Station Rota. The new aircraft were painted in a two-tone matte gray finish, similar to U.S. Navy aircraft, and deliveries were complete by 1988.

 

BAe test pilots cleared the aircraft carrier Príncipe de Asturias for Harrier operations in July 1989. The carrier, which replaced the World War II-era Dédalo, has a 12° ski-jump ramp. It was originally planned that the first unit to operate the aircraft would be the 8a Escuadrilla. This unit was disbanded on 24 October 1986, following the sales of AV-8S Matadors to Thailand. Instead, 9a Escuadrilla was formed on 29 September 1987, to become part of the Alpha Carrier Air Group and operate the EAV-8B.

 

In March 1993, under the September 1990 Tripartite MoU between the U.S., Italy, and Spain, eight EAV-8B Plus Matadors were ordered, along with a twin-seat TAV-8B. Deliveries of the Plus-standard aircraft started in 1996. On 11 May 2000, Boeing and the NAVAIR finalized a contract to remanufacture Spanish EAV-8Bs to bring them up to Plus standard. Boeing said the deal required it to remanufacture two EAV-8Bs, with an option for another seven aircraft; other sources say the total was 11 aircraft. The remanufacture allowed the aircraft to carry four AIM-120 AMRAAMs, enhanced the pilot's situational awareness through the installation of new radar and avionics, and provided a new engine. Eventually, 5 aircraft were modified, the last having been delivered on 5 December 2003.

 

The opening of the Connaught Bridge Generating Station, on the Klang River in Selangor, in March 1953 was a real milestone int he history of what was then Malaya - now Malaysia. The power station, capable of being either coal or oil fired, was at 80,000kw by far the largest generating station at the time in the country and, as importantly, the project included elements of a new proposed Malayan 'National Grid' that linked existing stations such as the hydro-electric plant at Chenderoh with stations and locations along the East Coast centred on the Bungsar station in Kuala Lumpur that hitherto had supplied the bulk of the capital's power requirements. As the booklet notes it meant an end to the long post-war years of restriction of supply to both industrial and domestic consumers.

 

The station was originally planned in 1944 by the Malayan Planning Unit in London in anticipation of the return to Malaya after the end of the Japanses occupation. A provisional order for the equipment was placed in 1945, with additional equipment following in 1947. Meanwhile the site at Connaught Bridge alongside the Klang River was selected in 1946 with the contract to start construction given by the Federation's Government in 1949. The first phase of the station, plant and the double circuit 66kv interconnecting lines running the 23 miles to Kuala Lumpur, was ready for opening in March 1953. Full commissioning came in 1955. Initailly the output was linked to the Bangsar (KL) station and that of Ulu Langat hydro-electric station. Construction of the former had started in 1926 and was opened in 1927 by the Government electricity department and in 1933 they purchased the Ulu Langat station from the Sungei Besi Mines Ltd. KL's earlier supplies, from 1905, had been provided from a small hydro-electric plant on the Gombak River, 12 miles from the town, what had two 400kw Pelton wheel-alternators. This had been augmented in 1919 by a mixed steam and diesel engine plant at Gombak Lane in the centre of KL.

 

Elsewhere, Penang's Municipal Department was the first to supply electriicty within Malaya when it started in 1904 - the station on the mainland at Prai came into use in 1926. By this date electricity was available in Ipoh, Johore Bahru (and Singapore), Seremban and Malacca/Melaka. That at Johore Bahru under the Johore adminsitraion grew to include Muar, Batu Pahat, Kluang, Kota Tinggi and Segamat. In Perak supplies were largely in the hands of the Perak River Hydro-Electric Power Company who operated stations at Malim Nawar (1928) and Chenderoh (1929). In North Perak the Government supplied Taiping and in Province Wellesley Messrs. Huttenbach's bought bulk supply from Penang and supplied power to various towns, supplemented by diesel generating stations in Kedah, Perak and Negri Sembilan. Power came to Kota Bharu (Kelantan), Ruab, Bentong, Kuala Lipis and Kuantan between 1928 and 1931, and in 1938 and 1939 to Mentakab, Fraser's Hill and Kuala Kubu.

 

In 1946 the Malayan Union Government acquired most electriicty undertakings except those of private companies and Penang Corporation whilst it also fully acquired the undertkaing operated by the Malacca Electric Light Company in 1948 that it has previously run on a rental basis. On the 1 September 1949 the new Central Electricity Board of the Federation fo Malaya came into existance and took over all functions of the old Electricity Department.

 

The booklet is marvellously detailed and illustrated describing the site, the power station, ancilliary equipment and other works, such as staff accomodaton and housing, with photographs and plans. The latter include a map of the proposed Malayan Grid and the plans show the works designed by both the staff of the Central Electricity Board and the consulting engineers, Preece, Cardew and Rider, and civil engineers Coode and Partners. The station took cooling water from the Klang River and could be powered by either fuel oil (via a pipeline from Port Swettenham) and coal via connections with the Malayan Railways and the colliery at Batu Arang.

 

Needless to say much of the equipment was supplied from the UK - Parsons generators and transformers and switchgear from various manufacturers including British Thomson Houston.

 

The photos are great as they show named members of the operating staff at work which is unusual but that now provided a real social history to the economic history of electricity supply in Malaysia.

Elms are deciduous and semi-deciduous trees comprising the genus Ulmus in the family Ulmaceae. They are distributed over most of the Northern Hemisphere, inhabiting the temperate and tropical-montane regions of North America and Eurasia, presently ranging southward in the Middle East to Lebanon and Israel, and across the Equator in the Far East into Indonesia.

 

Elms are components of many kinds of natural forests. Moreover, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, many species and cultivars were also planted as ornamental street, garden, and park trees in Europe, North America, and parts of the Southern Hemisphere, notably Australasia. Some individual elms reached great size and age. However, in recent decades, most mature elms of European or North American origin have died from Dutch elm disease, caused by a microfungus dispersed by bark beetles. In response, disease-resistant cultivars have been developed, capable of restoring the elm to forestry and landscaping.

 

Description

The genus is hermaphroditic, having apetalous perfect flowers which are wind-pollinated. Elm leaves are alternate, with simple, single- or, most commonly, doubly serrate margins, usually asymmetric at the base and acuminate at the apex. The fruit is a round wind-dispersed samara flushed with chlorophyll, facilitating photosynthesis before the leaves emerge. The samarae are very light, those of British elms numbering around 50,000 to the pound (454 g). (Very rarely anomalous samarae occur with more than two wings.) All species are tolerant of a wide range of soils and pH levels but, with few exceptions, demand good drainage. The elm tree can grow to great height, the American elm in excess of 30 m (100 ft), often with a forked trunk creating a vase profile.

 

Taxonomy

There are about 30 to 40 species of Ulmus (elm); the ambiguity in number results from difficulty in delineating species, owing to the ease of hybridization between them and the development of local seed-sterile vegetatively propagated microspecies in some areas, mainly in the Ulmus field elm (Ulmus minor) group. Oliver Rackham describes Ulmus as the most critical genus in the entire British flora, adding that 'species and varieties are a distinction in the human mind rather than a measured degree of genetic variation'. Eight species are endemic to North America and three to Europe, but the greatest diversity is in Asia with approximately two dozen species. The oldest fossils of Ulmus are leaves dating Paleocene, found across the Northern Hemisphere.

 

The classification adopted in the List of elm species is largely based on that established by Brummitt. A large number of synonyms have accumulated over the last three centuries; their currently accepted names can be found in the list of Elm synonyms and accepted names.

 

Botanists who study elms and argue over elm identification and classification are called "pteleologists", from the Greek πτελέα (elm).

 

As part of the suborder urticalean rosids, they are distantly related to cannabis, mulberries, figs, hops, and nettles.

 

Elm propagation methods vary according to elm type and location, and the plantsman's needs. Native species may be propagated by seed. In their natural setting, native species, such as wych elm and European white elm in central and northern Europe and field elm in southern Europe, set viable seed in "favourable" seasons. Optimal conditions occur after a late warm spring. After pollination, seeds of spring-flowering elms ripen and fall at the start of summer (June); they remain viable for only a few days. They are planted in sandy potting soil at a depth of 1 cm, and germinate in three weeks. Slow-germinating American elm will remain dormant until the second season. Seeds from autumn-flowering elms ripen in the fall and germinate in the spring. Since elms may hybridize within and between species, seed propagation entails a hybridisation risk. In unfavourable seasons, elm seeds are usually sterile. Elms outside their natural range, such as English elm U. minor 'Atinia', and elms unable to pollinate because pollen sources are genetically identical, are sterile and are propagated by vegetative reproduction. Vegetative reproduction is also used to produce genetically identical elms (clones). Methods include the winter transplanting of root suckers; taking hardwood cuttings from vigorous one-year-old shoots in late winter, taking root cuttings in early spring; taking softwood cuttings in early summer; grafting; ground and air layering; and micropropagation. A bottom heat of 18 °C and humid conditions are maintained for hard- and softwood cuttings. The transplanting of root suckers remains the easiest most and common propagation method for European field elm and its hybrids. For specimen urban elms, grafting to wych-elm rootstock may be used to eliminate suckering or to ensure stronger root growth. The mutant-elm cultivars are usually grafted, the "weeping" elms 'Camperdown' and 'Horizontalis' at 2–3 m (7–10 ft), the dwarf cultivars 'Nana' and 'Jacqueline Hillier' at ground level. Since the Siberian elm is drought tolerant, in dry countries, new varieties of elm are often root-grafted onto this species.

 

Dutch elm disease (DED) devastated elms throughout Europe and much of North America in the second half of the 20th century. It derives its name "Dutch" from the first description of the disease and its cause in the 1920s by Dutch botanists Bea Schwarz and Christina Johanna Buisman. Owing to its geographical isolation and effective quarantine enforcement, Australia has so far remained unaffected by DED, as have the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia in western Canada.

 

DED is caused by a microfungus transmitted by two species of Scolytus elm-bark beetles, which act as vectors. The disease affects all species of elms native to North America and Europe, but many Asiatic species have evolved antifungal genes and are resistant. Fungal spores, introduced into wounds in the tree caused by the beetles, invade the xylem or vascular system. The tree responds by producing tyloses, effectively blocking the flow from roots to leaves. Woodland trees in North America are not quite as susceptible to the disease because they usually lack the root grafting of the urban elms and are somewhat more isolated from each other. In France, inoculation with the fungus of over 300 clones of the European species failed to find a single variety that possessed of any significant resistance.

 

The first, less aggressive strain of the disease fungus, Ophiostoma ulmi, arrived in Europe from Asia in 1910, and was accidentally introduced to North America in 1928. It was steadily weakened by viruses in Europe and had all but disappeared by the 1940s. However, the disease had a much greater and longer-lasting impact in North America, owing to the greater susceptibility of the American elm, Ulmus americana, which masked the emergence of the second, far more virulent strain of the disease Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. It appeared in the United States sometime in the 1940s, and was originally believed to be a mutation of O. ulmi. Limited gene flow from O. ulmi to O. novo-ulmi was probably responsible for the creation of the North American subspecies O. novo-ulmi subsp. americana. It was first recognized in Britain in the early 1970s, believed to have been introduced via a cargo of Canadian rock elm destined for the boatbuilding industry, and rapidly eradicated most of the mature elms from western Europe. A second subspecies, O. novo-ulmi subsp. novo-ulmi, caused similar devastation in Eastern Europe and Central This subspecies, which was introduced to North America, and like O. ulmi, is thought to have originated in Asia. The two subspecies have now hybridized in Europe where their ranges have overlapped. The hypothesis that O. novo-ulmi arose from a hybrid of the original O. ulmi and another strain endemic to the Himalayas, Ophiostoma himal-ulmi, is now discredited.

 

No sign indicates the current pandemic is waning, and no evidence has been found of a susceptibility of the fungus to a disease of its own caused by d-factors: naturally occurring virus-like agents that severely debilitated the original O. ulmi and reduced its sporulation.

 

Elm phloem necrosis

Elm phloem necrosis (elm yellows) is a disease of elm trees that is spread by leafhoppers or by root grafts. This very aggressive disease, with no known cure, occurs in the Eastern United States, southern Ontario in Canada, and Europe. It is caused by phytoplasmas that infect the phloem (inner bark) of the tree. Infection and death of the phloem effectively girdles the tree and stops the flow of water and nutrients. The disease affects both wild-growing and cultivated trees. Occasionally, cutting the infected tree before the disease completely establishes itself and cleanup and prompt disposal of infected matter has resulted in the plant's survival via stump sprouts.

 

Most serious of the elm pests is the elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola, which can decimate foliage, although rarely with fatal results. The beetle was accidentally introduced to North America from Europe. Another unwelcome immigrant to North America is the Japanese beetle Popillia japonica. In both instances, the beetles cause far more damage in North America owing to the absence of the predators in their native lands. In Australia, introduced elm trees are sometimes used as food plants by the larvae of hepialid moths of the genus Aenetus. These burrow horizontally into the trunk then vertically down. Circa 2000, the Asian Zig-zag sawfly Aproceros leucopoda appeared in Europe and North America, although in England, its impact has been minimal and it is no longer monitored.

 

One of the earliest of ornamental elms was the ball-headed graft narvan elm, Ulmus minor 'Umbraculifera', cultivated from time immemorial in Persia as a shade tree and widely planted in cities through much of south-west and central Asia. From the 18th century to the early 20th century, elms, whether species, hybrids, or cultivars, were among the most widely planted ornamental trees in both Europe and North America. They were particularly popular as a street tree in avenue plantings in towns and cities, creating high-tunnelled effects. Their quick growth and variety of foliage and forms, their tolerance of air-pollution, and the comparatively rapid decomposition of their leaf litter in the fall were further advantages.

 

In North America, the species most commonly planted was the American elm (U. americana), which had unique properties that made it ideal for such use - rapid growth, adaptation to a broad range of climates and soils, strong wood, resistance to wind damage, and vase-like growth habit requiring minimal pruning. In Europe, the wych elm (U. glabra) and the field elm (U. minor) were the most widely planted in the countryside, the former in northern areas including Scandinavia and northern Britain, the latter further south. The hybrid between these two, Dutch elm (U. × hollandica), occurs naturally and was also commonly planted. In much of England, the English elm later came to dominate the horticultural landscape. Most commonly planted in hedgerows, it sometimes occurred in densities over 1000/km2. In south-eastern Australia and New Zealand, large numbers of English and Dutch elms, as well as other species and cultivars, were planted as ornamentals following their introduction in the 19th century, while in northern Japan Japanese elm (U. davidiana var. japonica) was widely planted as a street tree. From about 1850 to 1920, the most prized small ornamental elm in parks and gardens was the 'Camperdown' elm (U. glabra 'Camperdownii'), a contorted, weeping cultivar of the wych elm grafted on to a nonweeping elm trunk to give a wide, spreading, and weeping fountain shape in large garden spaces.

 

In northern Europe, elms were, moreover, among the few trees tolerant of saline deposits from sea spray, which can cause "salt-burning" and die-back. This tolerance made elms reliable both as shelterbelt trees exposed to sea wind, in particular along the coastlines of southern and western Britain and in the Low Countries, and as trees for coastal towns and cities.

 

This belle époque lasted until the First World War, when as a consequence of hostilities, notably in Germany, whence at least 40 cultivars originated, and of the outbreak at about the same time of the early strain of DED, Ophiostoma ulmi, the elm began its slide into horticultural decline. The devastation caused by the Second World War, and the demise in 1944 of the huge Späth nursery in Berlin, only accelerated the process. The outbreak of the new, three times more virulent, strain of DED Ophiostoma novo-ulmi in the late 1960s, brought the tree to its nadir.

 

Since around 1990, the elm has enjoyed a renaissance through the successful development in North America and Europe of cultivars highly resistant to DED. Consequently, the total number of named cultivars, ancient and modern, now exceeds 300, although many of the older clones, possibly over 120, have been lost to cultivation. Some of the latter, however, were by today's standards inadequately described or illustrated before the pandemic, and a number may survive, or have regenerated, unrecognised. Enthusiasm for the newer clones often remains low owing to the poor performance of earlier, supposedly disease-resistant Dutch trees released in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Netherlands, sales of elm cultivars slumped from over 56,000 in 1989 to just 6,800 in 2004, whilst in the UK, only four of the new American and European releases were commercially available in 2008.

 

Efforts to develop DED-resistant cultivars began in the Netherlands in 1928 and continued, uninterrupted by World War II, until 1992. Similar programmes were initiated in North America (1937), Italy (1978), and Spain (1986). Research has followed two paths:

 

Species and species cultivars

In North America, careful selection has produced a number of trees resistant not only to DED, but also to the droughts and cold winters that occur within the continent. Research in the United States has concentrated on the American elm (U. americana), resulting in the release of DED-resistant clones, notably the cultivars 'Valley Forge' and 'Jefferson'. Much work has also been done into the selection of disease-resistant Asiatic species and cultivars.

 

In 1993, Mariam B. Sticklen and James L. Sherald reported the results of experiments funded by the U.S. National Park Service and conducted at Michigan State University in East Lansing that were designed to apply genetic engineering techniques to the development of DED-resistant strains of American elm trees. In 2007, A. E. Newhouse and F. Schrodt of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse reported that young transgenic American elm trees had shown reduced DED symptoms and normal mycorrhizal colonization.

 

In Europe, the European white elm (U. laevis) has received much attention. While this elm has little innate resistance to DED, it is not favoured by the vector bark beetles. Thus it only becomes colonized and infected when no other elms are available, a rare situation in western Europe. Research in Spain has suggested that it may be the presence of a triterpene, alnulin, which makes the tree bark unattractive to the beetle species that spread the disease. This possibility, though, has not been conclusively proven. More recently, field elms Ulmus minor highly resistant to DED have been discovered in Spain, and form the basis of a major breeding programme.

 

Hybrid cultivars

Owing to their innate resistance to DED, Asiatic species have been crossed with European species, or with other Asiatic elms, to produce trees that are both highly resistant to disease and tolerant of native climates. After a number of false dawns in the 1970s, this approach has produced a range of reliable hybrid cultivars now commercially available in North America and Europe. Disease resistance is invariably carried by the female parent.

 

Some of these cultivars, notably those with the Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) in their ancestry, lack the forms for which the iconic American elm and English elm were prized. Moreover, several exported to northwestern Europe have proven unsuited to the maritime climate conditions there, notably because of their intolerance of anoxic conditions resulting from ponding on poorly drained soils in winter. Dutch hybridizations invariably included the Himalayan elm (Ulmus wallichiana) as a source of antifungal genes and have proven more tolerant of wet ground; they should also ultimately reach a greater size. However, the susceptibility of the cultivar 'Lobel', used as a control in Italian trials, to elm yellows has now (2014) raised a question mark over all the Dutch clones.

 

Several highly resistant Ulmus cultivars have been released since 2000 by the Institute of Plant Protection in Florence, most commonly featuring crosses of the Dutch cultivar 'Plantijn' with the Siberian elm to produce resistant trees better adapted to the Mediterranean climate.

 

Cautions regarding novel cultivars

Elms take many decades to grow to maturity, and as the introduction of these disease-resistant cultivars is relatively recent, their long-term performance and ultimate size and form cannot be predicted with certainty. The National Elm Trial in North America, begun in 2005, is a nationwide trial to assess strengths and weaknesses of the 19 leading cultivars raised in the US over a 10-year period; European cultivars have been excluded. Meanwhile, in Europe, American and European cultivars are being assessed in field trials started in 2000 by the UK charity Butterfly Conservation.

 

The oldest American elm trees in New York City's Central Park were planted in the 1860s by Frederick Law Olmsted, making them among the oldest stands of American elms in the world. Along the Mall and Literary Walk four lines of American elms stretch over the walkway forming a cathedral-like covering. A part of New York City's urban ecology, the elms improve air and water quality, reduce erosion and flooding, and decrease air temperatures during warm days.

 

While the stand is still vulnerable to DED, in the 1980s the Central Park Conservancy undertook aggressive countermeasures such as heavy pruning and removal of extensively diseased trees. These efforts have largely been successful in saving the majority of the trees, although several are still lost each year. Younger American elms that have been planted in Central Park since the outbreak are of the DED-resistant 'Princeton' and 'Valley Forge' cultivars.

 

Several rows of American elm trees that the National Park Service (NPS) first planted during the 1930s line much of the 1.9-mile-length (3 km) of the National Mall in Washington, DC. DED first appeared on the trees during the 1950s and reached a peak in the 1970s. The NPS used a number of methods to control the epidemic, including sanitation, pruning, injecting trees with fungicide, and replanting with DED-resistant cultivars. The NPS combated the disease's local insect vector, the smaller European elm bark beetle (Scolytus multistriatus), by trapping and by spraying with insecticides. As a result, the population of American elms planted on the Mall and its surrounding areas has remained intact for more than 80 years.

 

Elm wood is valued for its interlocking grain, and consequent resistance to splitting, with significant uses in wagon-wheel hubs, chair seats, and coffins. The bodies of Japanese Taiko drums are often cut from the wood of old elm trees, as the wood's resistance to splitting is highly desired for nailing the skins to them, and a set of three or more is often cut from the same tree. The elm's wood bends well and distorts easily. The often long, straight trunks were favoured as a source of timber for keels in ship construction. Elm is also prized by bowyers; of the ancient bows found in Europe, a large portion are elm. During the Middle Ages, elm was also used to make longbows if yew were unavailable.

 

The first written references to elm occur in the Linear B lists of military equipment at Knossos in the Mycenaean period. Several of the chariots are of elm (" πτε-ρε-ϝα ", pte-re-wa), and the lists twice mention wheels of elmwood. Hesiod says that ploughs in Ancient Greece were also made partly of elm.

 

The density of elm wood varies between species, but averages around 560 kg/m3.

 

Elm wood is also resistant to decay when permanently wet, and hollowed trunks were widely used as water pipes during the medieval period in Europe. Elm was also used as piers in the construction of the original London Bridge, but this resistance to decay in water does not extend to ground contact.

 

Viticulture

The Romans, and more recently the Italians, planted elms in vineyards as supports for vines. Lopped at 3 m, the elms' quick growth, twiggy lateral branches, light shade, and root suckering made them ideal trees for this purpose. The lopped branches were used for fodder and firewood. Ovid in his Amores characterizes the elm as "loving the vine": ulmus amat vitem, vitis non deserit ulmum (the elm loves the vine, the vine does not desert the elm), and the ancients spoke of the "marriage" between elm and vine.

 

Medicinal products

The mucilaginous inner bark of the slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) has long been used as a demulcent, and is still produced commercially for this purpose in the U.S. with approval for sale as a nutritional supplement by the Food and Drug Administration.

 

Fodder

Elms also have a long history of cultivation for fodder, with the leafy branches cut to feed livestock. The practice continues today in the Himalaya, where it contributes to serious deforestation.

 

Biomass

As fossil fuel resources diminish, increasing attention is being paid to trees as sources of energy. In Italy, the Istituto per la Protezione delle Piante is (2012) in the process of releasing to commerce very fast-growing elm cultivars, able to increase in height by more than 2 m (6 ft) per year.

 

Food

Elm bark, cut into strips and boiled, sustained much of the rural population of Norway during the great famine of 1812. The seeds are particularly nutritious, containing 45% crude protein, and less than 7% fibre by dry mass.

 

Elm has been listed as one of the 38 substances that are used to prepare Bach flower remedies, a kind of alternative medicine.

 

Bonsai

Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia) is a popular choice for bonsai owing to its tolerance of severe pruning.

 

Genetic resource conservation

In 1997, a European Union elm project was initiated, its aim to coordinate the conservation of all the elm genetic resources of the member states and, among other things, to assess their resistance to Dutch elm disease. Accordingly, over 300 clones were selected and propagated for testing.

 

Culture

Notable elm trees

Many elm trees of various kinds have attained great size or otherwise become particularly noteworthy.

 

In art

Many artists have admired elms for the ease and grace of their branching and foliage, and have painted them with sensitivity. Elms are a recurring element in the landscapes and studies of, for example, John Constable, Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller, Frederick Childe Hassam, Karel Klinkenberg, and George Inness.

 

In Greek mythology, the nymph Ptelea (Πτελέα, Elm) was one of the eight hamadryads, nymphs of the forest and daughters of Oxylos and Hamadryas. In his Hymn to Artemis, poet Callimachus (third century BC) tells how, at the age of three, the infant goddess Artemis practised her newly acquired silver bow and arrows, made for her by Hephaestus and the Cyclopes, by shooting first at an elm, then at an oak, before turning her aim on a wild animal:

 

πρῶτον ἐπὶ πτελέην, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἧκας ἐπὶ δρῦν, τὸ τρίτον αὖτ᾽ ἐπὶ θῆρα.

The first reference in literature to elms occurs in the Iliad. When Eetion, father of Andromache, is killed by Achilles during the Trojan War, the mountain nymphs plant elms on his tomb ("περί δὲ πτελέας ἐφύτευσαν νύμφαι ὀρεστιάδες, κoῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχoιo"). Also in the Iliad, when the River Scamander, indignant at the sight of so many corpses in his water, overflows and threatens to drown Achilles, the latter grasps a branch of a great elm in an attempt to save himself ("ὁ δὲ πτελέην ἕλε χερσὶν εὐφυέα μεγάλην".

 

The nymphs also planted elms on the tomb in the Thracian Chersonese of "great-hearted Protesilaus" ("μεγάθυμου Πρωτεσιλάου"), the first Greek to fall in the Trojan War. These elms grew to be the tallest in the known world, but when their topmost branches saw far off the ruins of Troy, they immediately withered, so great still was the bitterness of the hero buried below, who had been loved by Laodamia and slain by Hector. The story is the subject of a poem by Antiphilus of Byzantium (first century AD) in the Palatine Anthology:

 

Θεσσαλὲ Πρωτεσίλαε, σὲ μὲν πολὺς ᾄσεται αἰών,

Tρoίᾳ ὀφειλoμένoυ πτώματος ἀρξάμενoν•

σᾶμα δὲ τοι πτελέῃσι συνηρεφὲς ἀμφικoμεῦση

Nύμφαι, ἀπεχθoμένης Ἰλίoυ ἀντιπέρας.

Δένδρα δὲ δυσμήνιτα, καὶ ἤν ποτε τεῖχoς ἴδωσι

Tρώϊον, αὐαλέην φυλλοχoεῦντι κόμην.

ὅσσoς ἐν ἡρώεσσι τότ᾽ ἦν χόλoς, oὗ μέρoς ἀκμὴν

ἐχθρὸν ἐν ἀψύχoις σώζεται ἀκρέμoσιν.

[:Thessalian Protesilaos, a long age shall sing your praises,

Of the destined dead at Troy the first;

Your tomb with thick-foliaged elms they covered,

The nymphs, across the water from hated Ilion.

Trees full of anger; and whenever that wall they see,

Of Troy, the leaves in their upper crown wither and fall.

So great in the heroes was the bitterness then, some of which still

Remembers, hostile, in the soulless upper branches.]

Protesilaus had been king of Pteleos (Πτελεός) in Thessaly, which took its name from the abundant elms (πτελέoι) in the region.

 

Elms occur often in pastoral poetry, where they symbolise the idyllic life, their shade being mentioned as a place of special coolness and peace. In the first Idyll of Theocritus (third century BC), for example, the goatherd invites the shepherd to sit "here beneath the elm" ("δεῦρ' ὑπὸ τὰν πτελέαν") and sing. Beside elms, Theocritus places "the sacred water" ("το ἱερὸν ὕδωρ") of the Springs of the Nymphs and the shrines to the nymphs.

 

Aside from references literal and metaphorical to the elm and vine theme, the tree occurs in Latin literature in the Elm of Dreams in the Aeneid. When the Sibyl of Cumae leads Aeneas down to the Underworld, one of the sights is the Stygian Elm:

 

In medio ramos annosaque bracchia pandit

ulmus opaca, ingens, quam sedem somnia vulgo

uana tenere ferunt, foliisque sub omnibus haerent.

:Spreads in the midst her boughs and agéd arms

an elm, huge, shadowy, where vain dreams, 'tis said,

are wont to roost them, under every leaf close-clinging.]

Virgil refers to a Roman superstition (vulgo) that elms were trees of ill-omen because their fruit seemed to be of no value. It has been noted that two elm-motifs have arisen from classical literature: the 'Paradisal Elm' motif, arising from pastoral idylls and the elm-and-vine theme, and the 'Elm and Death' motif, perhaps arising from Homer's commemorative elms and Virgil's Stygian Elm. Many references to elm in European literature from the Renaissance onwards fit into one or other of these categories.

 

There are two examples of pteleogenesis (:birth from elms) in world myths. In Germanic and Scandinavian mythology the first woman, Embla, was fashioned from an elm, while in Japanese mythology Kamuy Fuchi, the chief goddess of the Ainu people, "was born from an elm impregnated by the Possessor of the Heavens".

 

The elm occurs frequently in English literature, one of the best known instances being in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, where Titania, Queen of the Fairies, addresses her beloved Nick Bottom using an elm-simile. Here, as often in the elm-and-vine motif, the elm is a masculine symbol:

 

Sleep thou, and I will wind thee in my arms.

... the female Ivy so

Enrings the barky fingers of the Elm.

O, how I love thee! how I dote on thee!

Another of the most famous kisses in English literature, that of Paul and Helen at the start of Forster's Howards End, is stolen beneath a great wych elm.

 

The elm tree is also referenced in children's literature. An Elm Tree and Three Sisters by Norma Sommerdorf is a children's book about three young sisters who plant a small elm tree in their backyard.

 

In politics

The cutting of the elm was a diplomatic altercation between the kings of France and England in 1188, during which an elm tree near Gisors in Normandy was felled.

 

In politics, the elm is associated with revolutions. In England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the final victory of parliamentarians over monarchists, and the arrival from Holland, with William III and Mary II, of the Dutch elm hybrid, planting of this cultivar became a fashion among enthusiasts of the new political order.

 

In the American Revolution, the Liberty Tree was an American white elm in Boston, Massachusetts, in front of which, from 1765, the first resistance meetings were held against British attempts to tax the American colonists without democratic representation. When the British, knowing that the tree was a symbol of rebellion, felled it in 1775, the Americans took to widespread Liberty Elm planting, and sewed elm symbols on to their revolutionary flags. Elm planting by American Presidents later became something of a tradition.

 

In the French Revolution, too, Les arbres de la liberté (Liberty Trees), often elms, were planted as symbols of revolutionary hopes, the first in Vienne, Isère, in 1790, by a priest inspired by the Boston elm. L'Orme de La Madeleine (:the Elm of La Madeleine), Faycelles, Département de Lot, planted around 1790 and surviving to this day, was a case in point. By contrast, a famous Parisian elm associated with the Ancien Régime, L'Orme de Saint-Gervais in the Place St-Gervais, was felled by the revolutionaries; church authorities planted a new elm in its place in 1846, and an early 20th-century elm stands on the site today. Premier Lionel Jospin, obliged by tradition to plant a tree in the garden of the Hôtel Matignon, the official residence and workplace of Prime Ministers of France, insisted on planting an elm, so-called 'tree of the Left', choosing the new disease-resistant hybrid 'Clone 762' (Ulmus 'Wanoux' = Vada). In the French Republican Calendar, in use from 1792 to 1806, the 12th day of the month Ventôse (= 2 March) was officially named "jour de l'Orme", Day of the Elm.

 

Liberty Elms were also planted in other countries in Europe to celebrate their revolutions, an example being L'Olmo di Montepaone, L'Albero della Libertà (:the Elm of Montepaone, Liberty Tree) in Montepaone, Calabria, planted in 1799 to commemorate the founding of the democratic Parthenopean Republic, and surviving until it was brought down by a recent storm (it has since been cloned and 'replanted'). After the Greek Revolution of 1821–32, a thousand young elms were brought to Athens from Missolonghi, "Sacred City of the Struggle" against the Turks and scene of Lord Byron's death, and planted in 1839–40 in the National Garden. In an ironic development, feral elms have spread and invaded the grounds of the abandoned Greek royal summer palace at Tatoi in Attica.

 

In a chance event linking elms and revolution, on the morning of his execution (30 January 1649), walking to the scaffold at the Palace of Whitehall, King Charles I turned to his guards and pointed out, with evident emotion, an elm near the entrance to Spring Gardens that had been planted by his brother in happier days. The tree was said to be still standing in the 1860s.

fall is my favorite time of year.

 

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).

 

The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.

 

The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties, which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.

 

The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

The versatile aircraft also underwent constant upgrade programs, leading to improved versions like the VF-1N and P. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards. Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECM measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters in several variants.

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

  

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.Spacy Marines

 

Accommodation:

Single pilot in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

 

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

 

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)

 

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

2x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min

4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including:

- 12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

- 12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

- 6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

- 4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

- or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was a spontaneous interim build in a busy time, so that the kit remained almost OOB. The model is one of the vintage ARII kits, and the build circled primarily around the (fictional) livery. The latter is a kind of re-interpretation of a paint scheme that I had applied to a “Wild Weasel” Valkyrie many years ago – it carried a three-tone wraparound scheme which had been inspired by the USAF’s “European One” schemes, also known as “Lizard”, and most popular for having been applied to the A-10s based in Germany. However, I used much more toned-down colors (Dark Slate Grey, Olive Drab and Dark Grey), which created an almost uniform but also very dull look. I wanted something similar, but with “brighter” colors, but also not a copy of the “Lizard” scheme. More about that later.

 

As already mentioned, the kit remained OOB, just a pilot was added to the cockpit because it would be built with the landing gear tucked up and put on a display. Due to the clear but thick canopy no extra detailing was done inside. Characteristic blade antennae were added to the nose flanks and on the spine.

The ordnance was taken OOB, too, I just replaced two AMM-1 missiles on the outer pylons with a scratched ECM pod and a chaff/flare dispenser.

The display is one of my almost-patented wire constructions that use the OOB display base and is attached to the back of the ventral gun pod.

  

Painting and markings:

As already mentioned, “European One/Lizard” was the guiding theme, but with the intent to use lighter colors. Another influence was the two-tone scheme which the Brazilian Air Force used on their F-5Es and some Tucano trainers. It consists of FS 34092 (European One Green) and FS 36173 (Neutral Grey), with the green only added to the upper surfaces, in a rather disruptive pattern. I borrowed this basic idea and added a third color, Humbrol 150 (Forest Green), as a lighter alternative to FS 34102 (Medium Green) from the original “Lizard” scheme. The pattern for the upper surfaces was lent from a Vietnam War era RA-3B, which carried different colors, though (three shades of grey). The other tones are Humbrol 149 and Tamiya XF-53.

The cockpit became medium grey (Revell 47) with a brown seat. The air intake interiors landing gear was painted in classic white, while the air intakes and some other details were painted in dark grey (Humbrol 67), which helps brightening the camouflage up. For the same reason I gave the aircraft a black radome – it stands out quite well, but I felt that a grey nose or the extension of the camouflage up to the nose tip would make the Valkyrie look less UNSAF-like. Another factor is a benchmark VF-11 I found in a source book which also carries a kind of European One scheme, and it also has a completely black nose radome.

 

A black ink wash was used to highlight the engraved panel lines and only light post-shading was done here and there. The wings’ leading edges were created with decal sheet material from TL Modellbau, the low-viz kite roundels were printed at home on transparent decal film. Most stencils were taken from the VF-1’s OOB decal sheet, the squadron markings and the tactical code were puzzled together from the scrap box. The “UNSAF” markings on the legs were created with single 3mm letters, also from TL Modellbau.

 

Finally, the kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri), just the black radome received a sheen finish.

  

A quick project, and another camouflaged VF-1 that IMHO proves that there’s hardly any paint scheme that does not suit Shoji Kawamori’s elegant robot/airplane design. Those small Valkyrie kits never get boring, at least to me! :D

Incense is aromatic biotic material which releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for a variety of purposes, including the ceremonies of religion, to overcome bad smells, repel insects, spirituality, aromatherapy, meditation, and for simple pleasure.

 

Incense is composed of aromatic plant materials, often combined with essential oils. The forms taken by incense differ with the underlying culture, and have changed with advances in technology and increasing diversity in the reasons for burning it. Incense can generally be separated into two main types: "indirect-burning" and "direct-burning". Indirect-burning incense (or "non-combustible incense") is not capable of burning on its own, and requires a separate heat source. Direct-burning incense (or "combustible incense") is lit directly by a flame and then fanned or blown out, leaving a glowing ember that smoulders and releases fragrance. Direct-burning incense is either a paste formed around a bamboo stick, or a paste that is extruded into a stick or cone shape.

 

HISTORY

The word incense comes from Latin for incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense within both pragmatic and mystical capacities. Incense was burnt to counteract or obscure malodorous products of human habitation, but was widely perceived to also deter malevolent demons and appease the gods with its pleasant aroma. Resin balls were found in many prehistoric Egyptian tombs in El Mahasna, furnishing tangible archaeological substantiation to the prominence of incense and related compounds within Egyptian antiquity. One of the oldest extant incense burners originates from the 5th dynasty. The Temple of Deir-el-Bahari in Egypt contains a series of carvings that depict an expedition for incense.

 

The Babylonians used incense while offering prayers to divining oracles. Incense spread from there to Greece and Rome.

 

Incense burners have been found in the Indus Civilization (3300 BCE- 1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the inherited formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This comprised the initial usage of subterranean plant parts within the fabrication of incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians for incense.

 

At around 2000 BCE, Ancient China began the use of incense in the religious sense, namely for worship. Incense was used by Chinese cultures from Neolithic times and became more widespread in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The earliest documented instance of incense utilization comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, sandalwood, amongst others) as a component of numerous formalized ceremonial rites. Incense usage reached its peak during the Song Dynasty with numerous buildings erected specifically for incense ceremonies.

 

Brought to Japan in the 6th century by Korean Buddhist monks, who used the mystical aromas in their purification rites, the delicate scents of Koh (high-quality Japanese incense) became a source of amusement and entertainment with nobles in the Imperial Court during the Heian Era 200 years later. During the 14th century Shogunate, a samurai warrior might perfume his helmet and armor with incense to achieve an aura of invincibility (as well as to make a noble gesture to whomever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi Era during the 15th and 16th century that incense appreciation (Kōdō) spread to the upper and middle classes of Japanese society.

 

COMPOSITION

A variety of materials have been used in making incense. Historically there has been a preference for using locally available ingredients. For example, sage and cedar were used by the indigenous peoples of North America. Trading in incense materials comprised a major part of commerce along the Silk Road and other trade routes, one notably called the Incense Route.

 

The same could be said for the techniques used to make incense. Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, among them clergy and physicians who were both familiar with incense arts.

 

COMBUSTIBLE BASE

The combustible base of a direct burning incense mixture not only binds the fragrant material together but also allows the produced incense to burn with a self-sustained ember, which propagates slowly and evenly through an entire piece of incense with such regularity that it can be used to mark time. The base is chosen such that it does not produce a perceptible smell. Commercially, two types of incense base predominate:

- Fuel and oxidizer mixtures: Charcoal or wood powder forms the fuel for the combustion. Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are combined into the base prior to formation as in the case of powdered incense materials or after formation as in the case of essential oils. The formula for the charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

- Natural plant-based binders: Mucilaginous material, which can be derived from many botanical sources, is mixed with fragrant materials and water. The mucilage from the wet binding powder holds the fragrant material together while the cellulose in the powder combusts to form a stable ember when lit. The dry binding powder usually comprises about 10% of the dry weight in the finished incense. This includes:

- Makko (incense powder): made from the bark of various trees from the Persea such as Persea thunbergii)

- Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of Phoebe genus trees such as Phoebe nanmu, Persea zuihoensis.

- Jigit: a resin based binder used in India

- Laha or Dar: bark based powders used in Nepal, Tibet, and other East Asian countries.

 

TYPES

Incense materials are available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types depending on use. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. Although the production of direct- and indirect-burning incense are both blended to produce a pleasant smell when burned, the two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stale, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT BURNING

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is a combination of aromatic ingredients that are not prepared in any particular way or encouraged into any particular form, leaving it mostly unsuitable for direct combustion. The use of this class of incense requires a separate heat source since it does not generally kindle a fire capable of burning itself and may not ignite at all under normal conditions. This incense can vary in the duration of its burning with the texture of the material. Finer ingredients tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually as they have less total surface area. The heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers.

 

In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Christian Bible. In fact, the word for "frankincense" in many European languages also alludes to any form of incense.

 

- Whole: The incense material is burned directly in its raw unprocessed form on top of coal embers.

- Powdered or granulated: The incense material is broken down into finer bits. This incense burns quickly and provides a short period of intense smells.

- Paste: The powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky and incombustible binder, such as dried fruit, honey, or a soft resin and then formed to balls or small pastilles. These may then be allowed to mature in a controlled environment where the fragrances can commingle and unite. Much Arabian incense, also called "Bukhoor" or "Bakhoor", is of this type (Bakhoor actually refers to frankincense in Arabic) and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, using this method.[17] Within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, raw frankincense is ground into a fine powder and then mixed with various sweet-smelling essential oils.

 

DIRECT BURNING

Direct-burning incense also called "combustible incense", is lit directly by a flame. The glowing ember on the incense will continue to smoulder and burn away the rest of the incense without continued application of heat or flame from an outside source. Direct-burning incense is either extruded, pressed into forms, or coated onto a supporting material. This class of incense is made from a moldable substrate of fragrant finely ground (or liquid) incense materials and odourless binder. The composition must be adjusted to provide fragrance in the proper concentration and to ensure even burning. The following types of direct-burning incense are commonly encountered, though the material itself can take virtually any form, according to expediency or whimsy:

 

- Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core. This type of incense is able to burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used by Chinese culture

- Cone: Incense in this form burns relatively fast. Incense cones were invented in Japan in the 1800s.

- Cored stick: This form of stick incense has a supporting core of bamboo. Higher quality varieties of this form have fragrant sandalwood cores. The core is coated by a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used for worship in Chinese folk religion, cored incensed sticks are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

- Solid stick: This stick incense has no supporting core and is completely made of incense material. Easily broken into pieces, it allows one to determine the specific amount of incense they wish to burn. This is the most commonly produced form of incense in Japan and Tibet.

- Powder: The loose incense powder used for making indirect burning incense is sometimes burned without further processing. They are typically packed into long trails on top of wood ash using a stencil and burned in special censers or incense clocks.

- Paper: Paper infused with incense, folded accordion style, lit and blown out. Examples are Carta d'Armenia and Papier d'Arménie.

- Rope: The incense powder is rolled into paper sheets, which are then rolled into ropes, twisted tightly, then doubled over and twisted again, yielding a two-strand rope. The larger end is the bight, and may be stood vertically, in a shallow dish of sand or pebbles. The smaller (pointed) end is lit. This type of incense is highly transportable and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

The disks of powdered mugwort called 'moxa' sold in Chinese shops and herbalists are used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion treatment. Moxa tablets are not incenses; the treatment relies on heat rather than fragrance.

  

REED DIFFUSING

A reed diffuser is a form of incense that uses no heat. It comes in three parts: a bottle/container, scented essential incense oil, and bamboo reeds. The incense oil is placed into the container and bamboo reeds are then put into the same container. This is done to absorb some of the incense oil, as well as to help carry its scent and essence out of the container and into the surrounding air. Reeds typically have tiny tube openings that run the entire length of the stick. Oil is absorbed by the reed sticks and carried along the entire reed. These are do-it-yourself incense sticks that do not burn and look almost identical to typical incense sticks

 

PRODUCTION

INDIRECT BURNING

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, are then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition are made by powdering frankincense or fir resin, mixing it with essential oils. Floral fragrances are the most common, but citrus such as lemon is not uncommon. The incense mixture is then rolled out into a slab approximately 1 cm thick and left until the slab has firmed. It is then cut into small cubes, coated with clay powder to prevent adhesion, and allowed to fully harden and dry. In Greece this rolled incense resin is called 'Moskolibano', and generally comes in either a pink or green colour denoting the fragrance, with pink being rose and green being jasmine.

 

DIRECT BURNING

In order to obtain desired combustion qualities, attention has to be paid to certain proportions in direct burning incense mixtures:

 

- Oil content: Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense must not exceed the amount of dry materials in the mixture to such a degree that the incense will not smolder and burn.[citation needed] The higher the oil content relative to the dry mass, the less likely the mixture is to burn effectively.[citation needed] Typically the resinous or oily substances are balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

- Oxidizer quantity: The amount of chemical oxidizer in gum-bound incense must be carefully proportioned. If too little, the incense will not ignite, and if too much, the incense will burn too quickly and not produce fragrant smoke.

- Mixture density: Incense mixtures made with natural binders must not be combined with too much water in mixing, or over-compressed while being formed, which would result in either uneven air distribution or undesirable density in the mixture, causing the incense to burn unevenly, too slowly, or too quickly.

- Particulate size: The incense mixture has to be well pulverized with similarly sized particulates. Uneven and large particulates result in uneven burning and inconsistent aroma production when burned.

- Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" have to be used in the right proportion to ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry but also that the binder does not take up too much of the mixture.

 

Some kinds of direct-burning incense are created from "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust immersed into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in America by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. Such items are often known as "dipped" or "hand-dipped" incense. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia, then simply scented with essential oils.

 

Incense mixtures can be extruded or pressed into shapes. Small quantities of water are combined with the fragrance and incense base mixture and kneaded into a hard dough. The incense dough is then pressed into shaped forms to create cone and smaller coiled incense, or forced through a hydraulic press for solid stick incense. The formed incense is then trimmed and slowly dried. Incense produced in this fashion has a tendency to warp or become misshapen when improperly dried, and as such must be placed in climate-controlled rooms and rotated several times through the drying process.

 

Traditionally, the bamboo cores of cored stick incense is prepared by hand from Phyllostachys heterocycla cv. pubescens since this species produces thick wood and easily burns to ashes in the incense stick. Through this process, known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and then continuously split in halves until thin sticks of bamboo with square cross sections of less than 3mm This process has been largely been replaced by machines in modern incense production.

 

In the case of cored incensed sticks, several methods are employed to coat the sticks cores with incense mixture:

 

- Paste rolling: A wet, malleable paste of incense mixture is first rolled into a long, thin coil, using a paddle. Then, a thin stick is put next to the coil and the stick and paste are rolled together until the stick is centered in the mixture and the desired thickness is achieved. The stick is then cut to the desired length and dried.

- Powder-coating: Powder-coating is used mainly to produce cored incense of either larger coil (up to 1 meter in diameter) or cored stick forms. A bundle of the supporting material (typically thin bamboo or sandalwood slivers) is soaked in water or a thin water/glue mixture for a short time. The thin sticks are then evenly separated, then dipped into a tray of incense powder, consisting of fragrance materials and occasionally a plant-based binder. The dry incense powder is then tossed and piled over the stick while they are spread apart. The sticks are then gently rolled and packed to maintain roundness while more incense powder is repeatedly tossed onto the sticks. Three to four layers of powder are coated onto the sticks, forming a 2 mm thick layer of incense material on the stick. The coated incense is then allowed to dry in open air. Additional coatings of incense mixture can be applied after each period of successive drying. Incense sticks that are burned in temples of Chinese folk religion produced in this fashion can have a thickness between 2 and 4 millimeters.

- Compression: A damp powder is mechanically formed around a cored stick by compression, similar to the way uncored sticks are formed. This form is becoming more commonly found due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

JOSS STICKS

Joss sticks are the name given to incense sticks used for a variety of purposes associated with ritual and religious devotion in China and India. They are used in Chinese influenced East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, traditionally burned before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a Chinese popular religion divinity or spirit of place, or in small and humble or large and elaborate shrine found at the main entrance to each and every village. Here the earth god is propitiated in the hope of bringing wealth and health to the village. They can also be burned in front of a door, or open window as an offering to heaven, or devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

Joss-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of joss sticks used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin and are mostly colored yellow, red, and more rarely, black. Thick joss sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral joss sticks are also used on a regular basis, which are found hanging above temple ceilings, with burn times that are exceedingly long. In some states, such as Taiwan, Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon joss sticks are sometimes used. These generate such a massive amount of smoke and heat that they are only ever burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally without aroma or only the slightest trace of jasmine or rose, since it is the smoke, not the scent, which is important in conveying the prayers of the faithful to heaven. They are composed of the dried powdered bark of a non-scented species of cinnamon native to Cambodia, Cinnamomum cambodianum.[citation needed] Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Despite the fact that they contain no sandalwood at all, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are only used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, aloeswood, or floral scents used. The Sandalwood used in Chinese incenses does not come from India, its native home, but rather from groves planted within Chinese territory. Sites belonging to Tzu Chi, Chung Tai Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Xingtian Temple, Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Buddhism in Burma and Korean Buddhism do not use incense.

 

BURNING INCENSE

For indirect-burning incense, pieces of the incense are burned by placing them directly on top of a heat source or on a hot metal plate in a censer or thurible.

 

In Japan a similar censer called a egōro (柄香炉?) is used by several Buddhist sects. The egōro is usually made of brass with a long handle and no chain. Instead of charcoal, makkō powder is poured into a depression made in a bed of ash. The makkō is lit and the incense mixture is burned on top. This method is known as Sonae-kō (Religious Burning).

 

For direct-burning incense, the tip or end of the incense is ignited with a flame or other heat source until the incense begins to turn into ash at the burning end. Flames on the incense are then fanned or blown out, with the incense continuing to burn without a flame on its own.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS

CHINESE INCENSE

For over two thousand years, the Chinese have used incense in religious ceremonies, ancestor veneration, Traditional Chinese medicine, and daily life.

 

Agarwood (chénxiāng) and sandalwood (tánxiāng) are the two most important ingredients in Chinese incense.

 

Along with the introduction of Buddhism in China came calibrated incense sticks and incense clocks. The poet Yu Jianwu (487-551) first recorded them: "By burning incense we know the o'clock of the night, With graduated candles we confirm the tally of the watches." The use of these incense timekeeping devices spread from Buddhist monasteries into Chinese secular society.

 

It is incorrect to assume that the Chinese only burn incense in the home before the family shrine. In Taoist traditions, incense is inextricably associated with the 'yin' energies of the dead, temples, shrines, and ghosts. Therefore, Taoist Chinese believe burning undedicated incense in the home attracts the dreaded hungry ghosts, who consume the smoke and ruin the fortunes of the family.

 

However, since Neolithic times, the Chinese have evolved using incense not only for religious ceremonies, but also for personal and environmental aromatherapy.

 

INDIAN INCENSE

Incense stick, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, is one of the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepal/Tibet and Japanese methods of stick making which don't use a bamboo core. Though the method is also used in the west, particularly in America, it is strongly associated with India.

 

The basic ingredients are the bamboo stick, the paste (generally made of charcoal dust and joss/jiggit/gum/tabu powder - an adhesive made from the bark of litsea glutinosa and other trees), and the perfume ingredients - which would be a masala (spice mix) powder of ground ingredients into which the stick would be rolled, or a perfume liquid sometimes consisting of synthetic ingredients into which the stick would be dipped. Perfume is sometimes sprayed on the coated sticks. Stick machines are sometimes used, which coat the stick with paste and perfume, though the bulk of production is done by hand rolling at home. There are about 5,000 incense companies in India which take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approx 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale.[38] An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 main companies who together account for up to 30% of the market, and around 500 of the companies, including a significant number of the main ones, including Moksh Agarbatti and Cycle Pure, are based in Bangalore.

 

In the Middle East, incense burning has been along tradition. The word bukhur means incense in Arabic. The well known choice for incense is the famous agarwood which is very popular in Africa, the Gulf and amongst some south Asians, but there are many many more choices. Incense come in a variety of forms such as blocks, pieces, pellets, granules or powdered, which is placed in the oil burner called mabkharah for several minutes to heat either with coal in the traditional way or via power in the modern way, allowing it to release its rich smell. However this takes awhile and the quick alternative is to use incense sticks called Oud in Middle East and Africa, and agarbatti in south Asia - again referring to the agar wood + batti meaning some sort of agar-stick. Occasionally some get confused between bukhur and oud, bukhur is the insence ie agarwood, sandlewood etc and oud being the incense sticks (and not the otherway round sometimes wires get twisted)

 

JERUSALEM TEMPLE INCENSE

Ketoret was the incense offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and is stated in the Book of Exodus as a mixture of stacte, onycha, galbanum and frankincense.

 

TIBETAN INCENSE

Tibetan incense refers to a common style of incense found in Tibet, Nepal, and Bhutan. These incenses have a characteristic "earthy" scent to them. Ingredients vary from cinnamon, clove, and juniper, to kusum flower, ashvagandha, or sahi jeera.

 

Many Tibetan incenses are thought to have medicinal properties. Their recipes come from ancient Vedic texts that are based on even older Ayurvedic medical texts. The recipes have remained unchanged for centuries.

 

JAPANESE INCENSE

In Japan incense appreciation folklore includes art, culture, history, and ceremony. It can be compared to and has some of the same qualities as music, art, or literature. Incense burning may occasionally take place within the tea ceremony, just like Calligraphy, Ikebana, and Scroll Arrangement. However the art of incense appreciation or Koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, however usually practiced within a tea room of traditional Zen design.

 

Agarwood (沈香　Jinkō) and sandalwood (白檀　Byakudan) are the two most important ingredients in Japanese incense. Agarwood is known as "Jinkō" in Japan, which translates as "incense that sinks in water", due to the weight of the resin in the wood. Sandalwood is one of the most calming incense ingredients and lends itself well to meditation.[citation needed] It is also used in the Japanese tea ceremony. The most valued Sandalwood comes from Mysore in the state of Karnataka in India.

 

Another important ingredient in Japanese incense is kyara (伽羅). Kyara is one kind of agarwood (Japanese incense companies divide agarwood into 6 categories depending on the region obtained and properties of the agarwood). Kyara is currently worth more than its weight in gold.

 

Some terms used in Japanese incense culture include:

 

- Incense Arts: [香道, Kodo]

- Agarwood: [ 沈香 ] – from heartwood from Aquilaria trees, unique, the incense wood most used in incense ceremony, other names are: lignum aloes or aloeswood, gaharu, jinko, or oud.

- Censer/Incense burner: [香爐] – usually small and used for heating incense not burning, or larger and used for burning

- Charcoal: [木炭] – only the odorless kind is used.

- Incense woods: [ 香木 ] – a naturally fragrant resinous wood.

 

USAGE

Incense is used for a variety of purposes, including the ceremonies of all the main religions, to overcome bad smells, repel insects, purify or improve the atmosphere, aromatherapy, meditation, and for simple pleasure.

 

PRACTICAL

Incense fragrances can be of such great strength that they obscure other, less desirable odours. This utility led to the use of incense in funerary ceremonies because the incense could smother the scent of decay. Another example of this use, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible which swings from the ceiling of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. It is used in part to mask the scent of the many tired, unwashed pilgrims huddled together in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

 

A similar utilitarian use of incense can be found in the post-Reformation Church of England. Although the ceremonial use of incense was abandoned until the Oxford Movement, it was common to have incense (typically frankincense) burned before grand occasions, when the church would be crowded. The frankincense was carried about by a member of the vestry before the service in a vessel called a 'perfuming pan'. In iconography of the day, this vessel is shown to be elongated and flat, with a single, long handle on one side. It is important to note that the perfuming pan was used instead of the thurible, as the latter would have likely offended the Protestant sensibilities of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

The regular burning of direct combustion incense has been used for chronological measurement in incense clocks. These devices can range from a simple trail of incense material calibrated to burn in a specific time period, to elaborate and ornate instruments with bells or gongs, designed to involve and captivate several of the senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other aggravating, distracting or pestilential insects. This use has been deployed in concert with religious uses by Zen Buddhists who claim that the incense that is part of their meditative practice is designed to keep bothersome insects from distracting the practitioner. Currently, more effective pyrethroid-based mosquito repellent incense is widely available in Asia.

 

Papier d'Arménie was originally sold as a disinfectant as well as for the fragrance.

 

Incense is also used often by people who smoke indoors, and do not want the scent to linger.

 

AestheticMany people burn incense to appreciate its smell, without assigning any other specific significance to it, in the same way that the foregoing items can be produced or consumed solely for the contemplation or enjoyment of the refined sensory experience. This use is perhaps best exemplified in the kōdō (香道?), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.ReligiousUse of incense in religion is prevalent in many cultures and may have their roots in the practical and aesthetic uses considering that many religions with not much else in common all use incense. One common motif is incense as a form of sacrificial offering to a deity. Such use was common in Judaic worship and remains in use for example in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, Taoist and Buddhist Chinese jingxiang (敬香 "offer incense [to ancestors/gods]), etc.

 

HEALTH

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and absorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. The emission rate decreases in the row Indian sandalwood > Japanese aloeswood > Taiwanese aloeswood > smokeless sandalwood.

 

Research carried out in Taiwan in 2001 linked the burning of incense sticks to the slow accumulation of potential carcinogens in a poorly ventilated environment by measuring the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzopyrene) within Buddhist temples. The study found gaseous aliphatic aldehydes, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic, in incense smoke.

 

A survey of risk factors for lung cancer, also conducted in Taiwan, noted an inverse association between incense burning and adenocarcinoma of the lung, though the finding was not deemed significant.

 

In contrast, a study by several Asian Cancer Research Centers showed: "No association was found between exposure to incense burning and respiratory symptoms like chronic cough, chronic sputum, chronic bronchitis, runny nose, wheezing, asthma, allergic rhinitis, or pneumonia among the three populations studied: i.e. primary school children, their non-smoking mothers, or a group of older non-smoking female controls. Incense burning did not affect lung cancer risk among non-smokers, but it significantly reduced risk among smokers, even after adjusting for lifetime smoking amount." However, the researchers qualified the findings by noting that incense burning in the studied population was associated with certain low-cancer-risk dietary habits, and concluded that "diet can be a significant confounder of epidemiological studies on air pollution and respiratory health."

 

Although several studies have not shown a link between incense and cancer of the lung, many other types of cancer have been directly linked to burning incense. A study published in 2008 in the medical journal Cancer found that incense use is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of cancers of the upper respiratory tract, with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancer. Those who used incense heavily also had higher rates of a type of cancer called squamous-cell carcinoma, which refers to tumors that arise in the cells lining the internal and external surfaces of the body. The link between incense use and increased cancer risk held when the researchers weighed other factors, including cigarette smoking, diet and drinking habits. The research team noted that "This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke from burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications."

 

In 2015, the South China University of Technology found toxicity of incense to Chinese hamsters ovary cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Frankincense has been shown to cause antidepressive behavior in mice. It activated the poorly understood ion channels in the brain to alleviate anxiety and depression.

 

WIKIPEDIA

The de Havilland DH.110 Sea Vixen is a twin boom, twin-engined 1950s–60s British two-seat jet fighter of the Fleet Air Arm designed by de Havilland at Hatfield, Hertfordshire. Developed from an earlier first generation jet fighter, the Sea Vixen was a capable carrier-based fleet defence fighter that served into the 1970s. Initially produced by de Havilland it was later known as the Hawker Siddeley Sea Vixen after de Havilland became a part of the Hawker Siddeley Group in 1960. A single example remains airworthy today in the UK and is displayed regularly at airshows.

 

The aircraft was designated the DH.110 by de Havilland; a twin-engined all-weather fighter, development of which started in 1946 following discussions with the Admiralty of its requirements for jet all-weather fighters. De Havilland's design shared the twin-boom layout of the de Havilland Vampire, had an all-metal structure and featured swept wings. It was to be powered by two Rolls-Royce Avon engines, each capable of 7,500 lbf (33 kN) of thrust, which would allow the aircraft to be supersonic in a shallow dive. The DH 110 was the first British two seat combat aircraft to achieve supersonic speed. Armament was to be four 30 mm ADEN cannons. In January 1947, specifications N.40/46 and F.44/46 were issued by the British Air Ministry for similar night-fighters to equip the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) and Royal Air Force (RAF), with nine prototypes being ordered for the RAF (together with four of the competing Gloster Javelin) and four prototypes for the Fleet Air Arm.[3][4] In 1949, however, the Royal Navy decided to buy the de Havilland Sea Venom, which as a development of an existing type was cheaper and available quickly to meet its immediate needs for a jet-powered night fighter to replace its piston-engined de Havilland Sea Hornets, while the RAF cut its order back to two prototypes. Despite this, de Havilland continued with the project.

 

The first prototype was built and first flown at Hatfield Aerodrome on 26 September 1951 piloted by John Cunningham; the aircraft's performance exceeded expectations, and by the following year it was regularly flying faster than the speed of sound. However, tragedy struck while the aircraft was being demonstrated at the Farnborough Airshow on 6 September 1952. Following a demonstration of its ability to break the sound barrier, the aircraft disintegrated, killing 31 people, including the crew of two: test pilot and record breaker John Derry and Tony Richards. The failure was traced to faulty design of the end sections of the main spar, which resulted in the outer ends of the wings shearing off during a high-rate turn. The subsequent shift in the DH.110's centre of lift caused the aircraft to lurch violently, creating forces of over 12 g, resulting in the cockpit and tail sections breaking away and the engines being torn from the airframe. One of the engines hit an area crowded with spectators at the end of the runway, causing the majority of casualties. Other spectators were injured by debris from the cockpit landing close to the main spectator enclosures alongside the runway. This incident led to a major restructuring of the safety regulations for air shows in the UK.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Fiat G.91 was an Italian jet fighter aircraft designed and built by Fiat Aviazione, which later merged into Aeritalia. The G.91 had its origins in the NATO-organized NBMR-1 competition in 1953, which sought a light fighter-bomber "Light Weight Strike Fighter" to be adopted as standard equipment across the air forces of the various NATO nations. The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft. After reviewing multiple submissions, the G.91 was picked as the winning design of the NBMR-1 competition.

 

The G.91 entered into operational service with the Italian Air Force in 1961, and with the West German Luftwaffe in the following year. Various other nations adopted it, such as the Portuguese Air Force, who made extensive use of the type during the Portuguese Colonial War in Africa. The G.91 remained in production for 19 years, during which a total of 756 aircraft were completed, including the prototypes and pre-production models. The assembly lines were finally closed in 1977, and the original G.91 enjoyed a long service life that extended over 35 years.

 

The G.91 was also used as a basis for a two-seat trainer variant with a stretched fuselage and further developments, based on this bigger airframe: the twin-engine development G.91Y, which was originally ordered by the Italian Air Force and Switzerland (as G.91YS) and later also operated by Poland, as well as the simpler, single-engine G-91X, a dedicated export alternative.

 

Like the G.91Y, the G.91X was an increased-performance version of the nimble baseline Fiat G.91, but unlike the G.91Y it was not funded by the Italian government but rather a private venture of Fiat. Like the G.91Y, it was based on the G.91T two-seat trainer variant. Structural modifications to reduce airframe weight increased performance and an additional fuel tank occupying the space of the G.91T's rear seat provided extra range. Combat manoeuvrability was improved with the addition of automatic leading-edge slats. While the G.91Y and X had a very similar appearance, their internal structure behind the cockpit section differed considerably and their tail section was visibly different, while the aerodynamic surfaces as well as the nose section (including the radar-less nose housing three cameras) were identical.

 

Instead of being powered by the G.91Y’s pair of small afterburning General Electric J85 turbojets, the G.91X only carried a single Pratt & Whitney J52 axial-flow dual-spool turbojet engine without reheat, a proven engine that was used in a number of successful aircraft, most of all the late Douglas A-4 Skyhawk versions. The bigger engine increased thrust by 60% over the original, earlier Orpheus-powered single-engine variants, and made the light G.91 a very agile aircraft. However, the J52 was considerably heavier than the small J85s, and despite less complex auxiliary installations, the G.91X weighed roughly 1.000 lb more than the G.91Y.

 

Performance-wise, the G.91X was, despite its conservative and heavier J52 powerplant, on par with the G.91Y, even though range, acceleration and rate of climb were not as good, the G.91Y’s afterburners gave the “Yankee Gina” a significant extra punch. On the other side, the G.91X was more robust, technically simpler and therefore easier to maintain and even better suited to operations from unprepared frontline airfields with minimal infrastructure.

Basically, the G.91X was designed to carry the same sophisticated avionics equipment as the G.91Y, which had been considerably upgraded with many of the American, British and Canadian systems being license-manufactured in Italy, but for the intended export customers in small countries with a limited budget, only a rather basic avionics package was offered, making the G.91X a simple daylight attack aircraft without any smart weapon or guided AAM capability (which the G.91Y lacked, too, only the YS for Switzerland could deploy weapons like the AIM-9 or the AGM-65).

 

Flight testing of two prototypes aircraft ran in July 1968 in parallel to the G.91Y program and was successful, with one aircraft reaching a maximum speed of Mach 0.95 in level flight, slightly less than its two-engine sibling. Airframe buffeting was noted and was rectified in production aircraft by raising the position of the tailplane slightly, and canted fins - similar to the G.91Y, but smaller - were added under the lower rear fuselage to improve directional stability. Unlike the G.91Y, which had been designed to NATO specifications, the G.91X did not feature an arrester hook, just a tail bumper.

 

The initial order of 55 G.91Y aircraft for the Italian Air Force was completed by Fiat in March 1971, by which time the company had changed its name to Aeritalia (from 1969, when Fiat Aviazione joined the Aerfer). The order was increased to 75 aircraft with 67 eventually being delivered.

In contrast to this success, the G.91X did not find immediate takers, though, because the potential market of Western-oriented countries was in the Seventies largely dominated by US American military support programs, which aggressively marketed the supersonic Northrop F-5 as a counterpart to MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighters, which had been provided to many countries by the USSR.

 

One large potential customer had been Israel, but the G.91X was declined in favor of the bigger and more sophisticated A-4N Skyhawk. Turkey and Greece also showed interest, but both eventually procured F-5 variants, heavily promoted by the USA. In the end, only a small number of the G.91X were built and sold to rather small and obscure air forces.

 

One of these few G.91X operators became Honduras. After the so-called Football War with El Salvador in 1969, the Honduran Air Force (HAF) entered the jet era in 1971 and started a re-organization and modernization program. This included the procurement of 10 old, ex-Yugoslav Canadair CL-13 Mk.4 Sabre. Later, in 1974 and as a result of an institutional growth of the Honduran Air Force, the "Coronel Hernán Acosta Mejía" Air Base, the "Coronel Armando Escalón Espinal" Base as well as the General Command of the Air Force and General Air Force General Staff were created.

 

Between 1976 and 1978 sixteen other Israeli aircraft were acquired, of the IAI \ Dassault Super-Mystere B.2 \ J-52 S'aar type, six new Cessna A-37 Dragonfly COIN aircraft and fifty UH-1 Iroquois helicopters. By then, the Sabres were in such a poor condition and deteriorated quickly under the harsh local climate, that a replacement was soon needed. The choice fell on the G.91X, not only because of the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness, but also because of its (though limited) reconnaissance capability as well as the engine and ammunition commonality with the ex-Israeli Sa’ars. A total of twelve G.91X were procured in 1977 and delivered until late 1979, and they were immediately put into action during the 1980s confrontation with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, with heavy involvements in bombing raids and COIN missions. The Honduran G.91Xs flew frequent attack and reconnaissance missions, and even though they were no fighters the Ginas downed several Sandinista helicopters, including a Mil Mi-24 Hind (rather accidently shot down, though, through a salvo of unguided 5” FFARs which crossed the helicopter's flight path).

 

After the hostilities with Nicaragua had ended in 1990, the Honduran G.91Xs became actively involved in fighting drug trafficking and flew frequent reconnaissance and attack missions over home soil. By that time, the Honduran aircraft fleet was augmented or replaced (three G.91Xs had been lost through accidents or enemy fire by 1991) with 11 ex-USAF OA/A-37B Dragonflies, 12 ex-USAF Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II interceptors, 12 new Embraer T-27 Tucano armed trainers and four new CASA 101BB-02 attack airplanes.

By 1996, all eight remaining Honduran G.91Xs were, together with the Super Mystères, retired. The surviving aircraft were put up for sale as surplus, and one, already grounded G.91X airframe has been preserved at the Honduras Air Museum.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 11.67 m (38 ft 3.5 in)

Wingspan: 9.01 m (29 ft 6.5 in)

Height: 4.43 m (14 ft 6.3 in)

Wing area: 18.13 m² (195.149 ft²)

Empty weight: 4,400 kg (9,692 lb)

Loaded weight: 8,100 kg (17,842 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,000 kg (19,823 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P6A turbojet with 8,500 lbf (38,000 N) of thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h (600 kn, 690 mph, Mach 0.95) at 10,000 m (33,000 ft)

Range: 1,100 km (594 nmi, 683 mi)

Max. ferry range with drop tanks: 3,200 km (1,988 mls)

Service ceiling: 12,500 m (41,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11.400 ft/min)

Wing loading: max. 480 kg/m² (98.3 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.47 at maximum loading

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannons with 120 RPG

4× under-wing pylon stations with a capacity of 1,814 kg (4,000 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build is my submission the 2020 "One week” group build at whatifmodellers.com. I had originally earmarked my Thai Navy A-4 for this event, but already built it for the “In the navy” GB that ran a couple of weeks earlier, since it was a perfect thematic match.

 

While searching for an alternative I found a Matchbox G.91Y in the stash and wondered about a single engine alternative, a simpler aircraft in the spirit of the original G.91R variants. Since I had some surplus fuselages from G.91R Revell kits in the donor bank, the G.91X was born.

 

The basis is the Matchbox G.91Y kit, a basic affair with mediocre fit and only few details. It was mostly built OOB, except for lowered flaps (easy to realize on this kit) and a completely new lower rear fuselage from a smaller G.91R section with only a single exhaust. This feat was a little more challenging than it seems, since the G.91R is considerably smaller and shorter than the G.91Y – a lot of improvisation and PSR went into this cosmetic stunt. For instance, the seams between the parts had to be reinforced from the inside, bridging the different fuselage shapes, and a 2-3mm gap between the fuselage halves had to be filled. In order to emphasize the new engine arrangement, the G.91Y’s dorsal air scoops were sanded away and a new jet exhaust had to be found for the new, rather oval tail orifice. I eventually settled upon a protective cap from y syringe needle.

 

Furthermore, the cast-on guns were replaced with hollow steel needles, and some blade antennae (styrene sheet) as well as gun nozzle protectors (thin wire) were added. The cockpit was also slightly pimped with styrene profiles and some wire (on the ejection seat and for some side consoles), the pilot figure – even though the Matchbox figures are among the best I know – was replaced by a pilot from an Airfix A-4 Skyhawk (left over from the recent Thai Navy A-4LT build). However, the canopy remained closed, since opening it would require more fuselage cutting.

 

The ordnance was kept simple, reflecting the attack/COIN role of this aircraft: a pair of LAU-19 unguided missile pods and two Mk. 82 bombs; these came from an Italeri NATO weapon set and an Airfix A-4 kit, respectively.

  

Painting and markings:

Another inspiration for this build were pictures from a PC-7 trainer of the Guatemala Air Force, which carried a livery in three murky shades of green. I found this paint scheme pretty interesting, esp. as an alternative to the ubiquitous SEA scheme (that Honduran A-37s carried). For the G.91X I adapted the scheme with slightly more contrasty tones of two shades of green and a more brownish hue: Faded Olive Drab (Modelmaster #2051), Olive Drab (Humbrol 155) and Dark Green (Humbrol 30). The undersides were painted in a light grey (Humbrol 166). I initially considered a wrap-around scheme, but eventually found it to look too boring – also with a look at the potential markings, because aircraft of the Honduran Air Force typically only carried and carry minimal markings. Instead of the Guatemalan PC-7’s apparently symmetrical scheme I rather went for a more disruptive pattern, though.

 

The model was seriously weathered with a black ink washing and post panel shading, simulating constant use and the influence of tropical climate conditions. The decals were puzzled together from various sources and improvised. Most stencils come from the OOB sheet, the roundels on the fuselage and the flags on the fin were printed at home on clear sheet, with a white decal base added underneath. Quite complicated, but the alternative white decal paper as printing base would not yield sufficiently opaque markings. In order to add some eye-catchers I gave the Gina roundels on the fuselage and on the wings, too – these are rather modern markings, but just with the flags on the fin I found the model to look quite murky and boring. Artistic freedom… The “FAH” abbreviations were created with single USAF 45° letters.

 

Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhaust with grinded graphite, the aircraft was sealed with matt Italeri acrylic varnish.

  

A relatively simple project – chosen with the perspective of just a week (well, eight days, to be honest) to tackle and finish it, despite the major fuselage surgery and the photo shooting and editing on top.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.

 

To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.

 

The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.

 

Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.

 

Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.

The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.

 

In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.

 

Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.

Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.

 

Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.

Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.

 

A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.

Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.

 

In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.

 

In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.

 

Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.

 

At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.

In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.

 

Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.

 

The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)

Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)

Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)

Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)

Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)

Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)

Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)

Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)

Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun

5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;

Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for

2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder

AAMs

A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs

or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus

two drop tanks as day fighter

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.

 

This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?

 

The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.

 

While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.

 

The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!

 

Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.

 

For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.

 

The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.

 

A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!

  

Painting and markings:

From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.

 

I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.

 

The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.

 

The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.

 

Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.

  

In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.

The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Fiat G.91 was an Italian jet fighter aircraft designed and built by Fiat Aviazione, which later merged into Aeritalia. The G.91 had its origins in the NATO-organized NBMR-1 competition in 1953, which sought a light fighter-bomber "Light Weight Strike Fighter" to be adopted as standard equipment across the air forces of the various NATO nations. The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft. After reviewing multiple submissions, the G.91 was picked as the winning design of the NBMR-1 competition.

 

The G.91 entered into operational service with the Italian Air Force in 1961, and with the West German Luftwaffe in the following year. Various other nations adopted it, such as the Portuguese Air Force, who made extensive use of the type during the Portuguese Colonial War in Africa. The G.91 remained in production for 19 years, during which a total of 756 aircraft were completed, including the prototypes and pre-production models. The assembly lines were finally closed in 1977, and the original G.91 enjoyed a long service life that extended over 35 years.

 

The G.91 was also used as a basis for a two-seat trainer variant with a stretched fuselage and further developments, based on this bigger airframe: the twin-engine development G.91Y, which was originally ordered by the Italian Air Force and Switzerland (as G.91YS) and later also operated by Poland, as well as the simpler, single-engine G-91X, a dedicated export alternative.

 

Like the G.91Y, the G.91X was an increased-performance version of the nimble baseline Fiat G.91, but unlike the G.91Y it was not funded by the Italian government but rather a private venture of Fiat. Like the G.91Y, it was based on the G.91T two-seat trainer variant. Structural modifications to reduce airframe weight increased performance and an additional fuel tank occupying the space of the G.91T's rear seat provided extra range. Combat manoeuvrability was improved with the addition of automatic leading-edge slats. While the G.91Y and X had a very similar appearance, their internal structure behind the cockpit section differed considerably and their tail section was visibly different, while the aerodynamic surfaces as well as the nose section (including the radar-less nose housing three cameras) were identical.

 

Instead of being powered by the G.91Y’s pair of small afterburning General Electric J85 turbojets, the G.91X only carried a single Pratt & Whitney J52 axial-flow dual-spool turbojet engine without reheat, a proven engine that was used in a number of successful aircraft, most of all the late Douglas A-4 Skyhawk versions. The bigger engine increased thrust by 60% over the original, earlier Orpheus-powered single-engine variants, and made the light G.91 a very agile aircraft. However, the J52 was considerably heavier than the small J85s, and despite less complex auxiliary installations, the G.91X weighed roughly 1.000 lb more than the G.91Y.

 

Performance-wise, the G.91X was, despite its conservative and heavier J52 powerplant, on par with the G.91Y, even though range, acceleration and rate of climb were not as good, the G.91Y’s afterburners gave the “Yankee Gina” a significant extra punch. On the other side, the G.91X was more robust, technically simpler and therefore easier to maintain and even better suited to operations from unprepared frontline airfields with minimal infrastructure.

Basically, the G.91X was designed to carry the same sophisticated avionics equipment as the G.91Y, which had been considerably upgraded with many of the American, British and Canadian systems being license-manufactured in Italy, but for the intended export customers in small countries with a limited budget, only a rather basic avionics package was offered, making the G.91X a simple daylight attack aircraft without any smart weapon or guided AAM capability (which the G.91Y lacked, too, only the YS for Switzerland could deploy weapons like the AIM-9 or the AGM-65).

 

Flight testing of two prototypes aircraft ran in July 1968 in parallel to the G.91Y program and was successful, with one aircraft reaching a maximum speed of Mach 0.95 in level flight, slightly less than its two-engine sibling. Airframe buffeting was noted and was rectified in production aircraft by raising the position of the tailplane slightly, and canted fins - similar to the G.91Y, but smaller - were added under the lower rear fuselage to improve directional stability. Unlike the G.91Y, which had been designed to NATO specifications, the G.91X did not feature an arrester hook, just a tail bumper.

 

The initial order of 55 G.91Y aircraft for the Italian Air Force was completed by Fiat in March 1971, by which time the company had changed its name to Aeritalia (from 1969, when Fiat Aviazione joined the Aerfer). The order was increased to 75 aircraft with 67 eventually being delivered.

In contrast to this success, the G.91X did not find immediate takers, though, because the potential market of Western-oriented countries was in the Seventies largely dominated by US American military support programs, which aggressively marketed the supersonic Northrop F-5 as a counterpart to MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighters, which had been provided to many countries by the USSR.

 

One large potential customer had been Israel, but the G.91X was declined in favor of the bigger and more sophisticated A-4N Skyhawk. Turkey and Greece also showed interest, but both eventually procured F-5 variants, heavily promoted by the USA. In the end, only a small number of the G.91X were built and sold to rather small and obscure air forces.

 

One of these few G.91X operators became Honduras. After the so-called Football War with El Salvador in 1969, the Honduran Air Force (HAF) entered the jet era in 1971 and started a re-organization and modernization program. This included the procurement of 10 old, ex-Yugoslav Canadair CL-13 Mk.4 Sabre. Later, in 1974 and as a result of an institutional growth of the Honduran Air Force, the "Coronel Hernán Acosta Mejía" Air Base, the "Coronel Armando Escalón Espinal" Base as well as the General Command of the Air Force and General Air Force General Staff were created.

 

Between 1976 and 1978 sixteen other Israeli aircraft were acquired, of the IAI \ Dassault Super-Mystere B.2 \ J-52 S'aar type, six new Cessna A-37 Dragonfly COIN aircraft and fifty UH-1 Iroquois helicopters. By then, the Sabres were in such a poor condition and deteriorated quickly under the harsh local climate, that a replacement was soon needed. The choice fell on the G.91X, not only because of the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness, but also because of its (though limited) reconnaissance capability as well as the engine and ammunition commonality with the ex-Israeli Sa’ars. A total of twelve G.91X were procured in 1977 and delivered until late 1979, and they were immediately put into action during the 1980s confrontation with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, with heavy involvements in bombing raids and COIN missions. The Honduran G.91Xs flew frequent attack and reconnaissance missions, and even though they were no fighters the Ginas downed several Sandinista helicopters, including a Mil Mi-24 Hind (rather accidently shot down, though, through a salvo of unguided 5” FFARs which crossed the helicopter's flight path).

 

After the hostilities with Nicaragua had ended in 1990, the Honduran G.91Xs became actively involved in fighting drug trafficking and flew frequent reconnaissance and attack missions over home soil. By that time, the Honduran aircraft fleet was augmented or replaced (three G.91Xs had been lost through accidents or enemy fire by 1991) with 11 ex-USAF OA/A-37B Dragonflies, 12 ex-USAF Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II interceptors, 12 new Embraer T-27 Tucano armed trainers and four new CASA 101BB-02 attack airplanes.

By 1996, all eight remaining Honduran G.91Xs were, together with the Super Mystères, retired. The surviving aircraft were put up for sale as surplus, and one, already grounded G.91X airframe has been preserved at the Honduras Air Museum.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 11.67 m (38 ft 3.5 in)

Wingspan: 9.01 m (29 ft 6.5 in)

Height: 4.43 m (14 ft 6.3 in)

Wing area: 18.13 m² (195.149 ft²)

Empty weight: 4,400 kg (9,692 lb)

Loaded weight: 8,100 kg (17,842 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,000 kg (19,823 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P6A turbojet with 8,500 lbf (38,000 N) of thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h (600 kn, 690 mph, Mach 0.95) at 10,000 m (33,000 ft)

Range: 1,100 km (594 nmi, 683 mi)

Max. ferry range with drop tanks: 3,200 km (1,988 mls)

Service ceiling: 12,500 m (41,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11.400 ft/min)

Wing loading: max. 480 kg/m² (98.3 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.47 at maximum loading

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannons with 120 RPG

4× under-wing pylon stations with a capacity of 1,814 kg (4,000 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build is my submission the 2020 "One week” group build at whatifmodellers.com. I had originally earmarked my Thai Navy A-4 for this event, but already built it for the “In the navy” GB that ran a couple of weeks earlier, since it was a perfect thematic match.

 

While searching for an alternative I found a Matchbox G.91Y in the stash and wondered about a single engine alternative, a simpler aircraft in the spirit of the original G.91R variants. Since I had some surplus fuselages from G.91R Revell kits in the donor bank, the G.91X was born.

 

The basis is the Matchbox G.91Y kit, a basic affair with mediocre fit and only few details. It was mostly built OOB, except for lowered flaps (easy to realize on this kit) and a completely new lower rear fuselage from a smaller G.91R section with only a single exhaust. This feat was a little more challenging than it seems, since the G.91R is considerably smaller and shorter than the G.91Y – a lot of improvisation and PSR went into this cosmetic stunt. For instance, the seams between the parts had to be reinforced from the inside, bridging the different fuselage shapes, and a 2-3mm gap between the fuselage halves had to be filled. In order to emphasize the new engine arrangement, the G.91Y’s dorsal air scoops were sanded away and a new jet exhaust had to be found for the new, rather oval tail orifice. I eventually settled upon a protective cap from y syringe needle.

 

Furthermore, the cast-on guns were replaced with hollow steel needles, and some blade antennae (styrene sheet) as well as gun nozzle protectors (thin wire) were added. The cockpit was also slightly pimped with styrene profiles and some wire (on the ejection seat and for some side consoles), the pilot figure – even though the Matchbox figures are among the best I know – was replaced by a pilot from an Airfix A-4 Skyhawk (left over from the recent Thai Navy A-4LT build). However, the canopy remained closed, since opening it would require more fuselage cutting.

 

The ordnance was kept simple, reflecting the attack/COIN role of this aircraft: a pair of LAU-19 unguided missile pods and two Mk. 82 bombs; these came from an Italeri NATO weapon set and an Airfix A-4 kit, respectively.

  

Painting and markings:

Another inspiration for this build were pictures from a PC-7 trainer of the Guatemala Air Force, which carried a livery in three murky shades of green. I found this paint scheme pretty interesting, esp. as an alternative to the ubiquitous SEA scheme (that Honduran A-37s carried). For the G.91X I adapted the scheme with slightly more contrasty tones of two shades of green and a more brownish hue: Faded Olive Drab (Modelmaster #2051), Olive Drab (Humbrol 155) and Dark Green (Humbrol 30). The undersides were painted in a light grey (Humbrol 166). I initially considered a wrap-around scheme, but eventually found it to look too boring – also with a look at the potential markings, because aircraft of the Honduran Air Force typically only carried and carry minimal markings. Instead of the Guatemalan PC-7’s apparently symmetrical scheme I rather went for a more disruptive pattern, though.

 

The model was seriously weathered with a black ink washing and post panel shading, simulating constant use and the influence of tropical climate conditions. The decals were puzzled together from various sources and improvised. Most stencils come from the OOB sheet, the roundels on the fuselage and the flags on the fin were printed at home on clear sheet, with a white decal base added underneath. Quite complicated, but the alternative white decal paper as printing base would not yield sufficiently opaque markings. In order to add some eye-catchers I gave the Gina roundels on the fuselage and on the wings, too – these are rather modern markings, but just with the flags on the fin I found the model to look quite murky and boring. Artistic freedom… The “FAH” abbreviations were created with single USAF 45° letters.

 

Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhaust with grinded graphite, the aircraft was sealed with matt Italeri acrylic varnish.

  

A relatively simple project – chosen with the perspective of just a week (well, eight days, to be honest) to tackle and finish it, despite the major fuselage surgery and the photo shooting and editing on top.

+++ 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 Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II was a carrier-capable subsonic light attack aircraft introduced to replace the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. The A-7 airframe design was based on the successful supersonic Vought F-8 Crusader, although it was somewhat smaller and rounded off. The Corsair II initially entered service with the United States Navy during the Vietnam War. It was later adopted by the United States Air Force, including the Air National Guard, to replace the Douglas A-1 Skyraider and North American F-100 Super Sabre. The aircraft was also exported to several foreign countries, including Greece, Portugal, Thailand and New Zealand.

 

For the latter operator, the Corsair II was part of a major modernization campaign in the early 1970s. For instance, in 1970 14 McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks were purchased to replace the Vampire FB5's, which had been the primary light attack aircraft for the RNZAF for years, but the type was hopelessly outdated.

Furthermore New Zealand was also looking for a replacement of its similarly ageing Canberra fleet. These 31 aircraft were also phased out of service in mid 1970, and the A-7 chosen as the RNZAFs new fighter bomber because of its proven all-weather strike capability and advances avionics.

 

The RNZAF bought and operated 22 LTV A-7 Corsair II aircraft primarily in the coastal defense/anti-ship and sea patrol roles, air interdiction and air defense roles being secondary duties. The RNZAF Corsair II was very similar to the US Navy’s A-7E, even though the machines would only be operated form land bases. Designated A-7N, the machines featured an AN/APN-190 navigational radar with a Doppler groundspeed and drift detector plus an AN/APQ-128 terrain following radar. For the deployment of smart weapons, the machines were outfitted with a Pave Penny laser target acquisition system under the air intake lip, similar to the USAF’s A-7D, and could carry a wide range of weaponry and sensors, including AN/AAR-45 FLIR pods for an improved all-weather performance. Against enemy ships and large ground targets, visually guided smart bombs (AGM-62 and the more modern GBU-8 HOBOS) were bought, as well as AGM-65 Maverick against smaller, high priority targets.

 

Active service lasted between 1975 and 1999, and the A-7Ns were originally allocated between RNZAF 2 and 75 Squadron at Ohakea, where they were operated together with A-4K and TA-4K. The latter were also emplyed for A-7N pilot conversion training, since the RNZAF did not operate any Corsair II two seaters.

Several times the Squadron deployed to Clark Air Base in the Philippines and to Hawaii with both of the Corsair IIs and Skyhawks to exercise with the United States Air Force. Furthermore, the annual deployments as part of the Five Power Defence Agreement (called Exercise Vanguard) had the Squadron visit Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand to practice with those countries. Two RNZAF A-7s of 75 Squadron even made visits to Great Britain.

 

In the early Nineties the Corsair IIs started to suffer from numerous maintenance and logistic problems due to the lack of spare parts and general financial problems. This also prevented a major avionics update and the procurement of AGM-84 Harpoon missiles for the A-7Ns and the RNZAF P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. The maintenance situation became so dire that several aircraft were cannibalized for spare parts to service other fighters. In 1992 only sixteen A-7Ns remained operational. This resulted in the available fighters no longer being assigned and dedicated to one specific squadron, but shared and assigned to one of the RNZAF combat squadrons (2, 14 and 75 Squadron, respectively), as needed.

 

During its 24 years of duty in the RNZAF, the A-7 fleet suffered 8 severe accidents with aircraft losses (and two pilots being killed). Nevertheless, the introduction of the A-7 was seen as a success due to the evolution that it allowed the Air Force in aircraft maintenance, with focus in modern computer and electronic systems, and in the steady qualification of pilots and technicians.

 

In 1999, the National Government selected an order of 28 F-16A/B Fighting Falcon aircraft to replace the complete fleet of A-4 Skyhawks and A-7 Corsair IIs, but this procurement plan was cancelled in 2001 following election by the incoming Labour Government under Helen Clark. This was followed by the disbanding of several fixed wing aircraft squadrons, with the consequence of removing the RNZAF's air combat capability. The last A-7 flight in RNZAF service took place on 1st of October 2001. Subsequently, most of the RNZAF's fighter pilots left New Zealand to serve in the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Air Force.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 46 ft 2 in (14.06 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 9 in (11.8 m), 23 ft 9 in (7.24 m) wings folded

Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.9 m)

Wing area: 374.9 sq ft (34.83 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 65A007 root and tip

Empty weight: 19,127 lb (8,676 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 41,998 lb (19,050 kg) overload condition.

Fuel capacity: 1,338 US gal (5,060 l; 1,114 imp gal) (10,200 lb (4,600 kg)) internal

 

Powerplant:

1 × Allison TF41-A-2 non-afterburning turbofan engine, 15,000 lbf (66.7 kN) thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 600 kn (690 mph; 1,111 km/h) at Sea level

Range: 1,070 nmi; 1,231 mi (1,981 km) maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 1,342 nmi; 1,544 mi (2,485 km) with maximum internal and external fuel

Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (13,000 m)

Wing loading: 77.4 lb/sq ft (378 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.50

Take-off run: 1,705 ft (519.7 m) at 42,000 lb (19,000 kg)

 

Armament:

1× M61A1 Vulcan 20 mm (0.787 in) rotary cannon with 1,030 rounds

6× under-wing and 2× fuselage pylon stations (for mounting AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs only)

with a total ordnance capacity of 15,000 lb (6,803.9 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

An idea that had been lingering on my project list for some years, and a recent build of an RNZAF A-7 by fellow modeler KiwiZac at whatifmodelers.com eventually triggered this build, a rather simple alternative livery whif. I had this idea on the agenda for some time, though, already written up a background story (which was accidently deleted early last year and sent the project into hiatus - until now) and had the kit as well as decals collected and stashed away.

 

The basis is the Hobby Boss A-7, which is available in a wide range of variant in 1:72 scale. Not cheap, but IMHO the best Corsair II kit at the moment, because it is full of ample surface details, goes together nicely and features a complete air intake, a good cockpit tub and even some maintenance covers that can be displayed in open position, in case you want to integrate the kit in a diorama. In my case it’s the A-7E kit, because I wanted a late variant and the US Navy’s refueling probe instead of the A-7D’s dorsal adapter for the USAF refueling boom system.

 

For the fictional RNZAF A-7N no fundamental changes were made. I just deliberately used OOB parts like the A-7D’s Pave Penny laser targeting pod under the air intake. As a personal addition I lowered the flaps slightly for a more lively look. Around the hull, some blade antennae were changed or added, and I installed the pair of pitots in front of the windscreen (made from thin wire).

 

The FLIR pod came with the kit, as well as the drop tank under the inner starboards wing pylon and the AIM-9Bs. Only the GBU-8s were externally sourced, from one of the Hasegawa USAF ordnance sets.

 

For the finalized kit on display I mounted the maintenance covers in open position, but for the beauty pics they were provisionally placed in closed position onto the kit’s flanks. The covers had to be modified for this stunt, but since their fit is very good and tight they easily stayed in place, even for the flight scenes!

 

Painting and markings:

This was the more interesting part – I wanted „something special“ for the fictional RNZAF Corsair II. Upon delivery, the USAF SEA scheme would certainly have been the most appropriate camouflage – the A-4K’s were painted this way and the aforementioned inspiring build by KiwiZac was finished this way.

 

Anyway, my plan had been from the start a machine in late service with low-viz markings similar to the A-4Ks, which received an attractive three-tone wrap-around scheme (in FS 34102, 34079 and 36081) or a simple all-around coat of FS 34079.

 

Both of these schemes could have been a sensible choice for this project, but… no! Too obvious, too simple for my taste. I rather wanted something that makes you wonder and yet make the aircraft look authentic and RNZAF-esque.

 

While digging for options and alternatives I stumbled upon the RNZAF’s C-130 Hercules transporters, which, like Canadian machines, carry a wrap-around scheme in two tones of grey (a light blue grey and a darker tone with a reddish hue) and a deep olive green tone that comes close to Dark Slate Grey, together with low-viz markings. A pretty unique scheme! Not as murky as the late A-4Ks and IMHO also well suited for the naval/coastal environment that the machine would patrol.

 

I was not able to positively identify the original tones on the CAF and RNZAF Hercs, so I interpreted various aircraft pictures. I settled upon Humbrol 163 (RAF Dark Green) 125 (FS 36118, Gunship Grey) and Revell 57 (RAL 7000, similar to FS 35237, but lighter and “colder”). For the wraparound scheme I used the C-130s as benchmark.

 

The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (Humbrol 140) while the landing gear and the air intake duct became – behind 5mm of grey around the intake lip - white. The maintenance hatches’ interior was painted with a mix of Humbrol 81 and 38, for a striking zinc chromate primer look.

 

After a light black ink wash the kit received some panel post-shading for more contrast esp. between the dark colors and a slightly worn and sun-bleached look, since the aircraft would be depicted towards the end of its active service life.

 

Decals were the most challenging task, though: finding suitable RNZAF roundels is not easy, and I was happy when Xtradecal released an appropriate sheet that offers kiwi roundels for all positions (since motifs for port and starboard have to be mirrored). The Kiwi squadron emblem actually belongs to an RNZAF A-4K (from an Old Models sheet). The serial codes were puzzled together from single letter (TL Modellbau), most stencils come from the Hobby Boss OOB sheet.

  

A simple build, yet a very interesting topic and in the end also an IMHO very cool-looking aircraft in its fictional livery. Building the Hobby Boss A-7 was easy, despite some inherent flaws of the kit (e .g. totally blank dashboard and side consoles, and even no decals included!). The paint scheme lent from the RNZAF Hercs suits the SLUF well, though.

The Nikon COOLPIX S9700 is a compact travel zoom with a 30x optical zoom lens, a 16 Megapixel CMOS sensor and a 3 inch OLED screen with a 921k dot resolution. The COOLPIX S9600, launched at the same time, has a shorter 22x zoom, a lower resolution screen, lacks the built-in GPS and of course is priced a little lower.

 

Both models support fully manual exposure control with PASM modes selected from a conventional mode dial alongside a fully auto point-and-shoot mode and feature scene detection and composite stacking modes for HDR and low noise shooting.

 

The COOLPIX S9700 has built in GPS as well as Wifi, a popular combination in a travel zoom. Add in full resolution burst shooting at 6.9 fps, a wide range of movie modes including 1080p full HD and a choice of slow motion settings, and you’ve got a very capable sounding travel zoom which ticks all the boxes at a competitive price. To find out if the real-life performance lives up to its promise, I tested the COOLPIX S9700 alongside Canon’s PowerShot SX700 HS. Both models were launched during 2014 and updated in early 2015 to the S9900 and SX710 HS respectively. During the transition from one version to the other, bargains can often be found, so I thought it would be interesting to see how these pair of potentially discounted cameras compared. So read on to find out which of these two is the best bet for those looking for a powerful zoom in a compact form factor at a competitive price.

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 design and controls

In terms of size and weight, most of the popular recent compact super-zooms are very closely matched and the COOLPIX S9700 is no exception. It measures 109.6×63.5×34.5mm and weighs 232g including battery and card. Generally, if you want a smaller body you’re going to have to sacrifice zoom range and if you want a longer zoom you’ll be looking at bigger, heavier models. The COOLPIX S9700 will fit in your jacket or coat pocket.

 

With dimensions of 113x66x34.8mm the Canon PowerShot SX700 HS is a tiny bit taller and wider, but I reckon Canon and Nikon must be doing their measuring differently because back-to-back on the desk in front of me I can’t see a significant difference. At 269g with battery and card fitted the SX700 HS is a little heavier though. The Panasonic Lumix TZ60 / ZS40 is pretty much identical at 111x64x34.4mm and 240g and the same almost goes for the Sony Cyber-shot HX50V / HX60V, at 108x64x38.3mm it’s a fair bit thicker giving it a much chunkier appearance.

 

The plastic body is finished in gloss paint and is available in black, red or white. It feels sturdy enough and all the doors and flaps fit nicely, with the exception of the pop-up flash, which sits a little proud of its recess in the top panel. Opposite, on the other side of the slight hump that houses the Wifi aerial, there’s a recessed on/off button, shutter release with zoom collar and the mode dial which is set into the top panel with an exposed rear section that can be operated with your thumb.

  

On the rear panel the control layout is much the same as on the earlier COOLPIX S9500 with a slightly larger thumb pad. The movie record button is a little lower but still conveniently positioned for thumb operation and the multi-selector wheel below it is used for menu navigation as well as one-touch access to flash, exposure compensation, focus and self-timer settings. There’s also a new button that displays a map view, showing either your current location or the location of reviewed images.

 

The COOLPIX S9700 has a fixed 3 inch OLED screen with 921k dot resolution. There’s no question that this is a good quality screen, the image is highly detailed and very stable. The colour looks accurate (though obviously this doesn’t affect image quality) and the image is nice and contrasty, making it easy to see in all but direct sunlight. The OLED screen also has a wide angle of view, so you can still see pretty well even with the camera held at high and low angles.

 

The PowerShot SX700 HS has a 3 inch LCD screen with the same resolution as the COOLPIX S9700’s and there really isn’t much to choose between them. Like the COOLPIX S9700, the S700 HS display is bright, punchy and detailed. Note the more recent COOLPIX S9900, updates the S9700 with a fully articulated screen, a unique feature among its peer group. As for the latest Canon SX710 HS, the screen is the same as its predecessor.

  

On the right side of the S9700’s body there are two small doors above and below the central wrist strap fitting. The lower one is a mini HDMI port for connection to an HD TV with an optional cable. The upper one is a USB port that is used to charge the camera as well as for transferring photos and video from the card or the built-in memory. You can charge the camera via this port using either the supplied mains charger, or by plugging it into a notebook or other suitable power source. Personally, I think this is a more versatile and useful approach than that used by the PowerShot SX700 HS where the battery has to be removed and placed in an external charger. Having said that the latter method means you can still use the camera while the battery is charging if you have a spare.

 

The COOLPIX S9700’s EN-EL12 battery provides enough power on a full charge for 300 shots – 50 more than the PowerShot SX700 HS. But if you’re prepared to have the SX700 HS dim the screen after a couple of seconds and switch off after 3 minutes, Eco mode will extend the battery life to 360 shots.

 

The COOLPIX S9700 has a built-in flash that automatically pops up when required. There are four modes selected from a menu which appears when you press the top position on the the Multi selector wheel – Off, Red-eye reduction, Standard and Slow sync. The quoted range is 6 metres at the lens wide angle setting, on the face of it more powerful than the PowerShot SX700 HS, but I suspect the figure for the COOLPIX S9700 is quoted at a higher ISO. Neither the COOLPIX S9700 nor the PowerShot SX700 IS has a hotshoe, but the SX700 HS is compatible with Canon’s HF-DC2 external flash.

 

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 lens and stabilisation

The COOLPIX S9700’s 30x optical zoom has the same 25-750mm equivalent range as the PowerShot SX700 HS, but its f3.7 – 6.4 aperture isn’t quite as bright at the wide angle end of the range as the latter’s f3.2 – 6.9. The compensation is that it’s a little brighter at the telephoto end of the range. Note the latest versions of both cameras share the same lenses as their predecessors.

 

The 25-750mm equivalent range is impressive in a compact this size, and while there are other 30x compact zooms, the Lumix TZ60 / ZS40 and the Sony HX50V / HX60V being two examples, both of those models start at a slightly wider 24mm wide angle and fall short of the COOLPIX S9700’s telephoto reach by 30mm – so that’s a 24-720mm range compared with 25-750. In practice the difference is barely noticeable, but if you’re stuck in a tight corner, the fractionally wider Sony and Panasonic may be more useful. That said, there’s always the COOLPIX S9700’s Easy panorama mode for really wide views, something the PowerShot SX700 HS lacks. Redressing the balance, the SX700 HS Framing assist button helps you keep track of subjects when zoomed in, something that’s not quite so easy on the COOLPIX S9700.

 

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 coverage wide

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 coverage tele

  

4.5-135mm at 4mm (25mm equiv)4.5-135mm at 135mm (750mm equiv)

The COOLPIX S9700 has optical image stabilisation which Nikon calls Vibration Reduction or VR. Vibration reduction is set separately for stills and movie shooting with Photo VR activated from the Setup menu. In addition to the On and Off positions there’s a third option called Hybrid. This combines the optical stabilisation with in-camera post processing to digitally remove any blurring that remains. The digital correction is applied only under certain conditions, including when the shutter speed is slower than 1/30 at the wide angle setting or 1/250 at the telephoto focal length and when the sensitivity is 200 ISO or lower.

 

In addition to Vibration Reduction, Motion detection automatically raises the ISO sensitivity to enable selection of a faster shutter speed when either subject movement is detected or there’s a risk of camera shake. It’s quite a useful feature for beginners, who might be unaware of the consequences of shooting at slow shutter speeds, but it can be turned off and manual selection of the ISO sensitivity also disables it.

 

To test the COOLPIX S9700’s stabilisation I set it to Shutter priority exposure mode, zoomed the lens to its maximum 750mm equivalent telephoto setting and took a series of shots at progressively slower shutter speeds, first with Photo VR turned off and then with it on. As you can see from the crops below, the COOLPIX S9700 can produce blur-free shots down to 1/50 at the maximum zoom range, I managed the occasional sharp shot at 1/25 but for consistency 1/50 is the limit, at around four stops slower than the photographer’s ‘one over the focal length’ dictum suggests is safe, that’s pretty impressive by any standards.

 

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 Vibration Reduction

 

100% crop, 4.5-135mm at 135mm, 125 ISO, 1/50th VR off.

  

100% crop, 4.5-135mm at 135mm, 125 ISO, 1/50th VR on.

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 shooting modes

Compared with the PowerShot SX700 HS, the COOLPIX S9700’s mode dial is relatively uncomplicated with positions for PASM modes, Auto, Scene, Effects and a smiley face icon indicating Smart portrait mode. Program Auto sets the aperture and shutter speed automatically, Aperture Priority lets you set the aperture and the shutter speed is set automatically, Shutter priority is the other way around and in Manual mode you set both the aperture and shutter speed. If this is new territory for you, the COOLPIX S9700 is the ideal camera to learn about these manual and semi-auto modes in practice.

 

In the meantime, The green camera icon on the mode dial puts the COOLPIX S9700 into Auto mode. The difference between this and Program Auto is that there’s less for you to do. You can change the image size and quality from the shooting menu and adjust exposure compensation, but you can’t shift the exposure (adjust the aperture and shutter speed whilst maintaining the same exposure value), adjust the ISO sensitivity, white balance or any of the other options available from the Shooting menu in Program auto mode.

 

Switch the mode dial to the Scene position and the menu offers 18 scene modes including all the usual suspects from Portrait to Party via Landscape, Sports, Beach, Fireworks show, and Backlighting. There are two panorama modes for shooting 180 and 360 views. You press the shutter once and pan the camera as smoothly a you can. You can pan with the camera in portrait or landscape orientation – the COOLPIX S9700 works out which, you don’t need to tell it beforehand. Portrait mode produces the largest images which are 1536 x 4800 pixels for 180 panoramas and the 360 ones measure 1536 x 9600.

 

While it isn’t one of the best HDR modes around, the COOLPIX S9700 features Nikon’s Backlighting scene mode. HDR mode fires a fast burst of bracketed shots and produces a composite HDR image from them. The COOLPIX S9700 also includes a selection of 11 special effects filters – Soft focus, Pop, Super vivid, Cross process, two toy camera effects , Nostalgic Sepia, High-contrast monochrome, High key, Low key and Selective colour. Other than selecting the colour from an on-screen palette for the Selective colour effect and choosing one of four cross process colours, none of them is customizable. All can be used for movies but note there’s no Miniature effect like on the SX700 HS. Below you can see Nostalgic sepia, High-contrast monochrome, Selective colour, Pop, Cross process, and Toy camera effect 2 .

  

The shooting menu also offers something called Quick effects. With this activated you can apply effects filters to a shot just after you’ve taken it. Effects include Pop, Super vivid, Painting, Photo illustration, High key, Toy camera effect, Cross process, fish-eye, miniature and selective colour. To apply the effect you press the OK button in the centre of the Multi selector while the image preview is on the screen, but in fact you can apply the effects an any time by pressing the OK button when previewing images in playback mode. The filtered version is saved along with the original. Quick effects can’t be applied to movies, so, alas, no miniature effect for movie clips.

 

Finally, Smart Portrait mode automatically takes a shot when it spots a smile in the frame. It doesn’t offer the wink and face self-timer functions of the SX700 HS, but you can apply a skin softening filter, shoot in continuous or BSS modes and set blink detection.

   

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 movie modes

The COOLPIX S9700 has a best quality HD movie mode of 1080p25 which is encoded at an average bit rate of around 17Mbps. All of the video modes are available in PAL and NTSC compatible frame rates (i.e. 25/30 and 50/60fps) depending on the frame rate setting in the Movie menu, from here on I’ll use the PAL specifications. Next on the menu is an interlaced 1080i50 mode, followed by 720p25. That’s followed by a another 720p mode saved in Apple’s edit-friendly iFrame format, and lastly a VGA mode that records 640×480 resolution video at 25fps (or 30fps for NTSC video mode).

 

That’s just the normal speed modes; the COOLPIX S9700 also has several HS options for playback at speeds other than real time. HS480/4x shoots 640×480 video at 4x normal speed (100 or 120fps depending on whether you have PAL or NTSC video mode selected) which plays back at quarter speed. HS720/2x records 1280×720 at double the normal frame rate for half speed playback, and finally 1080/0.5x records full HD video at half the normal frame rate for double-speed playback.

 

Audio isn’t recorded with the HS video modes but I was pleasantly surprised to discover that you can use the effects filters. The only limitation on this is that the Soft and Nostalgic sepia effects are only available with the HS720/2x mode. I should also mention that you can’t use the use zoom or Full-time AF with the HS modes. That said, although they’re fairly even matched in terms of video modes, the PowerShot SX700 HS only offers low resolution VGA (640×480) and QVGA (320x 240) modes at 1/4 and 1/8 speed playback respectively.

 

The COOLPIX S9700 doesn’t have a movie position on the mode dial, so recording is started by pressing the dedicated record button whatever mode you’re in. One of the drawbacks of this approach is that you can’t frame up your shot very easily as the screen switches from 4:3 proportions to 16:9 (assuming you’re shooting in one of the HD modes). The PowerShot SX700 HS mode dial movie position makes this much easier, but the COOLPIX S9700 does at least have a display mode that superimposes the 16:9 area on the 4:3 screen for you.

 

The COOLPIX S9700 provides two autofocus modes for movie shooting, Single AF (AF-S), which sets the focus at the beginning of your clip and Full time AF (AF-F) which continually adjusts it. AF-S is the default, but if you want to record anything that’s moving, or if you’re panning the camera from near to far subjects, you need to switch to Full-time AF. The COOLPIX S9700’s full-time AF mode works very well. The only thing that taxed it was zooming, as you can see from my coffee cup test below it copes well, keeping focus on the subject even in low light conditions.

 

The COOLPIX S9700 doesn’t support any of the PASM exposure modes for movie shooting, regardless of the position of the mode dial and ISO, the sensitivity and exposure are set automatically. In that respect it’s the same as the PowerShot SX700 HS.

 

Nikon COOLPIX S9700 sample video 1: outdoors, sunny, handheld pan

 

Download the original file (Registered members of Vimeo only)

Except for the final slow motion example all these clips were recorded in the COOLPIX S9700’s 1080p25 mode with the focus set to the continuous AF-F mode. Here the COOLPIX S9700 handles the exposure well and produces good quality footage. The stabilisation does a good job during the pan, but the full extent of the zoom – 750mm equivalent keeping the frame steady is a lot to ask and there’s a bit of jumpiness.

  

Tech Specs

 

Effective Pixels (Megapixels)

 

16.0 million

 

Sensor Size

 

1/ 2.3 in.

 

Monitor Size

 

3.0 in. diagonal

Monitor Type

 

OLED with Anti-reflection coating

5-level brightness adjustment

 

Storage Media

 

SD memory card

SDHC memory card

SDXC memory card

 

Movie

 

Full HD: 1920x1080/ 60i

Full HD: 1920x1080/ 50i

Full HD: 1920x1080/ 30p

Full HD: 1920x1080/ 25p

HD: 1280x720/ 30p

HD: 1280x720/ 25p

HS 1920x1080/ 15p

HS 1920x1080/ 12.5p

HS 1280x720/ 60p

HS 1280x720/ 50p

HS 320x240/ 240p

HS 640x480/ 120p

iFrame 720/ 30p

iFrame 720/ 25p

VGA 640x480/ 30p

VGA 640x480/ 25p

 

ISO Sensitivity

 

ISO 125 - 1600

 

ISO 3200, 6400 (available when using P, S, A or M mode)

 

Battery / Batteries

 

Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL12

 

Approx. Dimensions (Width x Height x Depth)

 

4.3 in. (109.6 mm) x 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) x 1.4 in. (34.5 mm)

 

The Tiger is capable of carrying a variety of different weapon-systems, such as SNEB unguided rockets, PARS or BrimstonerRockets and Stingers.

 

Earlier variants of the Tiger also carried 20mm guns in pods on external hardpoints, but with the chin-mounted cannon, they are usually never carried.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armoured divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The Kugelblitz used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement. The MK 103 was a powerful aircraft weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in caliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft). The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed, an innovative feature at that time for AA guns.

In the fully enclosed Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously, and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. The MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, so that fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

The Kugelblitz turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body was hanging in a ring mount, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s top and kept the profile very low. The turret offered full overhead protection, 360° traverse and space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition – even though it was very cramped. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec.

The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns, and the spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors..

 

However, the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz SPAAG was ill-fated: A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops.

In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, too, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited - in early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production already ceased in May.

 

By that time, the Kugelblitz turret had been successfully adapted to the Hetzer chassis, even though this had called for major adaptations of the upper hull due to the relatively wide turret ring, which originally came from the Tiger I. The conversion worked and the unique turret could be successfully shoehorned into the Hetzer basis, making it a very compact and relatively light vehicle – it was 5 tons lighter than the Panzer IV-based “Kugelblitz” SPAAG.

In order to carry the turret, the welded upper hull had to be widened and the glacis plate was reinforced with an extra plate, which also covered the Hetzer’s original opening for its 75 mm gun. The resulting 60 mm (2.36 in) thick front plate was inclined 60 degrees from the vertical, and therefore offered around 120 mm (4.72 in) of effective protection – much better than the Panzer IV’s almost vertical 50 mm (or 80 mm with additional armor on late versions). In this form, the vehicle could withstand direct frontal hits from most medium Allied tanks. The side walls were rather thin, though, only 20 mm, and they became more vertical to make room for the turret mount. The engine cover behind the turret had to be modified, too. Due to the massive changes, the vehicle received a new, separate designation, “Sonderkraftfahrzeug (Sd.Kfz.) 170” and it was officially called “Leichter Flakpanzer 38(t) 3 cm“.

 

However, there were many drawbacks. The interior was cramped: the self-contained Kugelblitz turret itself already lacked internal space, but the driver – the only crew member in the hull – also had little space in front of the turret’s mount and he could only access his working place through an opening in the turret at the commander’s feet when it was in a level forward position. There was no dedicated hatch for the driver, only an emergency escape scuttle in the floor.

Another issue was the field of view from inside for everyone. As already mentioned, the driver did not have a hatch that could be used for a good view when not driving under fire. He also only had a single panoramic sight, so that he could just see what was going on directly in front of him. There were no side view openings, and especially the right side of the vehicle was literally blind. The crew in the turret also could only rely on forward-facing sights, just the commander had a rotating periscope. But due to its position, the areas directly along the vehicle’s flanks and its rear remained wide blind areas that made it very vulnerable to infantry attacks. This flaw was even worsened by the fact that there were no additional light weapons available (or even deployable from the inside) for close range defense – the Panzer IV-based SPAAGs carried a hull-mounted machine gun. And the crew had, due to the open weapon stations a much better field of view or could directly use their own light weapons.

 

With the turret’s additional weight (the Sd.Kfz. 170 was 3 tons heavier than the Hetzer), and despite a slightly uprated petrol engine, the tank was rather underpowered, especially off road. Another negative side effect of the turret was a considerably raised center of gravity. The original Hetzer was a nimble vehicle with good handling, but the Sd.Kfz. 170 was hard to control, tended to build up and roll even on the road and its off-road capabilities were markedly hampered by the concentration of weight so high above the ground, making it prone to tip over to the side when the driver did not take care of terrain slope angles. This wobbly handling, as well as the turret’s shape, gave the vehicle the unofficial nickname “Kugelhetzer”.

 

Nevertheless, all these flaws were accepted, since the Sd.Kfz. 170. was, like its Panzer IV-based predecessors, urgently needed and only regarded as an interim solution until a light E-Series chassis had been adapted to the turret. It was also surmised that the vehicle would not operate independently and rather escort other troops, so that close-range protection was in most cases ensured. Under this premise, about 100 Sd.Kfz. 170s were built until early 1946, when production of the Hetzer and its components were stopped. Operationally, the vehicle was not popular (esp. among drivers), but it was quite successful, not only against aircraft (esp. when used in conjunction with the new mobile radar-based fire direction centers), but also against lightly armored ground targets.

Plans to stretch the hull for more internal space, better field performance and crew comfort as well as replacing the engine with a bigger and more powerful 8 cylinder Tatra engine were never executed, since all resources were allocated to the new E-series tanks.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Four (commander/gunner, 2 assistants incl. radio operator, driver)

Weight: 18 tons (22.000 lb)

Length: 4.61 m (15 ft 1 in)

Width: 2.63 m (8 ft 8 in)

Height: 2.63 m (8 ft 8 in)

Ground clearance: 40 cm (15 ¾ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 320 litres (85 US gal)

 

Armor:

10 – 60 mm (0.39 – 2.36 in)

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 42 km/h (26 mph)

Sustained road speed: 36 km/h (22.3 mph)

Off-road speed: 26 km/h (16 mph)

Operational range: 177 km (110 mi)

Power/weight: 10 PS/t

 

Engine:

Praga 6-cylinder 7.8 liter petrol engine, delivering 180 PS (178 hp, 130 kW) at 2,800 rpm

 

Transmission:

Praga-Wilson Typ CV with 5 forwards and 1 reverse gears

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

  

The kit and its assembly:

The so-called “Kugelhetzer” was a real German project in late WWII, but it was rather a vague idea, it never it made to the hardware stage. Even from its predecessor, the Panzer IV-based “Kugelblitz”, only five tanks were actually built. However, I found the idea interesting, since the combination of existing elements would lead to a very compact SPAAG. And since I had a spare Kugelblitz turret from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” SF mecha kits at hand, I decided to build a model of this conceptual tank.

 

The chassis is a Bergepanzer 38(t), a.k.a. “Bergehetzer”, from UM Models, an unarmed recovery tank based on the Hetzer hull with an open top. For my conversion plan it offered the benefit of a blank glacis plate and lots of spare parts for future builds. However, upon inspection of the parts-not-intended-to-be-mated I became slightly disillusioned: while the Hetzer’s upper original hull offers enough room for the ball turret itself to be inserted into the roof, it could NEVER take the turret bearing and the armored collar ring around it. They already are hard to mount on a Panzer IV hull, but the Hetzer is an even smaller vehicle, despite its casemate layout. I was about to shelf the project again, but then decided to modify and adapt the upper hull to the turret. In real life the engineers would have taken a similar route.

 

I started to scratch the superstructure from 0.5mm styrene sheet, and work started with the roof that had to be wide enough to carry the turret ring. This was glued into place on top of the hull, and from this benchmark the rest of the “armor plates” was added – starting with the engine bay cover, then adding side walls and finally the more complex corner sections, which actually consist of two triangular plates, but only one of them was actually fitted. The leftover openings were filled with acrylic putty, also in order to fill and stabilize the void between the original hull and the added plates. Later, the necessary space for the ball turret was carved away from the original hull, so that the Kugelblitz turret could be inserted in its new opening. Sounds complicated, but the construction was less complicated than expected, and it looked even better!

 

Once mated with the lower chassis, some details had to be added to the blank surfaces – e. g. racks with spare barrels for the guns and some tools and stowage boxes. These were taken from the Bergehetzer kit and partly modified to match the different hull.

What really became a challenge was the assembly of the tracks upon the model’s completion. Unfortunately, they consist of single elements and even links that have to be glued to the wheels, and since they were not crisply molded (just like the sprocket drive wheels) their installation was a rather tedious affair.

  

Painting and markings:

This is another variation of the “Hinterhalt” concept, using the three basic tones of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). In this case – as an autumn scheme with fading light and more red and brown leaves - I used a late-war Panther as reference and gave the vehicle a rather dark basic livery consisting of green and the brown, and on top of that I added counter-colored (green on brown and brown on green) mottles, plus contrast mottles in Dunkelgelb. The tones I used were Humbrol 83, 86 and 113 - the latter is not the standard tone for the Hinterhalt scheme (180 would be appropriate), but it comes close to the typical German red Oxidrot (RAL 3009) primer, which was not only used on bare tank hulls during production but was also integrated into camouflage schemes, frequently stretched and lightened through additives. Effectively the livery is very standard, and since this Kugelhetzer model would depict a standard production vehicle and not a conversion, I extended the camouflage to the turret, too, for a consistent look.

The wheels remained in a single color (just the basic red brown and green), since camouflage was prohibited to be extended onto moving parts of the vehicle: a swirling pattern would have been very obvious and eye-catching when the vehicle was on the move.

 

A washing with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint followed. The decals – mostly taken from the small OOB sheet – came next, and I settled upon simplified national markings and just white outlines for the tactical code, due to the rather murky camouflage underneath.

The model’s main components were sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can before their final assembly, and I did some dry-brushing with light grey to emphasize details and edges. Finally, a coat of pigment dust was applied to the model’s lower areas and used to hide some flaws along the fiddly tracks.

  

A conclusive outcome, and a more complex build than obvious at first sight. The re-built upper hull was easier to realize than expected, the true horror came with the assembly of the tracks which consist of tiny, not really crisply molded elements. Why the return track section has to be constructed of five(!) segments - even though it's a straight line - is beyond my comprehension, too.

However, the outcome looks quite good, even though the use of the original Hetzer hull would have created several problems, if the original Kugelblitz turret had had to be integrated. Esp. the lack of space for the driver (and a suitable access hatch!) make this design idea rather unpractical, so that a stretched hull (AFAIK there’s a model of such a modified vehicle available) would have made sense.